Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Was Darwin right or wrong?

Posted by truthtalklive on February 21, 2008

Today’s guest is Bob Griffin & his son Garrett discussing evolution and how to doubt Darwin using his own theory. You can contact them through his email at inference@triad.rr.com.

AddThis Button 


536 Responses to “Was Darwin right or wrong?”

  1. Ezequiel said

    The reason kids are killing not just in schools but on the streets too, is because they have no one to save them from there lives which is full of SIN. If only they had some way to be saved. This is what happens when you take God out of schools.

  2. Rob said

    You are confusing evolution for social darwinism. Darwin never said or supported “Survival of the fittest”. That was written by Herbert Spencer. He supported Lamarckism.. not natural selection.

    Darwin was a theist when he formed the theory of evolution. Where do you get the idea that he was a racist?

    Yes, there are literally billions of transitional forms. You are a transitional form. Your genetic sequence is different from all other life forms.

  3. abc's said

    The fact that Charles Darwin was a racist has no bearing on the theory that he presented.

    He also did have doubts about his theory. What you have to realize is that Darwin must have realized how broadly sweeping his theory was and how controversial it would be. It literally swept away much of his contemporary scientific thought.

    You also have to take into account that Darwin did not have the benefit of understanding genetics and dna. His theory was brand new and revolutionary. Of course he had some doubts.

    Because what he constructed was a Theory he was able to include propositions that could prove the theory false. Since the publication of his idea we have made enormous advances in our knowledge. We have not found anything that contradicts the theory of evolution.

    There are millions of transitional forms. Essentially everything is a transitional form. I have a slightly different genetic makeup than my parents. My children will be different than me. A quick internet search would show hundreds and hundreds of different transitional form fossils, but I know that you won’t accept that evidence because you are truly ignorant of what it means to be a transitional form.

    The idea of a catdog is ridiculous. In fact, if we did find something that was half cat and half dog in nature that alone would disprove the theory of evolution.

  4. John said

    I know that you Creationist looooove to point out the flaws[ and imaginary flaws] of Darwin’s evolutionary theories, but how about studying the MODERN evolutionary sciences for a change?
    I know that it won’t change your biased opinions in the least, but at least you might seem a little LESS ignorant on the study of the evolutionary sciences.
    Stu, the human eye has flaws that an “intelligent designer” would have been foolish or uncaring to have included.I could point them out for you, if you wish.
    And we are still waiting for your wit and wisdom on “The Mormon Mirage” site. Grand Canyon created by The Flood,… indeed!

  5. Eric Russell said

    I asked whether the guest differentiates between natural selection and evolution. I am a Christian, and in that I mean i follow the path of christ and seek salvation through him. However, i believe in evolution, because natural selection is a fact. I do not have to see transitional fossils to accept that it occurs, because there is no reason for natural selection to not occur . There are three variations of the finch, only the small beaks and the big beaks are able to get food, and the middle beak dies. Eventually, these two cannot breed and a new species is formed. Despite being told i will burn in hell for professing new species can form, species in the system of taxonomy we ourselves have created is not a fixed thing. At any rate, that was my point, there is absolutely no reason for natural selection to not occur, as it is the result of things that happen in this world. From natural selection we derive evolution, for you need only think through certain conditions for survival to see how transitional animals would form (in a shallow swamp the animal with small appendages similar to legs move easier, those legs grow longer through generations and soon can walk on land, finding more food). I certainly have never seen a reasonable argument against natural selection, and lack of proof (transitional animals) towards the positive is not proof to the negative. One cannot reasonably say there is no proof of God, thus there is no God.

  6. Educated Dawg said

    No, transitional forms are those that should be around in the “millions” showing one group of animals evolving over time into a completely new group of animals – such as a fish into a mammal. Don’t give us claims of billions of transitional forms and then give an example of a child being different than a parent. That is just like Darwin and the Galopagos finches – the finches are still FINCHES. That is NOT proof of molecules to man evolution. That is proof of speciation and natural selection, which is different than macro/molecules to man evolution.

    Charles Darwin was a racist. Just read his first book – Origin of the species. Would any Darwinist/evolutionist like to finish the title to his book?

    Darwin was a theist who was influenced by his atheist grandfather and father. He was raised by his very unorthodox mother in the Unitarian “church”. He was also greatly influenced by the atheists of his day. He died a bitter death, one of fear and uncertainty.

    Molecules to man/macro-evolution can in no way be “proven” in the Science lab. It is what is termed as “historical” theory. What that means is that it is based on assumptions built upon evidence from the past that are here in the present.

    Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. Our worldview is what determines how we interpret that evidence. Not scientific models and tests. The evolutionist has his agenda and the creationist has his.

    The bottom line is Darwin was uncertain about a lot of things. There was no reason to build a whole system of thought around his guesses – except to excommunicate the Creator from human reason. Could it be that evolutionists have a motive? To get rid of the concept of God, so they can live their lives as their own gods?

    Or is this just a conspiracy theory promoted by fundamentalist Bible thumping creationists? 🙂

  7. Eric Russell said

    I also wished to make one more point, which i should have included in my prior message; you say there are no transitional forms. Consider the frog. Could it not be a transitional form from fish to land? Or humans, from earth to air? I am not saying these are true, I am saying that we only say there are no transitional animals because we have no benefit of fore or hindsight, and do not know from where things come or to where they go.

  8. Educated Dawg said


    Biblical creationists do not reject natural selection or speciation. We do, however, reject molecules to man evolution.

    You can visit http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org or http://www.ICR.org to read articles concerning natural selection and speciation.

    And, no, we will not tell you that you are going to hell for accepting natural selection and speciation. We will, however, admonish you with the Scriptures concerning your belief in molecules to man or Darwinian evolution. That cannot be reconciled with the Scriptures.

  9. Eric Russell said

    You say there is no reason to build a system of thought around his guesses. Where are his guesses? No, his was a train of logic that required no guess, considering the nature of life and its existance. He had doubt because he couldn’t find proof, but no proof is required; one need only consider survival in the wilderness.

    I might as easily say the person who first voiced the idea of supply and demand in economics. He may have doubted this idea because he had never seen an economy, but surmised its existance because the higher the demand the higher the price, the higher the supply the lower the price. One does not proof for this to assume it occurs.

  10. Educated Dawg said


    Again, Scripturally speaking, we do indeed know where things came from, where they go, and Who made it all.

    The frog is not a transitional form – fish to reptile with frog in the middle.

    Here’s a thought, not original but a thought none the less:
    We tell our kids about a girl who kissed a frog and it became a prince. We then tell the kids “oh, that’s just a fairy tale. Now don’t go kissing frogs :)”. Then in public school Science classes throughout America we tell our kids about the origin of life. In that tale, we describe how over billions of years life just happened(big bang) or has always been(uniformitarianism) and through the long ages a frog evolves into a mammal like creature that itself evolves into a human like creature that itself evolves into a homo sapien sapiens. Ones a fairy tale, and one is fact? 😦

  11. abc's said

    As I stated before, you don’t understand what a transitional form is.

    Are you familiar with endogenous retroviruses?

    What evidence is there to support the idea that their is an upper limit to changes that result in speciation. In other words, if given enough time, why couldn’t species evolve far enough to be unrecognizable from their ancestors?

  12. chandllf said

    First of all, if the Ten Commandments had not been taken out of the schools, then where would our kids minds might be. In saying that, I am brought to this subject. The fourth commandment. If we believe that the commandments are still valid for Christians today. Well, Mark 2:27 says that the Sabbath was made for man, right? So, when was made made or created. Right. In the garden of Eden before sin, which means that Adam kwnew about the Sabbath. Ok, the fourth commandment says that God created heaven, earth and everything that was made, right? Blessed it, hollowed it, and sanctified the Sabbath. My point is that if kids had been taught from school that ( and in the home) the fourth commandment tells us who God is and what He did and that means that the Sabbath is a sign of creation. These facts would have never let evolution come into the picture to start with and we would not have all the crime that we have today and other things that has been brought into the church.

    With Jesus in our corner


  13. chandllf said

    Sorry, My name is Larry. Did not catch it before I clicked.

  14. John said

    It seems to be the case on The show,Educated Dawg.
    I am an evolutionist, and I wouldn’t wish to remove the concept of God/Deities. I’m actually very religious and spiritual.
    Also, on a side note, I know of some passages in the writings of C. Darwin[I have a lot of his books] that seem to show him as a man opposed to racist thought.I could display them, if anyone cares, or point out the passages for anyone who has the right books.

  15. Eric Russell said

    The “LOL FROG KISSED PRINCE IM CLEVER” is a strawman argument, and using it is extremely flawed. I could as easily say, “You told your children that some magical being came out of the sky and created all that is or ever shall be.” But wait, this animal is not as it was SHHHH BIG MAGICAL BEING IN THE SKY.

    No, that is not a valid analogy, but with that flawed argument you tried to use against me ill let it stick.

  16. Chris C. said

    I know its hard to think on the air, and Terry’s phone died unfortunatly. So I want to help him out by providing a few more intermediate forms. Acanthostega and Ictyostega(I think perhaps similar to what Terry was talking about) were intermediate species between ray-finner fishes and early terapods. There have been many papers written about these forms, especially about the bones which control their gills (stapes bone) and how it later became used to form the inner ear bones that control hearing in modern animals.

    Perhaps one of the most complete examples of transition is the lineage from Hominoid to Hominid — that being the transition from Old-World Moneys and Apes into Humans. It is a huge mistake (one which creationists often make) to picture evolution like some sort of linear process. 99% of all species that have existed are now extinct, this includes almost all of our hominoid and hominid ancestors. But, to put it in a chronological order, here are some of the intermediate forms from Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzee) to Homo sapiens: (I have included a few names of fossil finds which a quick google search will produce mounds of data about).

    Orrorin tugenesis (~ 6 Million years ago)
    Ardepithecus ramidus
    Australopithecus anamensis
    Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”)
    Australopithecus africanus (“Taung Child”)
    Australopithecus garhi
    Paranthropus robustus (“Zinjanthropus”)
    Paranthropus boisei
    Homo habilis
    Homo ergaster (“Turkana Boy”)
    Homo antecessor
    Homo erectus
    Homo heidelbergensis
    Homo neanderthalensis
    Homo sapiens

    For those of you seeking a direct track, our lineage is as follows:

    Ardepithecus ramidus (5 mya)
    Australopithecus afarensis (3.8 mya)
    Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya)
    Homo ergaster (1.8 mya)
    Homo heidelbergensis (.8 mya)

    This is not set in stone (no pun intended). There is still lively debate on how species should be classified exactly, and debate as to whether H. erectus and H. ergaster are separate species, etc. But there is no debate about the nature of our lineage, the time-frame, or our ancestry.

  17. Educated Dawg said


    Have you ever considered the effects of the fall of man in Genesis 3 on all of creation?

    Genesis 1 & 2 say all animals were vegetarians.
    Genesis 2 says death is the result of the disobedience of Adam to God’s one command for him.
    Genesis 3 says God cursed not only man but all of creation because of this grave error on Adam’s part.
    It was not until after the world-wide flood that God gave man the authority to eat both vegetation and meat.
    The only way millions of years can be rationalized with Scripture is by inserting a “gap” between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 and even then it falls way short of comprehension.
    The book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible and it describes two beasts very familiar to what we call sea dinosaurs and land dinosaurs – Job 40 & 41. Dragons are spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The Bible is basically saying that dinosaurs were around when humans roamed the earth.

    I can go on with this. Now, you are left with a choice. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. There is really no inbetween, no straddling the fence. Or is the Bible good enough for “religion” but in error when “science” is concerned?

  18. abc's said


    In response to Educated Dawg’s last comment about the choice to believe the evolutionists or the bible…

    I think this is a flawed notion. As far as the theory of evolution goes, you have a choice to reject it and believe in some interpretation of the bible, or you can believe in the Science that is based on evidence.

    I also don’t understand how you can reconcile the two, but I think it’s worth stating that you’re not “putting your faith in evolutionists”, rather you’re making a rational decision based on evidence.

  19. Educated Dawg said

    Chris C.,

    How many of the noted “ancestors” to modern humans were formed by a fragmented skull, a single tooth, or were just plain out hoaxes? How many of them were called a different form but in reality were either an extinct ape species or a true human?

    How many tribal people were at one time considered primitive transitions to modern humanity? Examples: pigmies of Africa and Aboriginees of Australia.

  20. abc's said

    That’s why Science is so good. Hoaxes become exposed for what they are. Their evidence is dismissed and everyone moves on.

  21. Eric Russell said

    No educated dawg, you are wrong. Because you see, my religion isn’t some explanation for the world, my religion is not there to tell me how animals came to be, or how the world came into existance, whether or not i should believe in science; it is not there to tell me how the world is going to end, and it is not there to make me ignore logic. My religion is Christianity. My religion is attempting to live as Christ did. My religion is Christianity, and believing in evolution in no way keeps me from loving, or living always in peace. Your religion may be some attempt to explain the world, but thoughts of heaven and hell are irrelevant. I do not care. I care only about living as Christ did. So sure, if your religion is only some vain explanation of how things came to be, you can try to call me out on this. But your arguments are flawed.

  22. Educated Dawg said


    I disagree with you. My understanding of the origins of life is based on evidence, a rational educated decision. Show me how evolution is true Science. Show me how there is consistant data and procedure to determine how/when/why things evolved? Help me understand why evolutionists(true evolutionists, not compromising Christians) always hold to naturalism and become very angry when deity is brought into the “lab”.

    Just because you say macro/molecules/Darwinian evolution is science – that doesn’t make it Science.

  23. John said

    Yes, E. Dawg. the religiously devout shouldn’t try to blend TOO MUCH science into their respective faiths.
    There is always theistic evolutionary theory to help people try
    “straddling the fence”.

  24. Educated Dawg said


    Instead of getting off topic with you. Let me just say that your religion is not Biblical and you are not living like Christ. In all of His teachings, He continually referred back to the 5 books of Moses. He not only quoted out of Genesis chapters 1-3, He made it clear that what is written in Genesis 1-3 is indeed true and accurate.

    You have no idea what this battle is over. It’s not just evolution and creation. It definately isn’t Religion vs Science. It is man vs Jesus Christ. Choose your side well my friend.

  25. abc's said

    I’m not sure if you’re being serious. This forum topic is about Darwin’s Origin of the Species. It’s THE basic primer for understanding the theory of evolution, and you have to admit that it’s based on science, i.e. observation, testing and rational thought.

    The answers to all of the questions you have asked about what evolution is and how it is a science are out there. It’s not my place to provide all of that information for you. I also wouldn’t ask you to take my word for it. I’m not preaching to you.

    I asked a question earlier that is still unanswered. You say you accept microevolution.

    “What evidence is there to support the idea that their is an upper limit to changes that result in speciation. In other words, if given enough time, why couldn’t species evolve far enough to be unrecognizable from their ancestors?”

  26. Educated Dawg said


    Tell that to all the well educated Biblical creationists out there who fully incorporate their Christian worldview into the respected fields of study they are involved in.

    You can be a Biblical young-earth creationist and be a well educated and noted Scientist as well.

  27. John said

    Well done on that info in post #16, Chris C.
    Most people never know or care to know even 1/3rd of that.
    When do we get to discuss vestigial limbs and organs?

  28. Eric Russell said

    Again you are wrong my dear, my religion is very biblical. I live as Christ did, in love and peace. You are confusing living as Christ did (in love, peace, forgiveness, tolerance) with your idea of Christianity as a whole. You say I do not live as Christ did, thus you must clearly have observed me for a long period of time and found that i am a hateful person, spitting on the poor and shunning those who need my help, amiright? This “battle” is between whether animals came into being due to creation or evolution. Believing in evolution does not make me love any less, or feel any less compassionate. But yeah. Continue with the ad hominid attacks, its cute.

  29. abc's said

    Educated Dawg

    You said,

    “Tell that to all the well educated Biblical creationists out there who fully incorporate their Christian worldview into the respected fields of study they are involved in.”

    I think that is the fundamental problem. If you look at evidence, but interpret it through the lens of scripture based on theology then you aren’t letting the evidence speak for itself.

    Any person can take any piece of evidence and mold it into their belief system. Science is the opposite of that. It is about examining the evidence and drawing conclusions based on that evidence in spite of what anyones personal beliefs may be.

    You cannot look at the evidence and let it speak for itself and arrive at the conclusion that something created the earth and everything on it in its present state a few thousand years ago.

  30. Educated Dawg said

    Abc’s #25,

    You said something very interesting: “observation, testing and rational thought.” But macro-evolution can neither be observed, tested, or rationally thought out in the laboratory. Scientifically speaking, macro-evolution is no different than the “princess and the frog” fairy tale we grew up on.

    To answer your question, depends on what you consider “ancestor”. There is no doubt that I am physically different than my ancestral tree of humans. But can humans evolve into a completely new kind of organism if given enough time? No. Did humans evolve from mammalian/apelike ancestors? Scientifically, this cannot be proven. The evidence is not there and it cannot be duplicated in the lab.

    Now, honestly, tell me why anyone would want to say they evolved of millions of years from algae to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to humanoid creatures to humans(no it’s not exact nor proper, but you get the point).

    My answer, when I was an evolutionist, was “because, humans are just another animal and we can do what we want – survival of the fittest baby!”

  31. Educated Dawg said


    You said “Any person can take any piece of evidence and mold it into their belief system. Science is the opposite of that. It is about examining the evidence and drawing conclusions based on that evidence in spite of what anyones personal beliefs may be.”

    I agree true Science is based on examination of evidence and building a conclusion. Yet, MACRO EVOLUTION is NOT true Science. It is, as you stated above, a “mold[ing] it(evidence) into their belief system.”

    The fundamental issue is not religion against Science. It is man against Jesus Christ. Or if you’d like, Origin view against Origin view.

  32. Eric Russell said

    Yeah, Dawg,
    I suppose there is no sense of morality outside of religion. Because, yano, atheists go around stealing everything they see and always commit crimes given the oppurtunity, amiright? Cos i mean, that would be advantageous, and they could always use evolution as an excuse. That happens.
    And no, macro evolution is nothing like the magical frog to prince story, because the driving force of natural selection can indeed make drastic changes in animals over a vast period of time. And science does have a vast period of time.

  33. John said

    E.Dawg, as to your post #26[ everyone types so fast here!]only if you create your own custom-made version of “science” and history. Young earth creation “science” is a biased fantasy created by those who couldn’t cope with real history and science. It is good to be religious. And if you be religious and scientific at the same time, then that’s great.But for those who try to incorporate the sciences into theology they[[very quickly] reach a point where they must develop an agnostic view on the matter and hope that time changes and enlightens things for them. OR…they can try to alter and rewrite real history and create their own versions of science to support their theological[or atheistic, yes, I know it happens] views.

  34. Educated Dawg said


    Christ first preached truth. All of His deeds were based on truth. He proclaimed that the Old Testament books were the truth that He lived according to. That included Genesis and Job.

    No one is attacking you. You can believe in molecules to man evolution all you like. Yet, it is not founded upon Scripture. Nor do we need to accept evolution in order to appear more “scientific”. Jesus, being the Creator, knows far more than our sophisticated comrades who proclaim themselves to be wise, yet have become fools.

    Does God care about how animals form? He must have. He wrote 2 chapters specifically about it. Does God care about why we suffer and die? He must have, He devoted a complete Old Testament book(Genesis) to it and at least one New Testament book(John) to it.

  35. abc's said

    The use of the scientific method showed Darwin that animals do change over time in order to become better adapted to their environment.
    Since then we have increased our knowledge and we understand how these changes come about based on genetic mutations.
    This leads to the logical conclusion that “species change over time.”
    Which leads to my question. What evidence is there to suggest that their is an upper limit to this change over time?
    We have sufficient evidence from other fields of scientific inquiry to suggest that the Earth is much older than a few thousand years. In fact, the current consensus is around 3.5 billion years. That’s a lot of time.
    So Scientifically speaking….valid scientific experimentation leads to the conclusion of evolution.

    Of course that’s not all the theory hinges upon. There is sufficient genetic information encoded in our dna to show what other species we are most closely related to and so on and so forth.

    You stated
    “But can humans evolve into a completely new kind of organism if given enough time? No.”

    I already understand that as your position. My question is still “why not”? I’m asking for scientific evidence.

    As far as “Now, honestly, tell me why anyone would want to say they evolved of millions of years from algae to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to humanoid creatures to humans(no it’s not exact nor proper, but you get the point).”

    My response: I don’t have a reason to want to believe that or to disbelieve it. I understand the theory of evolution and I accept that it is the most likely description of how life came to be as it is on Earth. It’s not a question of what “feels right” or anything like that.

    and I don’t believe that you ever once believed in “survival of the fittest baby.”

  36. Educated Dawg said


    You wrote: “as to your post #26[ everyone types so fast here!]only if you create your own custom-made version of “science” and history. Young earth creation “science” is a biased fantasy created by those who couldn’t cope with real history and science. It is good to be religious.”

    Let me rewrite it: “as to John’s theology, only if he creates his own custom-made version of “science” and history. Macro-evolution “science” is a biased fantasy created by those who couldn’t cope with real history and science. it is good for John to be religious.”

    Now, let me address this. First it is terrible to be religious, for you can still be deadly wrong and yet very religious. Considering that it was mainly Biblical creationists who brought forth so many inventions and medicines for us, lets not throw stones. Do you honestly think a Biblical creationist really wanted to make up a “fantasy” based on Genesis chapters 1-3? 😦 We took this God and caused Him to create. We made the man sin and then we made ourselves accountable to this God. And we did all of this because we didn’t want to admit we’re actually animals and there is no afterlife 🙂 Wow! Evolution really does have it all………………and it’s called dung.

  37. John said

    [GRIN] You sound as if I stuck a nerve, E. Dawg.
    “Do you honestly think Biblical creationist really wanted to make up a “fantasy’ based on Genesis chapters 1-3?”

    Yes. Go to the website that you recommended in post #8 for a better understanding.
    And we are animals[smile].

  38. Educated Dawg said


    As for “upper limit”, the upper limit would be determined by the dna and genetic makeup of that particular kind of life. If you want more detail from a young-earth creation Scientist, visit the websites mentioned: AiG, ICR, etc. We make a distinction between “species” and “kind”.

    And DNA resemblance also says we’re genetically more related to jelly fish than to apes. Go figure 🙂

    Also, I was an evolutionist for 18yrs of my life. So, yes I did accept the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest. Baby 🙂 Now, I accept survival of the fittest still, just from a Biblical standpoint.

  39. abc's said

    Making a distinction between “species” and “kind” is already leaving the realm of real, skeptical, peer reviewed Science.

    By making a “distinction” like that you’re already setting up your attacks against the theory of evolution by making them even more non-falsifiable. If evidence is presented to show a change from one species into a new species then you will step back and say, “Whoa, hold on a second. It’s still the same “kind” of animal and you haven’t shown me anything.”

    That is intellectually dishonest.

  40. Educated Dawg said

    Call a boy an animal long enough and he will eventually bite your hand [smile] or betta yet 🙂

    lets be real here ok. The issue always goes back to Jesus Christ. Either the Bible is just another religious book among many, or it is true in all respects. Either Jesus Christ is Creator of all, or He is nothing at all.

    You, as a Wiccan cannot even comprehend this battle that is raging. It is far from young-earth creationism vs molecules to man evolution. Darwin didn’t start the war. It’s not in the Science lab. It’s in the hearts of men.

  41. abc's said

    I just want to point something out.

    Excellent information and evidence for evolution was provided in post 16. I have not seen any refutation of that evidence with other evidence.

    The proponents of Creationism are attempting to refute the evidence by appealing to emotions.

  42. Educated Dawg said


    above is a link regarding “species and kind”. We make a distinction between species and kind mainly because in Genesis, God is said to have created everything after its “kind” which is different than species.

  43. Educated Dawg said


    In regard to post #16, here is another article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/263.asp

    You can read it at your leisure.

  44. John said

    I bite.
    Sorry that it took so long for me to get back to you.I was checking out a porn site[I don’t have a computer of my own so I have to take advantage of these opportunities as they arise[toothy grin]. I can comprehend much more than you may imagine, Educated Dawg.
    You see, I study Christian theology and aside from visiting websites such as this, interviewing people, and listening to Christian radio shows, I have a “large” section of Christian literature[from the fanatical to the saintly to the encyclopedic] that even includes literature from the website that you mentioned. So I’m not completely ignorant[smile].
    On another site I would like to ask you some questions about “The Battle” that is raging.
    And thankyou for spelling Wiccan with an uppercase W.

  45. Fred said

    Ignorance is celebrated on Truth Talk Live. I usually find these shows amusing but this one was pathetic.

    Stu, keep doing shows like this and you will have to sell your water to someone else.


    P.S. I’ll bet there is a Public Library near you that has shelves full of science books. Try it sometime. You’ll be better prepared to discuss this topic on the radio.

  46. Mike S said

    Yeah Fred, Right there along with all of the pornography that our wonderful liberals want to make available to our kids at the libraries!!

  47. Willie said

    I’m tired of these godless scientists and their “theories.” I hope Stu will do a show exposing the heliocentric theory for the sham that it is. Everyone know the earth is the center of God’s creation. When they started taking the Biblical view of the solar system out of schools is when kids started going so bad and the violence and so on and so forth but I praise the Lord for giving me the witness of the Holy Spirit and a word of faith that all who worship truly will not have their privates trampled in the day of the lord. For you see, being in a church doesnt’ make you a garage any more than being a christian makes you a car. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. And plus the bible says so. You see, to God all your righteousness is as filthy rags. And not just any rags. these were rags that The Bible Answer man blew his nose in. Therefore since you are lukewarm I will spew you out like malt liquor.

    And I’ll be praying that you stop resisting the Lord. Amen.

  48. Anonymous said

    Once more the assimilated masses bow and do proper homage to the gospel of St. Ken of Ham.

  49. Chris C. said

    Sorry I’ve been away. I think it was Educated Dawg who responded by linking me to a AiG site that disissed all of hominid ancestry as hoaxes and ‘remains of old humans or apes’.

    Two things: this link provides no evidence; no link to any peer reviewed scientific research; no findings to back up its claims. They are misinformed baseless claims made in the hope that the less educated among us will be duped.

    Second, and more to the point, the statements are flat out wrong. The laetoli footprints discovered by Mary Leakey date to 3.7 years ago and show that, at that time, hominids were fully bipedal with hip-abduction muscles that allowed them to balance and step just as we do. Also, A. afarensis’ illium, ischium, and pubis were more rounded and shaped like humans, not elongated like chimpanzees and bonobos. This indicates musculature around the hips more like humans, not apes. Their foramen magnum is perpendicular to the occipital region of the skull, not parallel like in quadrapedal or partially bipedal species. The foramen magnum is the entry of the spinal cord into the cranium. It’s location is a dead-givaway to bipedality.

    I’m not going to go on because, frankly, I don’t think it will make a difference. If you’re interested theres plenty of books out there which expound on this subject.

  50. abc's said

    Just to echo what Chris C. said.

    The “information” provided on the website you listed is incorrect. I had a hard time finding information about the author, but i’m certain that they are not credible scientists that have been peer reviewed.

  51. Educated Dawg said

    In regard to the links provided:

    How can they be “peer reviewed” when evolutionary scientists will NOT be unbiased? Do you honestly believe that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens would ever acknowledge that a proposed theory on the origin of life by a young-earth creationist was in fact Scientific and correct?

    Lets be real here dawgs. You know as well as I do that the evolutionists have an agenda and so do the young-earth creationists.

    The evolutionist’s agenda is to disregard God.
    The young-earth creationists agenda is to represent Jesus Christ the Creator.

  52. Fred said

    I know one thing, and that is there are those here who lecture about scientific processes while displaying little knowledge of the subject.

    If Science doesn’t theorize about God it is because science doesn’t observe God. Not because there is a conspiracy, as you implied, Educated Dawg.

    Young Earth Creationism is not science, therefore it does not appeal to science for review of it’s ideas. Not because there is a conspiracy against new scientific theories, as you also implied.

    Hope this helps, though I am sure it probably will not.


  53. Chris C. said

    Wrong again, Dawg. Science is, by definition, agnostic with respect to the idea of God. Saying that God created the universe is NOT a scientific hypothesis. However, combine that with some other hypotheses like, “The earth is only 6000 yrs old. Man is not descended from other forms of life. Adam and Eve were the first humans, etc.” Well, those can be considered scientific because they make empirical, testable claims.

    Unfortunatly for your religion, these claims have been disconfirmed by the all of the available evidence. The victim complex that so many christians have (I had it myself once) makes you believe everyone is out to get you, everyone is out to keep your truths supressed. Just like your beliefs about evolution, these victim beliefs are erroneous as well.

    The fact is that, yes a big group of modern day scientists are agnostic or atheistic. But there are also many who have reconciled evolution with their faith (see: Catholic Church). They don’t insert god into their evolutionary theory because there is no reason or evidence that calls for it. If you want to believe demonstrable falsehoods about human origins, that’s saddening to me, but go ahead — this is the country for you. But do not attempt to have your non-scientific, religion-based ideas brought into the classroom of any publicly funded educational building.

  54. Bob Griffin said

    Read Darwins book. See his own doubts. Do we see what he says we should see based on his theory? NO. He himself wondered why we dont see what he says. Its because he assumed many things. He didnt observe them. Our world does not work like he says.

  55. Willie said

    We aren’t talking the same language. The rationalists here think they are going to convince the creationists with evidence, because that is what they themselves value. On the other hand the creationists keep saying it’s a matter of “what you believe” since that is their way of determining truth. I think about a crime scene where a murder has been committed: a rationalist and a creationist are asked to investigate. The rationalist gathers evidence, does research, tests some DNA and says, “Well, looks like it was Fat Tony that did this.” The creationist on the other hand shows up and says, “Let me check my Bible.”

  56. Willie said

    Read Darwins book. See his own doubts.

    That’s not only a straw man, it’s a dead straw man. Even Einstein had “doubts” initially about some of his theories until they were confirmed by experiments.

  57. Bob Griffin said


    Darwin wondered – why is nature not in confusion. Do you have any example of a living transitional form? Darwin says they should be all around us.

  58. Educated Dawg said

    Chris C,

    You are contradicting yourself. You want creationist articles “peer reviewed” and then demand that creationists not bring our “religious” views into publicly funded educational institutions. What gives? Can’t have it both ways.

    And on the contrary, Science does not have to be agnostic. Shame on you for espousing such garbage. You can easily search out a number of well educated and qualified Scientists who became Scientists because of their belief in the Bible. And many of them were against macro/molecules to man/Darwinian evolution.

    Bottom line is that Science and Evolution are not two sides of the same coin. They are two completely different spheres of though. We, creationists are told that we allow our preconceived ideas to taint our understanding of Science. Yet, we see the same issue in the understanding of the evolutionist.

    One thing about religious groups that adhere to some form of macro-evolution is that they didn’t get this from the Scriptures they say they follow.

    You also made a false accusation in your statement – you dogmatically assert that Biblical young-earth creationism has been ” disconfirmed by the all of the available evidence.” And if that were so, surely there would be no debating the issue. And surely there would be no reason for the atheistic evolutionists to get so fired up over our “religious fairy tales”. And surely there would be no evolutionists worth his salt that would actually deny macr-evolution and begin to accept young-earth creationism. Like I said, the evidence is the same for both sides. It is a matter of interpretation based on our biases for or against a Creator deity.

  59. Educated Dawg said


    You go too far with da comedy 🙂

    But when you stoop to a low, then we start to take you less seriously than we did earlier. Of course I never took you real seriously anyway 🙂

  60. F. L. A. said


  61. Chris C. said

    What I said, Dawg was that religious views that make no empirical claims cannot be considered science. Views like, “God lives in heaven, with Jesus. They made the earth and universe.” On their own, these views are not provable or disprovable. But creationists leave these religious claims behind and DO make scientific claims based on their religious beliefs. These are claims about the age of the earth, etc. In the light of evidence: The earth being ~4.5 billion years old, humans and chimpanzees diverging from a common ancestor ~6 million years ago, etc, science has demonstrated your religion’s claims about creationism to be false.

    If creationism were to find evidence that the earth really was only a few thousand years old, or that humans have no common ancestor with any animals on earth, this would indeed be in the realm of science, and could be reviewed by the scientific community as such. Until there is any evidence to support your theory (and, by the way, real or perceived holes in evolutionary theory DO NOT count as evidence for creationism), it should well be kept out of the classroom.

    Again, god, as a single hypothesis, is not provable or disprovable, therefore unscientific, therefore science must be agnostic with respect to the deity. Science must not, however, remain agnostic with respect to empirical auxilliary hypotheses made by religious adherants.

    DAWG SAID: “You can easily search out a number of well educated and qualified Scientists who became Scientists because of their belief in the Bible.” These scientists must be poor scientists indeed. The very nature of science is comparing the predictions of hypotheses to the oberved world and then rejecting, confirming, or revising the original hypothesis. Scientists who compare their findings to the bible must throw out observations and evidence that disconfirm their belief in the bible; whereas true science must throw out or revise theories which do not match observation and evidence.

    DAWG SAID: “We, creationists are told that we allow our preconceived ideas to taint our understanding of Science. Yet, we see the same issue in the understanding of the evolutionist.”
    You continue to demonsrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method and how the scientific community operates.

    DAWG SAID: “One thing about religious groups that adhere to some form of macro-evolution is that they didn’t get this from the Scriptures they say they follow.”
    I agree.

    DAWG SAID: “…You dogmatically assert that Biblical young-earth creationism has been ” disconfirmed by the all of the available evidence.” And if that were so, surely there would be no debating the issue.”
    EXACTLY! In the scientfic community, there is no debate. The reason lay people like myself and others debate (and yes, get ‘fired-up’) is because it is frustrating to see the continued obfuscation of science, the misleading of new generations, and the abuse of religious authority in the name of creationism. It is frightening that half of this nation has a level of understanding of human origins which parallels the understanding of 2nd century BCE men. It’s frightening because ignorance is both powerful and dangerous.

  62. Educated Dawg said


    Sorry, but you are mistaken. Not all macro-evolutionists would agree with you.


    Above is an article on Mr. Gould and his theory of punctuated equilibrium.

    🙂 Even the evolutionists can’t agree 🙂

  63. Anonymous said

    So is your point that we won’t see a “transitional being” for a VEEEEERRRRRRYYY LOOOOOOOOONNNNGGGE TIME? I would have to agree with that! Like aaaahhh NEVERRRRRR!

    It would be a stronger counterpoint as an evolutionist to claim that ALL beings that currently exist are transitional beings. Yet where are those 1/2 gills and 1/2 lung beings that should currently exist?

  64. Anonymous said

    So Chris
    1/2 this nation are stupid and you’re one of the smart ones eh? How did a bunch of numbskulls get this far? Even those top of their class microbiologists, rocket scientists and such are stupid because they believe in God huh? That is as arrogant as Hitler was!

  65. Fred said

    “Read Darwins book. See his own doubts.” – Bob Griffin

    Someone famous once said “doubt may be an uncomfortable state, but certainty is absurd”. (Who said that?) That is the difference between science and religion. Science doubts where religion is certain.

    “Do we see what he says we should see based on his theory? NO.” – B.G.

    That’s an odd observation to make, considering that every fully accredited institute of higher learning in the world disagrees with you, Bob. Where did you learn that?

    “He himself wondered why we dont see what he says. Its because he assumed many things. He didnt observe them. Our world does not work like he says.” – B.G.

    Well, there we have it! The world according to Bob. It does make me wonder, though. Why does the scientific community unambiguously disagree with him? Weird, innit?

  66. Chris C. said

    Anonymous #63

    “1/2 this nation are stupid and you’re one of the smart ones eh?”
    By the law of averages, half of people have below average intelligece and half have above average :). But no, yur restatemet of my argument is a straw-man. I said half of this nation is ignorant of the reality of human origins. Knowdlegde is not directly correlated with intelligence.

    “How did a bunch of numbskulls get this far?”
    Because until recently, we didn’t have the power to destroy entire populations and countries with the push of a button. And because, until recently, we were all very much in the dark on science. We still are ‘in the dark’ to a great degree.

    “Even those top of their class microbiologists, rocket scientists and such are stupid because they believe in God huh?”
    I have never said people who believed in God were stupid. Once again, this is a straw-man argument. I believe them to be wrong, but that doesn’t mean I think they are stupid. People can just disagree, you know.

    “That is as arrogant as Hitler was!”
    Red herring, straw man, slippery slope, and ad hominem argument. All those logical fallacies rolled into one…wow.

  67. Fred said

    Good luck, Chris. They will mis-state your position, put words in your mouth, obstinately refuse to admit where they might be mistaken and then obscure the real purpose of scientific research and natural philosophy. To them science is a Grand Conspiracy to disprove their “truth”.

    I agree with you that it is frightening to observe their willful ignorance and their celebration of inculcating the next generation of anti-science zealots.

    In the words of Dr. Seuss: “you can’t teach a Sneetch”. Problem is, these Sneetches aren’t funny.

    Good luck,

  68. Educated Dawg said

    Chris C.,

    You do know that not every macro-evolutionist is a Darwinianist, right?

    Just like not all creationists are young-earth.

    Also, your stipulations for what you deem as Science limit the creationists viewpoint to fringe and religion only. Yet, you cannot deny that a majority of the pioneering Scientists were in fact Biblical creationists and became Scientists because of their Christian worldview.

    To say that Deity is not needed for life to come into being and to exist is to put forth a worldview – that of atheism. Evolutionary science is not neutral nor agnostic. It is atheistic. That being said, to keep religion out of Science is to keep out Darwinian evolution as well, for it too meets the criteria for being a religion.

  69. abc's said

    Regarding Anonymous 62

    All beings are transitional forms.
    Your idea that we should see species that have 1/2 a lung and/or 1/2 set of gills displays your lack of knowledge about the theory of evolution.
    Read up on the lungfish. Evolution would predict that at some point we should find creatures that bridge the gap between living in water and living on land. Lungfish are a good example of that type of creature.

  70. Educated Dawg said


    Yes, we’re just so evil and out to get the liberals and evolutionists of America 😦

    Get a grip buddy. It’s not a conspiracy nor a tactic to infiltrate the public education system with Christian “propaganda”.

    I don’t even want a Christian worldview taught in the public schools. I don’t even want my child going to public school. I have no problem with Science. I love the Sciences. But macro-evolution is not true Science. It is an assumption based on evidence. It is neither observable, testable, nor provable.

    Surely some evolutionist can give some quotes from the dawgs(Dawkings, Hitchens, Brown, etc.) that give proof that macro-evolution is indeed observable, testable, and provable? Chris? Viruses, flies, and finches are not proof of macro-evolution. Show forth some of those transitional forms. Or do you adhere to P.E.?

  71. Educated Dawg said


    Evolution can predict a lot of things. That doesn’t make it Scientific nor factual.

    The weather forecasters make predictions all the time, yet seems the majority of the time they are wrong. 🙂

    Lungfish being able to “breathe” air proves what? That they are still fish.

    Heck, we can use certain species of salamander to prove devolution I guess. Since some keep their gills for life. How dare they hold back evolutionary progress! 🙂

  72. F. L. A. said




  73. abc's said

    Educated Dawg

    Evolution can and does predict a lot of things. These things are called “hypothesis” and they are subject to testing. We can yield either a positive or negative result. In this case, discovering an animal that has both lungs and gills supports the hypothesis.

    That is how Science works.

    A creationist on the other hand, who has the same evidence, would say, “I think God made this animal just the way it is because God is perfect.”

    Honestly, which view is biased?

    Also, the notion of a salamander reversing evolution also displays ignorance of the theory. There is no net goal for evolution that it is striving to attain. It’s simply adaptation in response to environmental pressures.

  74. Fred said

    “Get a grip buddy.” – Educated Dawg

    You need to realize that your replies on this thread made you look foolish enough without your trying to pick fights with other internet blogsters.

    You have been presented with some thoughtful descriptions of what science actually purports to be versus what you say it is. If you don’t want to listen there’s only one thing I can say…

    Have a Nice Day!


  75. F. L. A. said


  76. Bob Griffin said

    For Fred and #68

    Getting ready to drive to Altanta for supercross, so last post for a while. Over billion of years, you should have billions or trillions of forms. Please tell me why we dont see them. All these years for all these amazing things to happen, but evolution just stopped? Same w the lungfish. You can cite 1 dubious example – you should have millions of examples if Darwin is correct. We should be wallowing in forms. Where are the mermaids, etc? I dont see any.

  77. Chris C. said

    “Yet, you cannot deny that a majority of the pioneering Scientists were in fact Biblical creationists and became Scientists because of their Christian worldview.”

    I don’t know why they became scintists; perhaps because they were awe-inspired by the natural world. But certainly they didn’t get any science ideas from the bible. There is nothing in scripture about heliocentrism, evolution (micro or macro), germ theory of disease, genetics, DNA, etc. Why? Because the men who wrote it had no knoweldge of these things. If your famous Christian scientists had stuck to exactly what the bible said (as you do) then we’d be without a great deal of our base of knowledge today.

    Darwin (and A.R. Wallace) provided the crane of Natural Selection that shows us how we could get from the most basic of life-forms to the current state. Before them, both christians and skeptics (like Hume) were unable to theorize how life might have evolved.

    I have ‘faith’ in evolutionary theory because it is an inductively strong argument/theory. Just like you and I both have ‘faith’ that the sun will rise at a certain time at a certain point on the horizon because heliocentrism is an inductively strong argument. Would you call heliocentrism a religion as well? I doubt it. You are trying to equate religious faith and scientific induction (“I believe the sun will rise” vs. “I believe the Son rose from the dead.” 🙂 ), which is not a correct analogy.

    BTW, evolutionary theory says nothing about how life came into being. It simply says, once life originated, “this is how humans and all other flora and fauna arose…” Therefore, it is agnostic.

  78. abc's said


    Those are other good examples. The lungfish was the first one that came to mind because i’m an amateur icthyologist.

    I really like the evidence presented by endogenous retroviruses.

  79. Willie said

    ERVs = Evolution’s fingerprints.

  80. Chris C. said


    Your own friends at AiG give you good reason why we don’t see millions of intermediate forms. The following is taken from AiG.com.

    What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?
    The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.

    ~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
    ~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
    ~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
    The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1

    Of course you may disregard that bit about the flood. But anyway, fossilization is an extremely rare event. Over millions of years, land gets subducted under the sea floor, thrown our in calderas and volcanoes. It gets uplifted, mined, broken, built over. Considering the ammount of geologic change that has ocurred over the 1 billion years or so of vertebrate life, it is amazing when we do find great fossil specimines. And the fact of the matter is, we have provided examples of intermediate species. I myself provided a basic view of hominid evolution over the last 6 million years, all backed up by fossil finds. Yet it was dismissed.

    So 1) stop setting up this straw man argument that we should find millions of intermediate forms in the fossil record. And 2) stop claiming there is no fossil evidence. There is, only you dismiss it because either it is ‘not enough’ or ‘not conclusive’ etc.

  81. Willie said

    Getting ready to drive to Altanta for supercross

    Maybe you should skip supercross and spend some time at superLibrary.

  82. Educated Dawg said

    Seems that you don’t fully understand young-earth creationism. We do not look at the animals and say “wow, yep, exactly as God made them in the beginning”. We agree with adaptation, speciation, natural selection. We just reject the assumption of macro-evolution. And for it not being a net goal for evolution to advance. Do you ascribe to Darwinism? Ever read “Origin of the species? And I’m still waiting for someone to complete the title of this book……. You did get one thing right – God is indeed perfect! 🙂

    Have a great day too 🙂

    Slowworms? What, nightcrawlers in the fridge? 🙂
    I’d love to talk about European legless lizards, or slowworms as they are commonly called. I had a Russian legless lizard for years. Even used it in creation presentations. Perfect example of adaptation, yet still a lizard. Oh, and lets not forget the boids with their “vestigial appendages”.

    And I really have no bias as to whether evolutionary Science is atheistic or not. Just seems that a belief in naturalistic evoluionism always leads to atheism – Gould, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc, they see people such as Hugh Ross and others as compromisers and foolish. I agree with them on this. Evolution states that no deity is needed for life to form and exist. It is an atheistic religious philosphy.

    Can you give us some examples from history of people who were theistic evolutionists? Seeing that paganism is purported as one of hte oldest religions, maybe some of its teachers can be voiced?

  83. abc's said

    Educated Dawg

    I suppose you mean

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

    I know that’s the title of the book. Sure, Darwin was racist and bigoted. That has no bearing on his theory of evolution by natural selection.

    I accept the theory of Evolution as the best model that describes the interrelatedness of all life based on observation of the evidence.

  84. Willie said

    Snakes have vestigial hips. Does that mean they are still lizards?

  85. CarGuy37 said

    First off, I’m a young earth creationist and believe that the earth is only around 6000 years old (to provide efficient categorizing).

    There’s a lot of talk about transitional forms, and testable vs not testable, and faith and science don’t mix, but as I see it, the true art of persuasion in the marketplace of ideas falls into the realm of “internal consistency”. I have a theory, you have a theory. And as we are rational beings, we appeal to each other’s intellect through arguments of reason.

    It has been well stated earlier in this debate that evidence simply exists. It is us that map our theories on top of said evidence in order to appease our reason. And typically whatever theory we find most “internally consistent” (from a truly objective audience) should win out.

    In my theory, God made everything (just as He said He did) about 6000 years ago. He made a mature looking Adam that was in effect only seconds old. On day one, Adam was asked to name the animals, so he was pre-programmed with the information God deemed necessary for him to survive. And the story continues…

    Now if God is capable of creating a brand new man that appeared old, then it would also seem non-contradictory (again, within my framework) that His Creation could also be brand new, yet appear mature. Rocks look old. The universe looks big. But since no one on this forum was actually there, we have to theorize. Also something to consider, my God created science. From my vantage point, you can either study the Creator or Created.

    Given my assumptions, I am quite content with the internal consistency of my worldview.

    Now on to the subject “you can’t touch, taste, smell God, nor is His existence an empirical truth, therefore His existence is beyond the realm of the discipline of science” here are the arguments that have been used for thousands of years. This is not the first time atheists and believers have debated, nor will it be the last. [And as an aside, this is known as Hume’s law. I might suggest that since you can’t touch, taste, or smell Hume’s law, nor is it empirically true, it itself is internally inconsistent. It’s like saying that my brother is only child. But I won’t go there ;)]

    Classically, we argue our position like this: 1) and Eternal Being must exist by definition, because Nothing can’t be, 2) something never comes from nothing.

    1) If you were to say that meta-physically, there IS nothing, then you’ve contradicted yourself. Once you’ve attributed essence to nothing, it becomes something. Now I’m not even going so far as to say anything about that “something”, but only to say that He must exist by definition.

    2) The universe’s age is finite. If it were infinite, there would be no more molecular motion, we’d all be frozen at zero Kelvin. Therefore it has had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then what was before the beginning? and how did something come out of nothing? And as a corollary, how does order come from disorder in a system of blind random processes. Don’t all things tend towards entropy (I believe this is a scientific law).

    If you see just 5 leaves fallen off of a tree are lying in perfect order, most people jump to the conclusion that “someone has done this” and not “what are the chances”. But we’re not talking about leaves here (well not directly). We’re talking about God’s Creation! Look at the extreme precision of balance that goes into what we call matter. If electrons weighed more or less, we’d be in trouble. But they’re all the same. Look at the complicated systems that occur within a single cell (it’s been likened to a super-factory). And these cells work together in a distributed network to generate even more complicated systems (something we’ve tried to model in distributed computing techniques). And the balance of all things necessary to support life in an extremely harsh universe.

    When I study science, it just makes me fear and respect God even more. I love Him for giving us the ability to reverse engineer His genius, and to praise Him for it.

    And yet this all powerful, all wise, God has revealed yet one more magnificent trait, His unbounded mercy towards me, a miserable sinner. He expects holy perfection, and I am so far removed from His glorious nature, and so enslaved to my own desires that I had no chance of having a relationship with Him. Yet He sent His own Son to reconcile me, you, and everyone who believes on Him to Himself.

    Jesus laid down His life for us, so that we may have everlasting life. Hundreds of prophesies over thousands of years have ALL come true in Christ! Man couldn’t make this stuff up if he wanted to. Jesus was crucified and buried, yet Him, and only Him had the power to raise His life back up from the dead. This is THE most well documented incident in all of antiquity. Even non-believers of the time attest to this.

    And wouldn’t it make sense (again, here’s my internal consistency pitch) that God, after creating man, would want to reveal Himself to us, and have a relationship with us. We will never understand the height, and width, and breadth, and depth (4 dimensions) of our God, but just as a we know something about a hand by watching the glove, we too can see God in His Son, Jesus.

    I’d like to be available to individually respond to everyone’s critiques to my post, but I’m afraid I have more pressing obligations. But when I get the chance to defend my glorious God, you bet you’ll get my $0.02.

    I pray that those of you that reject the idea of God will respect my viewpoint, and maybe even find the truth.

  86. F. L. A. said



  87. Educated Dawg said

    Hold on buddy 🙂
    We do indeed have something in common!
    There is a God!!!!! And you and I agreeing is proof. 🙂

    I’ve been studying reptiles for some odd years now. Kept them most of my life. They are beautiful and amazing.

    – I’s yo friend now dawg! 🙂 🙂

    No. a boid with vestigial hip bones does not make it a lizard. Please understand the physical anatomy of snakes as compared to legless lizards. There are extreme differences both internally and externally.

  88. Tripp said

    Willie – we live on extreme opposite sides of the fence and I could not possibly disagree with you more on this, but…

    …post #81 made me fall out of my chair.

  89. F. L. A. said



  90. F. L. A. said


  91. Educated Dawg said


    I’m not too keen to birds, unless it is fried chicken! 🙂 yee ha!

    I wouldn’t say that the Biblical Creator designed the Kiwi, Moa, Ostrich, etc. with useless appendages. Understand that we don’t dispute adaptation and natural selection. We do dispute the macro-evolutionary reasoning proposed to be proof of why it is.

    And, seems you already know what I taught in regard to the vestigial appendages of certain reptiles. I did indeed propose that it could indeed be a result of the Genesis account of the entrance of sin, fall of man, and curse on all of creation.

    Whether one considers this a fairy tale or not is their choice. I personally consider molecules to man evolution to be a fairy tale, a godless one at that.

    We may not have all the answers, never claim to, but we are consistant in our beliefs and we do feel that there is no contradiction between Science and Scripture. Is the Scripture a Science text book, certainly not. One aspect of the Bible is that it has never changed. While Science text books continue to change.

    I’ve got to go as well. Need to feed da critters and admire the beauty and splender of my God’s handywork.

  92. John said

    Happy Washington’s Birthday everyone.
    The wings of the ostrich are not useless, as they are used in courtship dances, unlike the wings of the kiwi or moa which are TOTALLY USELESS in every way. The sciences change periodically as we grow in knowledge.Would you still study out of a book on Herpetology E.Dawg that had not changed since the 1700’s? Or longer?
    I actually have books like this from the past, were the authors don’t know what the pits on a viper’s face are for, and think that coach whip snakes will chase down and whip people and horses to death, and that turtles can leave their shells, but only do it when no one is around to see.Yes…thank God that science changes! Can you imagine what the medical profession would be like[Eewwww!Blaaahh!]? And yet… for some reason….this is alright in regards to the Bible, to help people learn how to teach todays students?
    Only in a class on theology, Sunday school, or a theological school system perhaps.
    As to your inquiry about pagan knowledge, most of it was passed down orally, and that that wasn’t was destroyed by Christian fanatics before or during the Dark Ages, which in turn threw us pagans into a Dark Ages too.An untold amount of pagan information and wisdom was destroyed in 391C.E. when Christian fanatics burned down one of the greatest libraries in Alexandria, said to have housed 700,000 rolls, all the books of the Gnostic Basilides, Porphyry’s 36 volumes, papyrus rolls of 26 schools of the Mysteries, and 270’000 ancient documents gathered by Ptolemy Philandelphus were burned. Ancient academies of learning were closed or destroyed, and anyone outside of the church or royalty was forbidden an education. Pagans had to go underground or flee to survive, so much was lost. That is why there’s not very much for me to present you with, but maybe this will help you understand where I am coming from.

  93. Mike S said

    Hey John
    Yeah one of those turtles actually got caught once. You know they’re a lot faster without their shells, they run on two feet you know. That’s what Ray Stevens saw before he wrote that song. The turtles wife caught him out of his shell at the local bar. Look atat look atat!!

  94. Mike S said

    Yes, it actually brings us (Christians) comfort that God and His Word is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Even though it (Scripture) is ancient, it perfectly describes you, me, as well as the atheist. It describes and reveals the root of Islam, explains eastern religions, is filled with amazing insights about natural truths and the phsyche of the human being.

    I dare you guys to do something. 3 years ago, my best friend, being a staunch believer that evolution is proven fact, leaned strongly towards eastern religion, was firm in his agnostic beliefs that Jesus was NOT God, was challenged in his heart when I (a new Christian and a much different person than the guy he used to carouse with for 25 years) suggested that he do something. Although he believed there is a God, he just beleived God was unknowable. I said to him, “Doug, the next time you read the book of John, do this, pray and ask God from your deepest part of your soul to reveal to your heart if Jesus is really who He says He is.” Although it took a year before he actually did that, he admitted to me, “The thought of doing that scared the heck out of me, I was not ready for that.” He said that the fact that this bothered him so much was even more disturbing. Eventually, he did pray that, and yes, he is now one of the most outspoken believer’s you will encounter.

    Tell me, does the thought of doing that bother you? I suggest seeking your deepest inner motivations to ask your self why. Why does the thought of Jesus bother me so? Ask yourself, what have I got to lose if He really is who He says He is? What have I got to gain? You may be bothered by the answer you get from yourself. If you ARE bothered, that is proof that there is a Holy Spirit working on your soul! It’s called conviction. Do you have the guts to admit it though?

  95. Educated Dawg said


    Have you ever done a study from the Bible on snakes? Even though the Bible isn’t a Science book, it does beautifully and Scientifically describe the snake in great detail. From its forked tongue, to its cold-bloodedness, to its “poison”, to its serpentene body. It is truly amazing that a book written so long ago actually knew what our Scientists have relatively recently discovered.

    If you’re interested, I’ll give you the verses. I wrote a “sermon” using this. There is no other religious book that matches the truthfulness and acuracy of the Holy Bible. The fulfilled prophecies of the Old and New Testaments are more than enough to “prove” its authority and authenticity.

    Have a great weekend 🙂

  96. Willie said

    From its forked tongue, to its cold-bloodedness, to its “poison”, to its serpentene body.It is truly amazing that a book written so long ago actually knew what our Scientists have relatively recently discovered.

    Yes. Truly amazing.

  97. Willie said

    The fulfilled prophecies of the Old and New Testaments are more than enough to “prove” its authority and authenticity.

    What prophecies are you talking about?

  98. abc's said

    I take comfort in the fact that Shakespeare’s words were the same yesterday as they are today and always will be. The Qu’ran has remained relatively unchanged, as well as the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas and countless other books.

    I can plainly see that the text from the Bible is similar to how it was originally written, what has changed is the interpretation. Over time as understanding of the world has progressed Christians have been forced to either take a more liberal view of scripture, believe the scripture in spite of the evidence, or discount it entirely.

    This accounts for the Catholicism as well as Protestantism and it’s thousands of different denominations.

    All i’m saying is that this doesn’t provide any evidence that it is true.

    It seems like we’ve gotten a little off topic though. This forum was originally discussing the truthfulness of Darwin’s theory.

    My response to that is still:
    Darwin’s theory of Evolution is the most correct framework we have that describes the interrelatedness of all life. It explains speciation and why animals are adapted to their respective environments. We can make predictions based on the theory and then we can test those predictions. For more than 150 years we have done this and we haven’t found any evidence that contradicts the theory.

    It is the fundamental basis for all of biology.

    If anyone claims that the Theory is not sound all they have to do is:

    1. Have a correct understanding of the theory of Evolution
    2. State an inherent problem with the theory
    a. The problem must be factual and not philosophical
    b. the problem must be falsifiable. There must be a way to test it to yield a positive or
    negative result based solely on the evidence.
    3. Test the claim
    4. Have those tests peer reviewed by the Scientific community at large.

    If you can do this, I guarantee that the Scientific community will examine these objections.
    So far we have had more than 150 years to do this and it hasn’t happened. This is why I accept the theory of evolution.

  99. abc's said


    Just in case you come back to the forum I want to leave you with a few thoughts.

    You say

    Classically, we argue our position like this: 1) and Eternal Being must exist by definition, because Nothing can’t be, 2) something never comes from nothing.

    It’s really not true that something never comes from nothing in our Universe the way we have come to understand it and our laws of physics. Look up Virtual Particles. Something comes from nothing all of the time in every square inch of space everywhere.

    But if you start with that assumption then that would seem to provide evidence that a God could not exist since he would have to spring forth from nothingess.

    You also state that the Universe is finite.

    How do you know that? I’m sure you’re familiar with the idea that the universe is cyclical and continues to expand and contract upon itself and start over. I’m not saying I believe that, i’m just throwing it out there for arguments sake.
    There are also series that suggest that we are part of a multiverse in whic there are many more dimensions and universes out there with different laws of nature.
    These things aren’t made up, they are consequences of some of the laws of physics we have discovered.

    Also, our space and time began at the same instant. Therefore, asking about what happened before the beginning just has no meaning. We can say anything we want to about before then, but it has no meaning. You can say that God existed and I could say that there was a bissel vaccuum cleaner that existed then. We could both argue our cases with the same types of rhetoric.

    Lastly, I don’t find your idea of “internal consistency” as very compelling. There are people out there that believe all manner of things and they are only being internally consistent. There must be a way to tell truth from falsehood.

    I completely respect your views and i’m glad you took the time to share. You left a few things for others to think about so I just wanted to return the favor.
    Since you seem to be very logical I have one other question for you that was always a big one for me.

    How can faith be epistemologically valid when it provides no method for distinction between true and false propositions?

  100. John said

    I always found the study of Quantum Physics to be very interesting, ABC’S.
    Educated Dawg, every dumb country bumpkin knows THAT MUCH about snakes.But yes, please do give me the verses just in case they are not the ones that I’m thinking of.
    Mr.Sears, I accept that challenge![You didn’t really think that I wouldn’t, did you? Why I’d do it just for the novelty of it.]
    Remember though, being polytheistic, I never claimed that Jesus wasn’t who he claimed to be, only that I believed that he was not alone, so this may have some interesting results.
    Or none at all.
    We’ll just see what happens, eh?
    Talk to you all later this evening[ will that be enough time for my epiphany, Mr. Sears?].

  101. John said

    What a minute!!!
    When you said to read from the book of John, did you mean…….
    The Gospel according to St. John, or the First, second, or third Epistle of John?

  102. F. L. A. said

    I WON’T DO IT.

  103. Mike S said

    John, that would be the Gospel of John, where Jesus is recorded to have made all of the claims regarding who He is. And BTW, if you do it for the “novelty of it”, would that be from the novelty part of your soul? Not deep enough dude. Have a blessed day feeding in the swamp F.L.A. 🙂

  104. John said

    I’m back.
    Thank you for the specifics Mr.Sears.
    Yes, that’s the part I thought that you meant, but I’m nit-picky and I wanted to be sure.It took me longer than I thought it would[ all those tiny little words….you don’t realize at first how much reading is there]. Yes, the “novelty part”. After all, it’s not as if I WANT to be a Christian, remember? Does this sort of a thing only work for those who are theologically unsure or insecure in their spirituality? Because I’m not. Seems as if I have to already want[at least subconsciously] to become a Christian, is all.
    And I don’t.
    Do I get any brownie points for trying it anyway[smile]?
    Perhaps you can at least be grateful knowing that one of us at least gave it a shot.The others that you challenged probably won’t even try.
    F. L. A. caught a cow today, but had to trespass to get it, rotten creep…..I’m so jealous[and wouldn’t even share any of it!].

    Educated Dawg,………..those verses?

  105. Fred said

    Trespassing for cows is illegal. Surely you know that?

  106. Mike S said

    There you go pushing your morals again Fred. Shouldn’t you like create a social program for habitual swamp cow attackers or something?

  107. F. L. A. said


  108. John said

    Well, I have returned from hunting.It’s deer chili tonight[drool,drool]!
    Nothing else yet?
    I guess everyone’s still in church service?
    Oh, well…….

  109. Fred said


    This is an invalid analogy.

    You are either not very bright bragging about your criminal behavior online, or that bit about the cow was an inverse euphemism (is there such a thing?).

    Are you cattle rustling(which is a serious crime)?

    Or did you visit the grocery store(and you view this as trespassing in some way)?

    In short, you didn’t really go steal a cow, did you?

  110. Educated Dawg said


    I personally, do have a life outisde of truthtalklive. So I don’t sit in front of the computer 24/7.

    To the verses:
    Psalm 140:3 speaks of the “sharpened their tongues” in reference to the forked tongue and its tips pointed.

    Genesis 3:14 “dust shalt thou eat” which coincides with the forked tongue in regard to the Jacobson’s organ.

    Proverbs 23:32 “biting like a serpent”. A simple but true statement in regard to the bite of the snake. If you’ve ever been bitten by a snake, you know it can be painful and nasty.

    Psalm 58:4 speaks of the serpent being “deaf” in respect to human beings. They “hear” vibrations.

    Genesis 3:14 “crawling on the belly”, again self explanatory.

    Job 26:13 “crooked serpent” Snakes have a distinct way of moving, that is even different than that of the legless lizard.

    Genesis 3:1 “subtle or crafty”. All snakes are experts at escape.

    Proverbs 30:19 “serpent upon a rock”, direct inference to the cold-bloodedness of the serpent.

    Now, I know this probably doesn’t affect any of the skeptics and pagans here. But I found it fascinating that a book written so long ago, one htat never claims to be a Science book, yet it describes an animal that most humans hate. If the God of the Bible took the time to give us a picture of this one animal, imagine what all He has said about His greatest of creation, man.

    No other “religious” book claims nor does this. No other gods claim nor do this. He alone is worthy to be praised and worshipped. He, the Creator of all, knows exactly how everything was made and why everything is like it is now.

  111. ww said

    And if you make a snake idol out of brass and hold it up then snakes won’t bite you. (Numbers 21:8-9).

  112. Educated Dawg said

    thank you. Context is everything. God is in control of it all.

  113. abc's said

    Educated Dawg

    To me, that just sounds like what any rational person might write about observations made when looking at a snake. There’s nothing miraculous there.

    The “dust shalt thou eat” confuses me though. How does that relate to the snakes olfactory organ?

  114. Anonymous said

    Did you notice that F.L.A. claims to be sub or non human. I guess that’s his license?

  115. Educated Dawg said

    The forks of the snakes tongue pick up particles in the air and inserts the forks into the Jacobson’s organ. The snake “smells” or “tastes” the air giving it a better picture of its surroundings.

    You must also understand that we live in the Scientific “age” and going by what you and others have said, even before the “dark ages” people were more “ignorant” than then. So, for there to be a “religious” book that gives us so much information about an animal that is considered an outcast by many. That in itself is amazing. And for it to be 100% acurate as far as modern Science goes is even more astounding.

    Yet, the atheist still shakes his fist in defiance 😦 But the same atheist will read Darwins “orign of the species” and bow down and worship. Worship an assumption, but worship nonetheless.

  116. abc's said

    I understand the basics of how a snake “smells” by tasting the air.
    What does that have to do with eating dust?

    Most of the creation story contradicts modern Science. This is because those ancient people that wrote it were more ignorant about the world.

  117. F. L. A. said




  118. Anonymous said

    Sorry. Should it be “hers” or “its'”?

  119. F. L. A. said


  120. Educated Dawg said


    Glad you liked the verses. I was only interpreting Genesis 3:14 in the realm of Science and it can be applied that way without taking it out of context to the rest of the Scripture. Yes, I am intitled to that 🙂

    Well, because of family issues and changes – I only have a pair of Gerrhosaurus major – Sudan(Tawny)plated lizards. One of which I’ve had for going on 18yrs. I’ve had boids, colubrids, an alligator, turtles, tortoises, different types of lizards in the past.

  121. abc's said

    Educated Dawg

    Not to belabor the point, but I was able to find several articles that provide very good evidence that a culture of people known as the San actually worshipped the python and centered their society around their form of worship approximately 70,000 years ago, in Africa, where it is commonly known that humans first evolved.

    I know that this won’t count as evidence for you, but I just wanted to offer it up for the benefit of anyone else who stumbles upon this forum.

  122. John said

    Thank you, ABC’S for the info.
    I once brought that up myself once when I was arguing with this character named “MonkeyMan”[ among other names] on the “Code Huckabee” site listed under “Christianity”, posts #28-#48. Check it out sometime. You may find it amusing.Or helpful, one of those “learn from the mistakes of others” kind of things.

    We are big into keeping herps ourselves, but all of ours have been wild caught.I once had 3 alligators myself! Right now we have a River Cooter,2 Stink pot Musk Turtles, a young [shall I use the proper names?] Sistrurus Miliarius, a baby Pantherophis[Elaphe]Obsoleta Rossalleni, and a young Pantherophis[Elaphe]Guttata Guttata. There are other things in and around the house, of course. Many of them are lizards and fish that shouldn’t be native to Florida. Ask me about that sometime, ABC’s. You may be shocked to discover what’s swimming in our waters down here.

  123. Educated Dawg said


    I don’t see where that is relevant to my posting of Scriptural verses that are verified by modern Science. Christians don’t worship animals. I don’t see your point? What I am trying to get across is the accuracy of the Scriptures in regard to Scientific ideas. No other religious writings that I am aware of even come close. If these “San” wrote things about the python that are Scientifically authentic, I’d like to read it.

    Evolutionary adherants uphold the separation of “religion” and “Science”. I’d like to say that the teachings of the Bible and true Science are compatible. It is only when one brings in assumptions based on a particular world-view(atheistic evolutionism) and force its dogma into true Science that we begin to have problems with Scripture and the new “naturalistic” science so predominant in Western thought.

    Again, I do not believe that evolutionists/atheists would accept Biblical creationism on any basis, no matter how Scientifically accurate, detailed, and authentic it is. Creationists are said to be non-objective, yet that is the evolutionist pot calling the creationist kettle black.

    There are 100 plus posts to this topic. I’d like to end my input with an answer to the question posed:

    Was Darwin right or wrong? Since there are many well researched, well educated Scientists(both Evolutionary and Biblical Creationist) that see great holes in Darwinism, I will give my biased and opinionated answer – Charles Darwin was dead wrong and he found out the godless way.

    Good night to all and to all a good night 🙂
    Slithering outa here………..da edooKateD dawG 😉

  124. John said

    Well, the site won’t be the same without you, Educated Dawg.
    Blessed Be.

  125. abc's said

    Educated Dawg

    This will be my last post as well.

    The information about the Sans people is relevant because it shows that we already have scientific evidence that an entire culture of people existed (conservatively) more than 50,000 years before you claim to believe that the entire universe was created. These people already had their own religion, and they lived in a place that is far from where the Bible describes humans as coming from.

    I believe that this kind of evidence contradicts the Bible story of creation and therefore I don’t see what is so amazing about an ancient text describing a snake as a serpent like creature that crawls upon the ground.

    You have plainly stated before that you believe in micro-evolution but not macro. I still state that there is no evidence for any type of mechanism that can put an upper limit on the amount of change that can result from a long period of small successive changes which leads to a descendent animal being very different from their ancestors.

    The Creationist viewpoint is contradictory to the evidence. Within the scientific community at large there is no controversy over the issue of whether evolution happens. I’m not asking anyone to take my word on this. Please do the research for yourself.

    Thanks to anyone who read this forum.

  126. ADB said

    I’ve been reading this debate and want to make an observation from a different point of view, but without getting into a debate. The trouble with this entire debate has been whether or not Genesis 1-2 is scientifically verifiable, when the writer of Genesis was not trying to make a scientific statement. He was making a statement of faith that God created, did so with order, and placed humanity at the pinnacle of it. The trouble with asserting that Genesis 1-2 has to be taken as objective scientific/historical fact is that it essentially says that the only valid literature is objective scientific/historical writing. We are essentially defining arbitrarily what scripture can be. Another way of saying this is that when we come to Genesis to find out how old the earth is we are asking the wrong question. Needless to say, I think that Ken Ham is extremely dangerous to Christianity. My $.02 worth (no it’s probably just $.01).

    A curmudgeonly pastor 🙂

  127. Anonymous said

    Growing List Features Prominent Scientists That Disagree With Darwinism

    By Jim Brown

    More than 500 scientists have signed a statement expressing their doubts about the credibility of Darwinian evolution. As signatories of “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” these scientists are expressing skepticism about claims of evidence for the theory of evolution.

    Rob Crowther with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says Darwin’s theory is being increasingly challenged by emerging scientific evidence.

    “As time goes on and as we make new discoveries in science,” Crowther notes, “and as we find out more information about molecular biology and about DNA and the genome and these things, we’re beginning to see that the explanations that Darwin put forward — with natural selection and random mutation being the mechanism of how life evolved — just doesn’t seem to be the case.”

    The list was started five years ago, the Discovery Institute spokesman explains, back when Darwinists claimed there were virtually no reputable scientists who disagreed with the theory of evolution. Originally published in 2001, the list carries the names of scientific scholars and researchers from prestigious universities and research centers throughout the U.S. and the world.

    Many of the dissenters on the list hold degrees from institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Smithsonian Institute and some that have memberships in well-respected national academies of science as well, Crowther points out.

    “We have a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science who has signed the list,” the Discovery Institute spokesman says. Also, he notes, “We have two members from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Czech Republic, Hungary and elsewhere around the world. These are important because National Academy members are elected by their fellow scientists to be members … and they are the most prominent and prestigious scientists in the world.”

    According to Crowther, the “Dissent from Darwinism” list was initiated in response to erroneous statements in PBS’s “Evolution” series. Signers to date include 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Among these dissenters are scientists holding doctoral degrees in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines.

  128. Anonymous said

    Check out this link for a list of scientists who disagree with Darwinism:


  129. abc's said


    Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who “support evolution”. It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a “tongue-in-cheek parody” of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who “doubt evolution.”[1] The list pokes fun at such endeavors in a “light-hearted” manner to make it clear that, “We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!”[2]

    However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list’s restriction to only scientists with names like “Steve”, which limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population,[3] Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, since about 2/3 of the Steves are biologists.[4]

    The “Steve-o-meter” webpage provides an updated total of scientist “Steves” that have signed the list. The Steve-o-meter registered 866 Steves as of February 11, 2008.[5]

  130. anonymous atom said

    “But that list proves nothing. Darwin was right because I say so and that is all that matters.” – local Darwinist in regard to the Discovery Institute list and other lists out there that dismantle the assertion that all “true” Scientists hold to Darwinism.

    “Maybe if I say its true enough, long enough, loud enough, it will become true.” – local Darwinist in response to all the many questions and disagreements posed to Darwinism.

  131. Fred said

    Sorry, anonymous, but that a bunch of hooey. One need look no further than the Wikipedia entry for “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” to get an unbiased description of this attempt by the Discovery Institute (and yourself?) to shoehorn their Creationism into Science books.

    Nice try, though.

  132. Fred said

    Here’s the link:


  133. Fred said

    Re: posts 125 and 126

    Abc’s and ADB did an outstanding job of summarizing the differing positions.

  134. Anonymous said

    What the list does show is that there are many true scientists who disagree with Darwinism. The only reason I posted this was because of the claim made that within the scientific community there is no controversy over evolution. This is simply not true.

  135. Anonymous said


    Just because something is found on Wikipedia doesn’t mean that it is unbiased. Anyone can post articles there. It is hardly a reliable source. Some things on it are good and others are not.

  136. Fred said

    Sorry, again, Anonymous, but what the list shows is an attempt to show that many scientists disagree with Darwinism.

    In reality there are very few scientists who want Darwin and Intelligent Design taught as equals.

    Keep trying.

  137. Fred said

    Yes, but this Wiki entry was a good one. Tell us why the Scientific community is virtually unanimous in disagreeing with you?

    Why? Is there a conspiracy to keep “true scientists” from publishing?

    Or could it be exactly as ADB describes it in post 126?

  138. Anonymous said

    When did I mention anything about what is taught in classrooms? That is your hobby horse. All I did was post an article referencing a list of scientists who disagree with Darwin.

    “Sorry, again, Anonymous, but what the list shows is an attempt to show that many scientists disagree with Darwinism.”

    I agree. That’s why I posted it! 🙂

  139. abc's said

    I guess I didn’t qualify my statement enough. Let me explain.

    Within the scientific community at large there is no controversy over the issue of whether evolution happens.

    Evolution is simply the change in allele frequencies in a popular over time that lead to phenotype changes in response to selective pressures. I don’t think any true scientist would argue that point.

  140. Anonymous said

    Nice appeal to the majority. That proves nothing. The majority has been wrong many times in history. The fact is that not all true scientists accept Darwinism. That’s a fact, and that’s all I’m saying. Let’s just leave it at that.

  141. Anonymous said

    #138 was to Fred.

  142. Anonymous said


    I must get ready to go now. I’ll check back later.

  143. abc's said

    Another quick response before I have to go also.

    I can agree that some real scientists have signed the list in dissent of Darwinism.

    However, I know that it’s not always because they disagree with macro-evolution. A lot of them just disagree with Darwin’s idea that natural selection is the key mechanism of evolution. There is plenty of research being carried out to study other theories on mechanisms such as punctuated equilibrium, etc.
    But, overall, the idea that lifeforms slowly change over time is not disputed.

  144. Fred said

    Re: 137

    Read slowly:

    That “list of scientists who disagree with Darwin” is apparently not what you think it is.


  145. Fred said

    Here’s more help debunking post:127

    For Sneetchy Discovery Institute fans:


  146. anonymous atom said


  147. abc's said

    Anonymous Adam

    I think the real issue here is the “standard of evidence.”

    A list of scientists claiming that they don’t believe in Darwinism is not evidence.

    Real “evidence” is more akin to the information provided in post 16.

  148. F. L. A. said



  149. F. L. A. said


  150. John said

    F. L. A.’s been busy, eh? ADB, we’ve always enjoyed your 2 cents worth, and not in the same way that we enjoy people like Brad or MonkeyMan[smile].
    ABC’s post #125: No, thank YOU!

  151. Educated Dawg said

    Ok, I was gonna shut up but found some more info. The hominid lineage raised in Post#16 is very interesting. I’d like to provide a link that raises questions concerning our supposed ancestors.


    Either creationists are really trying to build a huge imagined conspiracy theory or the American public has truly been lied to for these past hundred odd years by evolutionists.

    In our modern computer driven society, obviously the information is out there. It all goes back to our motive, our biases, our world-view, and our belief/nonbelief in God. The evidence is the same, the interpretation is different.

    All of the wellknown forefathers of evolution were atheists or at least agnostics. Their bias against the supernatural led to their so-called scientific conclusions.

    We haven’t even spoken of the geologic time table with its circular reasoning – the fossils date the strata, the strata dates the fossils, etc.

    There are layers(pun intended) of objections to even modern molecules-to-man evolution. Yet, evolutionists sweep these objections under Charles Darwin’s beard 🙂

    Ok, I will shut up now 😉

  152. Educated Dawg said

    Sorry, I just wanted to make sure everyone was able to read it in it completely. The link is above for cross-examination :)-

    The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds’ which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
    Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of `finds’. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape’s jaw. Evolutionist declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and then placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look identical to any person’s today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of hominids. The brow ridge that supposedly marked the hominid appears only in one skull.

    “Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in which most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!” Famous Paleontologist Richard Leakey.
    “There is a strong tendency for fossils to be presented as if they were lucid texts to be read unambiguously rather than scrappy fragments of unknown morphologies.” Famous Paleontologist Misia Landau upon realizing how poor the fossil evidence was. ([14], p.?)
    “`We’ve got to have some ancestors. We’ll pick those.’ Why? `Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.’ That’s by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating.” Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History. ([10], p.74)
    Several of the supposed finds have relied on mere tooth or jaw fragments. These include Piltdown man, Dryopithecus, Ramapithecus, and Hesperopithecus. (see picture #1) ([9], p.42; [15], p.44)

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #1: Ramapithecus, considered the first `hominid’ for twenty years by evolutionists, was based only on these teeth. ([14], p.212)
    Piltdown was discovered in 1953 to have been nothing more than an Ape’s jaw placed with a human skull. It was a hoax placed on purpose. They recognized neither the jaw to be an ape’s or the skull to be a human’s. Instead, they declared each part as an in between of ape and human. They dated it to be 500,000 years old, gave it a name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni or `Dawn Man’), and wrote some 500 books on it. The `discovery’ fooled paleontologists for forty five years. (picture #2) ([8], p.24-25)

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #2: Scientists often demonstrate an utter inability to interpret their finds with any accuracy. This hoax, a human skull placed with an ape jaw, was not recognized as a hoax by the field for forty five years. During this time, they declared it to the public as being a human ancestor. ([8], p.25)
    Ramapithecus lasted twenty years as considered to be the first in-between of humans and apes by judgment based only on teeth. He is now know to be an extinct baboon. (picture #1)
    Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig’s tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years. (picture #3)

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #:3 Evolutionists often base their conclusions on such small `evidences’ as a single tooth. They reconstruct creatures on this basis alone as pictured here.
    Similarly, hominids (supposed in betweens) are declared on the basis of such things as a piece of a leg bone, a hip, or a knee piece, etc. (see picture #4) ([12], p.111; [2], p.51; [9], p.157)

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #4: An example of the poor evidence that evolutionists use is this hip bone `find’ that they say marked a `hominid’.
    Orce man was based on the skull cap of a donkey.
    The famous find named Lucy placed together looked nothing more than picture #5 yet it was regarded as a hominid without reservation.

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #5: Popular `finds’ were often based on nothing more than this and even these bones were not even found together or from the same individual. ([8], p.57)
    Regarding Lucy, in fact, it is known, “Lucy – when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the (earth) and more than two miles away.” ([3], p.83)
    Regarding the finder of Lucy we read, “…he regards the evolution of man from apes as self-evident, but who also regards the evidence as poppycock.”
    Rarely do they even know if the bone set is from the same individual.
    The Boisei skull was broken in 400 pieces but pieced together and declared as all from the same skull.
    Regarding the reconstructive drawings always made of these finds we note, “Well-known anthropologist E.A. Hooten has said that from a Neanderthal skull an artist can fashion the features of a chimpanzee or a philosopher and that it is wise to `…put not your faith in reconstructions.'”
    In addition to being poor, the fossils are also inconsistent. The Boisei skull has a large crest on the top (picture #6) unlike any supposed hominid before it or after it and nothing like any human ever.

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #6: This skull actually has a crest on the top (as ape skulls only, right picture) but it was declared as a human ancestor. ([2], p.139)
    The brow over the eyes which supposedly characterized lesser humans existed in none of the fossils prior to Neanderthal or after.
    Paleontologists have called simple rocks as hominid tools. (picture #7)

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #7: These simple rocks are actually declared by evolutionists to be tools of `hominids’. ([12], p.100,105)
    Even bones and teeth were picked as tools of hominids. (picture #8)

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #8: Evolutionists have declared nondescript bone and tooth remains to be tools of `hominids’. Pictured is one evolutionist demonstrating its use. ([8], p.59)
    The most non-descript footprints were called those of hominids. (picture #9)

    Sorry, no picture yet — awaiting publisher’s approval.

    Picture #9: These footprints were actually declared by evolutionists as those of `hominids’.
    Biochemists Allen Wilson and Vincent Sarich discovered that the first people had to originate less than 200,000 years ago and could only have come from an original two people. This made virtually all the paleontologist’s dates wrong and made all the posited bushes of human origins incorrect. ([15], p.130-131)
    “(That modern humans evolved in many different areas at the same time) is theoretically implausible based on current knowledge (in population genetics).” Popular geneticist Shahin Rouhani ([15], p.133)
    Famous Paleontologist Roger Lewin admits, “The mitochondrial DNA technique appears to support the Noah’s Ark hypothesis (that we originated from one set of people at the same location not many people and places as the evolutionists concluded). ([15], p.130-131)
    Outside the strict fossil evidence, therefore, each branch of scientific analysis that has focused on the origin of modern humans – mitochondrial DNA, population genetics, ecology – has cast its vote to replacement, the Noah’s Ark Hypothesis.
    The paleontologist dates had to be changed. They had hominids dating as far back as 63 million years.
    Biochemists and Molecular Biologists note that inferring relationships from fossils was “Fraught with potential error.” ([14], p.105)
    Sarich put it bluntly, “…it (a fossil) could not be (a hominid), because it was too old.” ([13], p.76)
    Paleontologists were slow to admit their errors or even look at any of the data. At first they just “…trimmed (their) dates…just in case there was something in it (the biochemistry data).” Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam ([14], p.116). Wilson stated that the paleontologists “…functioned as if we did not exist. They just ignored us.” ([14], p.116)
    After fifteen years, the paleontologists reluctantly accepted the biochemistry evidence. “We anthropologists were forced to admit we had been wrong and that Sarich and Wilson were closer to the right track than any of us had even imagined.” Paleontologist Richard Leakey. ([13], p.78)
    Paleontologists had been producing a new lineage every 10 – 20 years for 60 years. ([21], p.186) They could not draw these since, “To put it crudely, the appearance in a single species of a combination of characteristics some of which appear early…while others appear late.” ([15], p.76)
    Famous Paleontologist David Pilbeam, regarding two of the finds now known not to be hominids, observes, “We should have been aware how flimsy our original arguments had been and that should have made us more cautious. But it didn’t.” ([14], p.100)
    “That 130 years of very determined efforts to confirm Darwinism have done no better than to find a few ambiguous supporting examples is significant negative evidence.” ([11], p.84)

  153. Fred said

    Here’s some resources for those who wish to understand science, not some Creationists attempts to discredit it (see E. Dawg’s posts above)


  154. Bob Griffin said

    A question for the evolutionists: Where are the LIVING transitional forms? Not fossils, but living creatures?

  155. Chris C. said

    Although I am sure it wont make a difference in the minds of some, I just want to respond to E. Dawgs posts in order to show that they are not be-all, end-all arguments…not at all.

    You (or whoever wrote the information you copied into the reply) list the hoaxes of evolution, such as Piltdown Man, as if to discredit the theory as a whole. The fact that science was duped at one point has no relevance to the veracity of the theory.

    Another common point you make is that these ‘fossils’ often consist of just a few teeth, skull fragments, or limb bones. The bottom line is that real scientists can measure proportions of bones and put them into perspective with modern variation. Same with teeth. Certain dentition patterns found in mandible’s such as the Robust Australopithecines are markedly different from anything seen in modern human variation. In shot, we can learn an incredible ammount from only a few bones. Jut because a jawbone doesn’t mean much to you, doesn’t prove that it is not useful for anthropologists and archeologists.

    I don’t know what picture you plan on showing for Lucy, but it is unquestioned that she was at least partially bipedal. That is, she may he lived in the trees ocassionally, but she could certainly walk upright. The way in which the pelvic bones are shaped, and also the angle of the femur as it exits the pelvis are clear indication of bipedality, as well as the location of the spinal-cord entrance on the base of the skull, as opposed to the rear (as in quadrapeds).

    I am not sure what footprints you refer to in this piece of writing, but the footpints found by Mary Leaky at Laetoli are roughly 3.7 million years old. They are very clear, undisputed tracks left by bipeds in volcanic ash. The impression of the toes and feet is similar t humans, but lacks the strong arch of Homo sapiens, and also shows the ‘big-toe’ is still somewhat opposable. A clear transition from ape to human walking.

    In regards to th info about ‘picture 6’ which is a skull with a crest: The crest is commonly referred to as a sagittal keel or saggital crest and it is an evolutionary adaptation for larch mastication muscles that run up the side of the face. You will note all of these skull commonly have flared zygomatic arches as well (cheek bones) to allow for greater grinding force and chewing ability. The genus which has these large teeth and saggital crests is Paranthropus, or sometimes called the Robust Australopithecines. They were not apes as they have a different pre-molar pattern. They are not considered to be human ancestors (as suggested), but were an evolutionary dead end.

    With regards to the discussion of stone tools and bone/antler tools: I obviously cannot see the pictures you reference, but I can say you are being dense about this evidence. Flakes and cores (especially of the Oldowan and Acheulian style) are obviously not anything which nature could produce. A study of the surface of the rock under an electron microscope reveals hammer patters and fracture planes which indicate clear intelligent design in these tools, not just natural erosive forces. Later stone tool technologies (such as the magdelenian or mousterian ~50,000 years ago) are often found lumped together in large collections. Often the excess stone chips are found at mining sites. There is evidence that early Homo sapeins actually mined rocks from dozens or hundreds of miles away and brought them back to their homesites. We know this because the rock found at many Homo sites is not a naturally ocurring substance, it had to have been consciously brought in.

    Also, I have been studying human origins for sometime and have NEVER encountered anyone who thought that the earliest hominids were 60 million years old. We have long known the dinosaurs died out only 65 million years ago, and there is a large gap between their demise and the rise of hominids. Most estimates in the last few decades have placed the number around 7-5 million years ago. For further information see post 16. Also, I suggest the following books:

    The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins
    The Chosen Species by Juan Loius Arsuaga
    Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll

    Hope this helps provide some balance to the pseudo-science on here.

  156. Chris C. said


    Since evolution doesn’t have a ‘goal’ in mind, we cannot look at nature and say, “Oh such-and-such animal is clearing in between evolving from a bear into a … ”

    We just don’t know where evolution is headed. Humans, too, are also under selection pressure. This is why many have stated that, in a way, all organisms are transitional forms. We are not strivng toward some visible goal. We are only under control of natural selection, the great tinkerer. Hindsight is the only way we can truly point out the pivotal intermediate species.

    Also, evolution ocurrs on a geologic time scale, not a human one. We cannot sit around and expect to see things evolving before out eyes. Ocassionally this rapid evolution happens(as with viruses, etc.), but usually the only evolution we can see is that long line of ancestors which has brought us thus far.

    I am sure this will be a dissatisfying answer to you because you have a midunderstanding of what evolutionary theory truly is. Nevertheless, I think this is the best way to answer your question.

  157. abc's said

    There have already been some good responses regarding questions about previous hoaxes and reconstructing animals with only a few bones, so I won’t go into it.

    I just want to remind everyone that the fossil record is only one line of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The entire theory does not rest upon a few bones we found.

    The theory of evolution would predict that there should be fossils of creatures that contain many ape like features as well as a few human ones. Finding such creatures is indeed evidence that supports the theory.

    We have found many fossils of creatures that fit that description.

  158. Educated Dawg said

    Very interesting 🙂
    Seems the evolutionists here, when given examples that discredit their mantra…they always have another “proof” of evolution.

    “It’s no thte fossil record that proves evolution.” Yes, that is precisely the only socalled proof of macro-evolution. Without it, evolutionists have no bone to stand on. Why do you think so many Scientists are distancing themselves from Darwinism? Becuase there is no living transitional forms to go by – See Gould’s writings concerning Darwinism

  159. abc's said

    I’ve read Gould’s arguments.

    Perhaps you misunderstood.

    I am not stepping away from the fossil evidence. The fossil record does support evolution. I was just adding that it is not the only form of evidence that we have.

    We have strong evidence when we look at dna and genes, the geographical distrubtion of species, studies of divergent and convergent forms, comparative physiology and biochemistry, vestigial structures, endogenous retroviruses, and the list goes on. I am just adding that many different areas of scientific inquiry converge on the theory of evolution.

    We already discussed the notion that “so many scientists are distancing themselves from Darwiniasm.”

    Lastly, regarding post #152 refer to my post #147. The “evidence” you presented is not evidence. Read it again for yourself. It’s just a collection of quotes.

  160. Bob Griffin said

    For Chris C

    We cant look at nature and see evolution? How convenient. Can you explain the theory for me? Didnt Darwin say we should have transitional forms? Out of all our millions of species on earth, we can see no transitions happening. Please explain that.

  161. abc's said

    For Bob Griffin and everyone else who doesn’t understand what a transitional form is…

    I’m hesitant to do this because I already know you will say things like, “That’s just a fairy tale made up by an artist.. a cartoon that doesn’t prove anything.”

    So let me say this. I am not providing the link to this video as evidence. With that being said, the video is based on evidence from the fossil record. It was not just created willy nilly.

    Please take the time to watch the video. They skip many many steps as it is only 5 minutes long, but what I would ask that you pay attention to most are the parts where the frame centers in on an animal and the time line starts ticking rapidly.

    What you will see are transitional forms. Notice how long it takes for the tiny changes to add up and produce a new creature.

    Every living creature can be considered a transitional form.

    Once again. This is not evidence. It is only a useful tool to help in the understanding of what transitional forms are, and how many minute changes over succesive generations can lead to more complicated lifeforms.

  162. Educated Dawg said

    “We have strong evidence when we look at dna and genes, the geographical distrubtion of species, studies of divergent and convergent forms, comparative physiology and biochemistry, vestigial structures, endogenous retroviruses, and the list goes on. I am just adding that many different areas of scientific inquiry converge on the theory of evolution.”

    The Biblical creationist uses these same examples to teach young-earth creationism. Again, there is a distinction between microevolution(that which is Scientifically accurate) and molecules to man/macro evolution(that which is not Scientifically accurate).

    And yes, the info regarding the socalled hominid geneology is quotes, yet unrefuted quotes they are.

    “We are only under control of natural selection, the great tinkerer. Hindsight is the only way we can truly point out the pivotal intermediate species.”

    Chris C.,
    Thus we have the religion of man, ie molecules to man evolution. You are under the control of “the great tinkerer” and are making imaginery images based on your “hindsight” of things that died in the past. In actuality, there is no true proof of macro-evolution, only man’s guesses based on his preconcieved ideas regarding deity. You have replaced God with “natural selection” and true Science with “hindsight”. The creationist does not dispute natural selection. Nor do we disregard evidence of the past left in the present. We interpret the evidence based on the writings of the One that was there in the beginning. Macro-evolutionists interpret the evidence based on their depraved view of man and God. That is hardly a Scientific examination.

  163. abc's said

    Educated Dawg

    “The Biblical creationist uses these same examples to teach young-earth creationism.”

    That’s interesting. How do you examine the evidence and come to the conclusion that those things both provide evidence that the theory of evolution is incorrect and that the creation story is true? I’m asking because the discovery of those things leads to the theory of evolution.
    It’s not a rhetorical question. I would really like to know, because all of those evidences require a much longer time period than your idea allows for.
    Also, if the creation story is true, why can’t we use only the evidence to arrive at the creation story?

  164. Chris C. said

    Bob (p. 160):

    What I said was that, since we do not know what selection pressures will arise, we have no way of knowing which direction evolution will take certain species. If you are driving down a road with no destination in mind you cant say, “I’m on my way from Winston-Salem to LA.” All you can say is that you’re driving.

    Also, as mentioned, evolution (molecules to man, as you call it) almost always ocurrs at very slow rates; perhaps dozens or hundreds of generations in between different forms along the same lineage. Your idea that we should see millions of intermediate species around us is a misinterpetation of the modern syntesis of darwinian theory.

    E. Dawg:

    All of science is based on 2 basic ways of knowing. One, we look at the past and make INFERENCES about the future. These generalizations, if useful, will form inductively strong arguments which we call theories. Two, we test these theories using modern evidence and experiments. If the tests confirm the theories, then the theory gains support. If not, the theory is either revised or completely tossed out. Modern evolutionary theory has been suupported by geology, archeology, anthropology, biology, genetic studies, linguistics, pysics, and chemistry.

    Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with God. Please stop suggesting that it does. Germ theory also does not mention God, yet you accept it and are okay with it? Seems like a double standard.

    Once again, this distinction between natural selection and speciation is a poor attempt to espouse some science while rejecting that you dislike. Speciation is only the result of many years (decades, generations, millenia) of work by gene flow, genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. You don’t accept one, but not the other.

    “And yes, the info regarding the socalled hominid geneology is quotes, yet unrefuted quotes they are.”

    If you mean that the people who were quoted haven’t refuted their own quotations then okay. But, unless you wish to be willfully ignorant of the information I presented, I feel like I refuted/corrected most of the major arguments. I’m sorry I didn’t provide sources becuase the information was just in my head, but I did recommend some books which back up my (science’s) assertions. Also, a quick google search would yield much of the same information.

  165. Bob Griffin said

    Viruses, etc are examples of micro evolution. What am I missing about the theory? If you start with one animal, it has to transition to others. I guess maybe im not as keen an observer as Darwin. I cant see them.

  166. Fred said

    The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (real scientists) has concerns about the Creation Museum in Kentucky:

    From their website:

    “The Creation Museum’s fossil exhibitions, though artistically impressive, include a vast number of scientific errors, large and small. These errors range from implying that the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited by a single biblical Flood, to claiming that humans and dinosaurs lived alongside one another, to denouncing the reality of transitional fossils.”


    “Ken Ham is not recognized as a scientist or educator among experts in the fields of geology and paleontology, and his views on the interpretation of Biblical texts are extremist. Visitors to his ‘museum’ may arrive knowing little about these sciences, but they will leave misled and intellectually deceived,” said Dr. Kevin Padian, professor and curator, University of California, Berkeley and president of the National Center for Science Education.

    Golly, is this evidence of a conspiracy against Creationism, or just another example of Creationist pseudo-science?

    link to follow…

  167. Fred said

    Indispensable links to reading material about Creationism/Evolution from Internet Infidels:


  168. Brand W said

    Endogenous Retroviruses are air-tight evidence that we are descended from other mammals. They are the fingerprints of macro-evolution. They have nothing to do with micro-evolution.

  169. Bob Griffin said

    Chris C

    If im driving from Winston to LA, I should be able to look out the window and see evolution. Even Darwin wonders why nature is not in disarray. I do too. If I go into an auto factory that shut down, I will see the entire process from A-Z. Not so with nature. Why cant we look out the car window and see evolution in action?

  170. Bob Griffin said

    Brand W,

    I have to disagree. Change within a cell is micro evolution. Show me change from a dog to a person. We dont see that.

  171. abc's said


    You have a basic misunderstanding about the evolutionary process. The car analogy doesn’t work.

    99% of all species that have ever existed have become extinct. They became extinct because at some point they were no longer fit to survive and reproduce. This is the answer to your question. This is why we don’t see every type of intermediate form still alive today. They have evolved or died out.

    Based on your next statements you must also ignorant of the evidence presented with endogenous retroviruses. Take the time to look it up and familiarize yourself with the information.

  172. Educated Dawg said

    i guess only evolutionists can understand macro-evolution? Maybe creationists just haven’t evolved enough yet to “get it” 🙂

    Ain’t Berkley one of, if not the most liberal university in America?

    As for Ken Ham, he is not above reproach nor does he “run the show”. He keeps himself surrounded with true Scientists that critique AiG to keep it in check, so to speak.

    Now, lets get this straight. We can go to the local natural history museum that promotes macr-evolution and transitional fossils(even though there are none) and everyone oooh’s and awww’s at the “Scientific” displays. Then we go to a creation museum that is built around the Biblical account of creation according to the Christian God and His word. And all we say is “nope, dino’s and humans never existed together. Nope, no God for us. Give me macro-evolution or give me death!”

    Then we have the nerve to say “Crocodiles – living DINOSAURS” 😉
    Go figure…………….

  173. abc's said


    “We can go to the local natural history museum that promotes macr-evolution and transitional fossils(even though there are none) and everyone oooh’s and awww’s at the “Scientific” displays.”

    If those people aren’t looking at actual transitional fossils then what are they looking at?

    I personally don’t have a problem with creationist building their own displays to illustrate the creation story and to teach people about it.
    However, I do feel I have to speak up when they have the nerve to call it a museum and to present those things as Science and based on evidence. That is dishonest.

  174. Brand W said

    The problem is that Creationists assume that scientists are just as backward and ignorant as they are themselves. What’s the typical Creationist response to science? “awww them fellers are just makin’ it up to support their belief in Darwin-God.”
    It’s just projection. Same reason why scientists get so frustrated with the creationists. We think, if only they had the evidence in front of them, surely they would see it. But it’s not bad evidence but bad thought processes that keep them in the dark.

  175. abc's said

  176. Educated Dawg said


    The dishonesty that I get frustrated with is macro-evolutionist propaganda that teaches todays youth they are nothing but animals along the evolutinary link to change, that they are not a special creation by a infinite God who knows them and holds all things in the power of His might.

    The dishonesty that I get frustrated with is the macro-evolutionist propaganda that erects monuments to mother nature – natural “science” museums.

    Yet, it is creationists who have an agenda filled with “lies” and “unScientific” displays?

    I have no problem with macro-evolutionists building centers that promote their religion of materialism. I just think it is downright dishonest to not teach both the pro’s and con’s of macro-evolution, instead promoting it as written in fossil 100% truth from the horses mouth 🙂 It is only macro-evolutionists that proclaim macro-evolution as Science. Like has been said before – “If I speak loud enough, often enough, then hopefully it will become true.” The macro-evolutionary agenda is no different than that of the gay rights movement. Loud voices and lots of money dictate what is considered “truth”. Sadly, it is my tax dollars that are supporting such rubbish as natural science museums and politicians that will legalize gay marriage and “hate” speech laws.

    Gory to “molecules to man” evolution in the lowest. And unrest on earth. Preservation to the favored races and godless delusion to all.

    Brand W.,
    Not all Scientists are macro-evolutionists. I guess Isaac Newton was backwards and ignorant too, among many other Biblical creationist Scientists. 😦

  177. F. L. A. said



  178. F. L. A. said


  179. Fred said

    Willful ignorance of natural philosophy is the hallmark of the Young Earth Creationist.

    They choose ignorance. The problem is that they occasionally insist on foisting their pretentious pseudo-science on the rest of us.

    Eternal vigilance will keep us free from being ruled by them.

  180. abc's said


    You said, [sic]

    “If I speak loud enough, often enough, then hopefully it will become true.”

    Can’t you see that this same idea could apply to the creationist idea?

    You also said,

    ” The macro-evolutionary agenda is no different than that of the gay rights movement. Loud voices and lots of money dictate what is considered “truth” Sadly, it is my tax dollars that are supporting such rubbish as natural science museums and politicians that will legalize gay marriage and “hate” speech laws.. ”

    I don’t even know how to respond to baseless assertions like that.

    I came to this forum to try and provide some evidence in a logical manner that supports the theory of evolution. I had hoped to hear interesting and new ideas from the creationist side, and maybe even see some evidence presented in opposition to the theory of evolution that hasn’t already been discredited.

    I tried my best to be fair and respond to all who submitted their opinions, and to not make brash claims or sweeping generalizations that cannot be supported with evidence. I also tried not to disparage anyones personal religious beliefs.

    I hope that I was successful in this.

  181. Bob Griffin said


    99% are extinct. OK, how does the mindless process of nature have all our species stopped at the same stage that we see? If i turn on 10 flashlights and let them shine till they go out, they will go out at different times. We should still see evolution, no matter what has happened to the other 99%. As to the virus, once again, show me a living transitional form. Maybe cow to human, bird to whale etc. We should be able to look out the window and see this.

  182. Bob Griffin said


    Wisdom teeth dont bother me. I just wonder about the big picture – why we dont see the transitional forms? This grand theory says we should have them, but they are all extinct. Thats convenient. Did Darwin observe this?

  183. Chris C. said


    Evolution has not stopped, neither has natural selection. However, these processes work because they act on inherited traits. Inheritance requires multiple generations, which requires many years. Again, evolution occurrs on a geologic time scale, not on a human one. Your desire for cow-man and whale-bird transitional forms is silly. No one says we should see these type of transitional forms…well no one except Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, and their ilk.

    Your questions continue to indicate a lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory. The text of the Origin of Species is not the be all and end all of evolutionary theory. It wasnt until Gregor Mendel’s work was published in the late 19th century that we even had a good explanation for heritable traits. Obviously Darwin didn’t have access to this information. However we do have this information now, along with mounds of other new discoveries and evidence which combine to form the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution. This is one of my fields of study, and so I know something about it. I’m not trying to condescend because I know that we all have different areas of expertise.

    You have taken your limited and partially erroneous ideas about evolutionary theory and made this dichotomy such that, “If evolution is true, we should see X, Y, and Z. No X, Y, Z? Well creation must then be true!” This is a false dichotomy and a false dilemma.

    Also, why don’t wisdom teeth and vestigial organs bother you? Seems like God wouldn’t have made any mistakes in designing people in his own image.

  184. Brand W. said

    And he still doesn’t know what ERVs are.

  185. John said

    Mr. Griffin, I was wondering if you know anything of the dolphin that was caught by some oriental fishermen last year? In case you don’t, what made this dolphin particularly special was the fact that it had four flippers, that is, two fully functional back flippers.You see, it is seen as a genetic “through- back”, undeniable proof that these marine mammals once had four legs.
    I believe that it now resides in a big marine park somewhere.
    Try and check it out on the internet sometime.You may think of it simply as some isolated freak of nature, and you would not really be wrong about that, but this also wouldn’t mean that it’s not what the evolutionary scientist think it is either.So if you did want a living transitional form, that is, something that you could see at a “half-way point” so to speak, then there you go.

  186. John said

    Sorry, that’s “throw back”.You knew what I meant.

  187. Educated Dawg said


    in regard to the dolphin………. 🙂 😉

  188. Fred said

    Re: post 187

    Here’s a little info one needs to keep in mind when perusing that link to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) that Educated Dawg wants us to read. Turns out the ICR is just another pseudo-scientific fundamentalist attempt to appear legit.

    “The work of ICR creation science researchers is not published in any mainstream scientific journals, and there is no collaboration in research between these groups. ICR claims to use the same scientific principles and review the same evidence as the wider scientific community. However the wider, mainstream, scientific community generally takes a sharply different view, emphasizing that in true science all hypotheses are tentative and testable, and contrasting this to ICR’s research, in which all scientific questions must accept at the outset a given established conclusion and the supernatural processes invoked cannot be tested by empirical evidence and reasoning within the scientific framework of methodological naturalism. As a result, the scientific community says such work conducted at the ICR cannot be called science.” from Wikipedia

    link to follow…

  189. Fred said



    It appears the ICR were run out of California where they couldn’t get accreditation; they relocated to Texas where they figure it’ll be easier!

  190. F. L. A. said


  191. Bob Griffin said

    183 Chris c

    Evolution occurs on a grand scale. Fine, but once again, all our species are clearly defined. We should see some changing going on. Please enlighten me on how this works, since once again I dont see it. We came from one animal, so how did the change occor. You assume too much. When I dont see x,y and z I only assume Darwin is wrong. Creation is a different topic.

    Im glad you are sure of the use of the vestigal organs and also you know that God makes mistakes. You are smarter than God? Maybe there is a purpose for them we dont know about. As with all Darwinian thought, you have a lot of assumptions.

    Please tell me the correct way all of us were supposed to form. Ive read the book, so give me your thoughts.

  192. Bob Griffin said

    John 185

    Its all in the mindset. I see 4 flippers as a genetic accident, you see it as 4 legs. Then you conclude its undeniable proof of evolution and its a transitional form. My point is, with all these slow transformations over time, you should have millions of forms we see to argue your point from. Instead, we always have one dubious form to argue over. Where are all the forms? We do not see them.

  193. Chris C. said

    Species have always been clearly defined. Look at some of the intermediate speces between chimps and humans. They all possessed some chimp and some human traits, but they were individual species, genetically distinct. You continue to repeat this mantra, “We should see some changing going on. We should see living transitional forms.” I have explained that this is not the case. We should, indeed, see fossilized species that demarcate transitions between clades. Such evidence has been presented (Acanthostega, Australopithecines, Archeoptheryx, etc.).

    The reason we see these as ‘transitional’ species is precisely because we see a BEFORE and AFTER and these species, while no longer alive, are wonderful examples of how the BEFORE turned into the AFTER. However, right now, at this moment, the only picture we have to look at with respect to current species is the BEFORE picture; we do not know the AFTER yet. Therefore we cannot distinguish which species are currently ‘transitional.’

    If we were all designed by a god then I can say, yes I am smarter than he. Why? Because I know that wisdom teeth serve no purpose; that putting the larynx and pharynx in their location in the throat causes thousands of suffocations every year when in most species these two passageways are separate; our reproductive and excretory systems are located in the same place…

  194. John said

    Hello again Mr. Griffin.
    As you said, it’s a mind set.That said I knew that this example, or any example/s for that matter would be found as insufficient evidence for my case beforehand, but I though I’d make an offer anyway so I could study your response/s. I don’t want to change your mindset, as I believe this to be impossibal anyway.I’m really just interested in studying how you try and defend your view. Remember that[grin].That, and I enjoy arguing about controversial topics for fun, as I am an opinionated and aggressive pain in the a…
    As to an answer to your response #192, I believe that Chris C. has answered that for me, save for the last part about being smarter than DEITY.Gotta go now. Hope to hear from you soon.

  195. Educated Dawg said

    In regard to ICR, they relocated after Dr. Henry Morris went on to be with Jesus Christ. Dr Morris founded ICR and was one of the pioneers in modern Biblical creationism. Writing numerous Scientific articles and books in regard to evolution/creation. ICR is one of the foremost creationist ministries and is advancing to disprove Evolution, Scientifically with its latest RATE studies.

    You can not believe everything that is written on Wikepidia. Surely, the evolutionist run Scientific community is unbiased? Right? 😦 Yeah, right! 😉

    Just look at the dolphin projection. Evolutionists say “see, see, it is proof that dolphins once had 4 legs.” Yet, why does it have its back fins? Would seem to me that the back fins would be the “evolutionized” back legs of the primitive dolphins.

    Obviously the evolutionists have nothing to stand on and are grasping at straws, or should I say fins….. 🙂

    Lets see – AiG is fanatical and Ken Ham is quasiChristian. ICR is unScientific and got ran out of California. Well, what does wikepedia say about Creation Research Society? Or Discovery Institute?

  196. F. L. A. said


  197. Fred said

    “ICR is one of the foremost creationist ministries and is advancing to disprove Evolution, Scientifically with its latest RATE studies.” – Educated Dawg

    This is laughable. RATE is not accepted by the scientific community and as far as I can tell has never been reviewed or published outside the domain of Creationist pseudo-science.

    I could respect your opinions in this topic if you had started by saying “I understand what science is and what it tells us, but I choose not to believe it”.

    Until then, you appear to be ignoring not what science tells us, but what science is altogether. May God bless you, and open your eyes my willfully ignorant friend.



  198. Fred said


    an interesting discussion of RATE on the Internet Infidels forum:


    A website I found that seems to spell it out nicely:


  199. Educated Dawg said


    FALLACIES—A fallacy is something which is logically unsound. It can either be a false conclusion, or an incorrect method of arriving at an unsound conclusion. Either one can be the result of accident or deceptive intent.

    Formal fallacies are arguments in which the premises (the statements used as evidence) fail to justify or support the conclusion. There are also several types of nonformal fallacies. Let us consider eighteen fallacies used to support the claims of evolutionary theory. We will discuss the first few in more detail to help you grasp the fallacious reasoning. False arguments will be stated in italics:

    1 – Fallacy of Relevance. The argument from irrelevance occurs when the conclusion depends on evidence that does not apply to the same point. The next paragraph would be a true statement:

    “Scientists do not yet understand the function of certain body organs. In the past, there were large numbers of organs whose purpose was not known; today there are but few. Each decade more and more information has been obtained about various body organs. The obvious conclusion from those facts is that if organic functions are not known, it will only be a matter of time before further research discloses those functions.”

    In contrast, evolutionists irrelevantly contend that all such organs lack functions entirely! They declare that such organs have not had any functions for thousands of years, and are leftovers from our animal ancestors! That conclusion bears no relation to the facts. A hundred years ago the functions of dozens of organs were unknown. Gradually functions were found; today nearly all human organs have known functions. Yet certain evolutionists continue to declare that those organs are inherently functionless. (See chapter 22.)

    2 – Begging the Question. This fallacy occurs when a person presents his own assurance that he is telling the truth as the reason why his statement is true.

    (1) “I have been a scientist all my life, and I can tell you that evolution is true.”

    (2) “Evolution has been fully vindicated and proven by science; I have witnessed this over and over again all my life.”

    (3) “You can take my word for it, evolution is true.”

    Repeatedly, in this set of books, we have observed instances of this blockade to careful thinking. Over and over again, evolutionists have maintained in articles and speeches that evolution has been fully proven, and is accepted universally by all reputable scientists. We are to believe these statements because the one telling us is supposed to be a renowned scientist. No other evidence is given, for, indeed, no other evidence for such statements dare be given. (See chapter 31 and 37.)

    3 – Misuse of Authority. This error is similar to the one just mentioned. “Because we are the authorities on the matter, therefore what we say is correct. ”

    The public is asked to ‘just let the scientists decide for you” as to the truth about evolution. But what is needed is evidence, not statements of assurance by scientists. After 150 years of searching for evidence in support of evolution, we need assurance from facts, not assurance from the men searching for the facts. (See chapter 31.)

    Evolutionists tell us that “mutations are the cause of beneficial changes in species, and, ultimately, changes across species. This is so, “we are told, “because scientists are sure it is so. ” But the evidence does not support the claim. Not one mutation in a million is beneficial, so how could mutations produce useful change—since literally billions of beneficial—and closely inter-related mutations would be needed in order to produce a new species. (See chapter 14.)

    4 – False Comparisons. When two items are wrongly compared in an argument, this fallacy occurs.

    The peppered moth argument is an example of this. The one species of moth comes in two different colors. “Because birds ate the dark ones on light-bark trees before the 1850s, and have tended to eat the light ones on dark-bark trees since then, therefore this is a powerful evidence that one type of creature evolves into a different type.” But in the case of the moths, they are both sub-species of the same peppered moth, and both sub-species existed before 1800, and today both sub-species still exist. Changes within species does not constitute evolution, and in regard to peppered moths, no change within species has occurred, much less across species. (See chapter 13.)

    5 – Argumentum ad Populum. This is an argument addressed “to the people.” This occurs when popular feelings are pandered to, when people are told what they want to hear—and what they are told is declared to be a “scientific fact.”

    (1) “Science is progressive and is itself evolutionary”

    (2) “Evolution is the belief of moderns. ”

    (3) “Everyone that is educated believes this theory.”

    An implication of much of the evolutionary teaching is that our race has raised itself by its own bootstraps and we will eventually be gods, knowing and doing every possible thing, including inter-galactic space travel. All this appeals to the public, and they are assured that evolution must be true. At least, they surely hope so.

    6 – Fallacy of Dating. Perhaps we could entitle this one the argumentum ad chronicum. The argument from age (dating fallacy) occurs when something is declared to be so simply by giving it an old date!

    All through the pages of this set of books we have repeatedly observed examples of the fallacy of proving evolution simply by dating various substances as very ancient.

    (1) Radioactive and other dating techniques are used to provide notoriously inaccurate dates, which are then declared to be correct. (Chapter 7.) These dates are then offered as evidence that evolutionary theory must be true. Yet, not only are the dates inaccurate, but the ancientness of such dates can never provide evidence of biological evolution; only trans-species fossil evidence from the past, and natural selection and mutational evidence today, can provide that—and both have signally failed to do so. (Chapters 13, 14, and 17.)

    (2) Without any reason for doing so, fossils and sedimentary strata have been arbitrarily assigned special ancient dates in the hope that this will heighten the impression that there is something “scientific” about evolutionary claims. Yet those fallacious dates provide us with no evidence of biological evolution. (Chapter 17.)

    (3) Very ancient dates have been arbitrarily assigned to paleomagnetic findings, on the basis of the erroneous dates claimed for fossils and strata. But, here again, the resultant dates are not evidence for biological evolution (Chapter 26.)

    7 – Misuse of Analogy. One occurrence is referred to, and then, by analogy, is made an explanation for a different event, in order to provide evidence for a belief.

    *Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), an English philosopher, frequently spoke of the struggle between animals, and then said that, therefore, human beings must continually fight together also. That is a fallacy of analogical proof. (Chapter 33.)

    8 – Fallacy of Special Pleading. This fallacy occurs when an individual positively or negatively dramatizes evidence in order to make it look very good or very bad.

    One example of this was *Haekel’s dramatic lectures, complete with skeletons on the platform and large copies of his fraudulently prepared embryo charts. Another would be the dramatically presented “5-bone limb” charts in public presentations, to indicate evolutionary relationships. Yet, although many diverse creatures have the same number of bones in their arms, forearms, and hands, structural similarity does not demand genetic relationship. In contrast, the DNA barrier forbids one animal from descending from another. (Chapter 21.) We should stay with science, not artful words.

    9 – Reasoning in a Circle. Circulus in probando, literally, “a circle in a proof,” is the fallacy of circular reasoning. The cause is stated as being the proof of the effect, which normally would be all right,—but in this case, the cause IS the effect! Or A is used to prove B, then B is used to prove A!

    Circular reasoning is used several times as a proof of evolutionary theory.

    (1) “Because nothing was there, therefore that which exploded was nothing. Because stars were there afterward, they came from that explosion of nothing.” (Chapter 1.)

    (2) “It took long ages to produce evolution, and we know it occurred because there were long ages while it occurred.” (Chapters 7, 9.)

    (3) “There was only sand, seawater, lightning, and volcanoes to produce evolution, so we know that is what produced it. “Chapter 9.)

    (4) “Only a simple organism could have arisen when life first began; there are simple organisms alive today, so this shows that life began with a simple organism.” (Chapters 9, 11.)

    (5) “Only the fittest have survived, so the things which have survived are the fittest.” (Chapter 13.)

    10 – Fallacy of Asserting the Consequences. Because an effect occurred, a certain cause must have taken place. The problem with this thinking is that several different causes could have produced that particular effect: “If It rains, I will get wet. I have gotten wet. Therefore it has rained.”

    (1) “We know the stars must have evolved out of nothing because they are here now, and they had to come from somewhere.” (Chapter 2.)

    (2) “The earth must be millions of years old, because evolution requires millions of years.” (Chapter 17.)

    (3) “The earth must be millions of years old, because scientists, using a score of assumptions, have radiodated it that age.” (Chapter 7.)

    (4) “Life had to evolve out of non-living materials, for there is no other way plants and animals could have gotten here.” (Chapter 9.)

    (5) “Mutations were the cause of biological evolution because there is no other means by which it could have been accomplished.” (Chapter 14.)

    (6) “Everything evolves—stars, earth, plants, animals, and Society—because that is the way it has to be.” (Chapter 33.)

    11-Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. This is the default fallacy. It is also called the “argument addressed to ignorance.” Since one position cannot be proven, it must be the other; since no other position has been proven, ours must be the right one.

    (1) “Since creationism could not possibly be true, ours wins by default.” (Chapters 37, 29.)

    (2) “Since no events in the far distant past can be scientifically falsified, then evolution must clearly be the cause of everything.” (Chapter 37.)

    (3) “Evolution is the only theory which scientists believe to be correct, therefore it must be the right one.” (Chapter 30.)

    (4) “A supernatural solution to the problem of origins is impossible—by definition!” (Chapters 29, 30.)

    12 – Religious Argument. This is a specialized argument used by evolutionists against creationists. But none of the arguments try to disprove the evidence in its favor. In order to clarify issues, we will use similar arguments: “People who wear mustaches believe in evolution, therefore it is not true.” “Evolution mentions dinosaurs, therefore it could not be correct.” “Evolutionists are often not Christians, therefore it cannot be true.” Here are some of the actual arguments used:

    (1) “Creationism cannot be correct because it is also found in the Bible.” (Chapters 30, 29, 34.)

    (2) “Creationism cannot be correct because many religious people believe it.” (Chapters 30, 29, 34.)

    (3) “Creationism cannot be correct because it assumes a belief in God.” (Chapters 30, 29, 34.)

    (4) “Creationism cannot be correct because it is moralistic and teaches morals.” (Chapters 30, 29, 34.)

    13 – Wrong Observations. This argument arises when the observed event does not match the conclusion that is made about it.

    The “creation of life” experiments would be an example of this. Because some chemicals were used to produce traces of inert, non-living amino acids, therefore the evolutionists proclaimed in the public press that “life has been created by mankind!” (See chapter 9.)

    14 – Argument by General Consent. This is the argument that something is true because “everybody believes it.”

    (1) “There can be no doubt that evolution is true, for everybody believes it today. ” (Chapters 30, 3334).

    (2) “Everyone knows that we evolved; what’s wrong with you?” (Chapters 30, 33-34).

    15 – Fallacy of False Cause. This is the error of attributing one cause to a different effect.

    “Only mutations cause change in the genes, therefore evolution occurred.” (Chapter 14.)

    16 – Argument from Distorted Science. This is a valued argument of the evolutionists: the declaration that science teaches that which it does not teach—and then use that as evidence in favor of evolution.

    (1) “The earth is an open system, therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to it.” (Chapter 25.)

    (2) “Neither stellar nor earthly evolution is governed by laws that we know today, therefore it is outside the realm of empirical science, proofs, predictions, and falsification.” (Chapter 25.)

    (3) “Evolution has been as fully proven as the atom and all the other laws of nature.” (Chapter 31.)

    17 -Argumentum ad Baculum. This is the “argument of the club.” It is simple and to the point: “Either you agree with me or I will cause you great injury. ”

    (1) “Either you change your thesis or we will have to drop you from the graduate program.” (Chapters 29-30, 33-34.)

    (2) “If you do not support the policies of this research center, you will be discharged. ” (Chapters 29-30, 33-34.)

    (3) “You are to conduct this experiment and find the evidence we discussed and develop the assigned conclusion, or else.” (Chapters 29-30, 3334.)

    (4) “Either your administration comes into line, or no further grants will be given to your institution.” (Chapters 29-30, 33-34.)

    18 – Fallacy of False Relationships. This is the error of proving a relationship on the basis of inadequate evidence.

    (1) “Hydrogen must have clumped together to form stars, for how else could they have gotten there?” (Chapter 2.)

    (2) “It was predicted that if rough background radiation with a temperature of 5K was found, that would prove the Big Bang; perfectly smooth background radiation with a different temperature was later discovered, so that proves that the Big Bang occurred.” (Chapter 1.)

    (3) “All the planets have six of the 92 elements, so this indicates common origin.” (Chapter 23.)

    (4) “Because different species have similarities, therefore they must have had a common ancestor. ”

    (5) “Because mutated fruit flies have produced damaged wings, therefore evolution was caused by mutations.” (Chapter 14.)

    (6) “All living things have cells, therefore they must have come from a common source. ” (Chapter 11.)

    (7) “All living things are interdependent, so this shows evolution.” (Chapter 23.)

    (8) “Rock strata time charts prove long ages. ” (Chapter 17.)

    (9) “Migration of populations into new areas has occurred, therefore this is an evidence of evolution.” (Chapter 27.)

    (10) “Aging changes in the lifetime of an individual is a proof of evolution.” (Chapter 23.)

    (11) “Woodpeckers punch holes in trees, so they must have evolved this ability. ” (Chapter 23.)

    (12) “Man with careful planning can selectively breed new sub-species of dogs, therefore random mutations can develop new species.” (Chapter 23.)

    (13) “There are various species of extinct animals, therefore evolution must have occurred.” (Chapter 17.)

    (14) “Owls eat the white mice first, and this is an evidence of evolution.” (Chapter 23).

    (15) “Different creatures are found in different places in the world, therefore evolution occurred. ” (Chapter 27.)

    (16) “Because there are several different creatures that looked like horses (although they had differing numbers of ribs, etc.), therefore horses evolved.” (Chapter 23.)

    (17) “The earliest organisms were smaller and slower, and the later ones were larger and faster, therefore only evolution could explain why that happened.” (Chapter 17.)

    (18) “A larger number of species are found in the higher strata than in the lower, therefore evolution must have occurred.” (Chapter 17.)

    (19) “Charles Darwin proved evolution, therefore we know it occurred.” (Chapter 29.)

    (20) “Variations exist among people (eye color, height, etc.), therefore evolution occurred. ” (Chapter 23.)

    (21) “Geographic isolation produces changes within species, therefore evolution across species occurred.” (Chapter 27.)

    (22) “Predators kill animals, and this is an evidence of evolution.” (Chapter 23.)

    (23) “Teeth become smaller with age, and this reveals evolutionary change.” (Chapter 23.)

    (24) “Flowers, insects, etc., mimic one another in shape, color, etc., therefore this is an evidence of evolution.” (Chapter 23.)

    (25) “A Devonian fish must have climbed out of the water and become an animal, and this would be another evidence of evolution.” (Chapter 23.)

    (26) “Evolution has been nearly established, for we will soon have found the missing link of man.” (Chapter 18.)

    (27) “Given enough time evolution will occur, and we know from theories about fossils and strata that long ages have indeed occurred.” (Chapter 17.)

    (28) “Minks change color in the winter, therefore evolution has occurred among minks.” (Chapter 23.)

    (29) “We know that man has lived on earth for long ages, for we have found stone arrowheads and other stone artifacts.” (Chapter 18.)

    (30) “Dinosaurs once lived on the earth and later they became extinct, therefore evolution has occurred.” (Chapter 17, 19.)

    (31) “At an earlier time some people lived in caves, therefore they must have been very ancient and evolution must have occurred.” (Chapter 18.)

    (32) “Evolutionary theory is not under natural law, therefore it could easily have occurred.” (Chapter 25.)

    (33) “Evolutionary theory cannot be proven, therefore it cannot be denied.” (Chapter 37.)

    (34) “Evolution is non-refutable, and is therefore outside the realm of falsification.” (Chapter 37.)

  200. John said

    Most interesting.
    What theological based science book/s, or web site did you get this information out of, Educated Dawg? It sounds like something good to add to my libraries.

  201. F. L. A. said


  202. Educated Dawg said


    I’ll give the link later on. Any Scientific errors in the post though?

    We are a degraded group, progressively getting worse. All humanity is devolving, not evolving. The greatest minds that ever existed are not of the 19th,20th, or 21st centuries. We are only living on what our forefathers already knew. We’re piggy backing 🙂

  203. Willie said

    The greatest minds that ever existed are not of the 19th,20th, or 21st centuries. We are only living on what our forefathers already knew.

    I guess Einstein wasn’t a great mind.

  204. Maz Herman said

    Has anyone heard of irreducible complexity?
    It means nothing can work unless it is made complete.
    How does a heart evolve? Or the lungs? Or a liver? I could go on ad infinitum, but these things cannot work half made or evolved.

  205. Chris C. said

    Irreducible Complexity is a term coined by intelligent desgn proponent Michael Behe. His favorite examples are the human eyes and the bacterial flagellar motor.

    Unfortunatly for Mr. Behe, these exmaples (and many others) were shown to NOT be irreducibly complex at the trail in Dover PA and also by many biologists and researchers worldwide. Authorities from both Intelligent Design groups and evolutionary scientists testified regarding the evidence for truly irreducibly complex structures. The judge in this case found no compelling evidence to see any of these structures as irreducibly complex.

    The bottom line is that your asserton is wrong. All of these items CAN work at less evolved stages. Numerous books have been written on the subject, especially about the eye. Do yourself a favor and read up on it without just parotting the talking points of Intelligent Design proponents. If you really don’t believe me, Ill provide more detailed info about the evolution of the eye (a feat which has ocurred SEPARATELY hundreds of times in our planet’s history).

  206. Chris C. said

    E. Dawg:

    Regarding your large post of supposed evolutionist fallacies. I read through most of it and can say I don’t think very many of them are accurate or applicable. I’m not going to refute every one because, frankly, there’s just too many to deal with, mostly so ungrounded I wouldn’t know hard to argue against it other than to simply say, “wrong.”

    Example: The very last one, “Evolution is non-refutable, and is therefore outside the realm of falsification.” — No scientist I have ever heard holds to this view. There are plenty of things which would utterly reject modern evolutionary theory. We simply haven’t encountered any of those things yet.

    A few more:

    (1) “Since creationism could not possibly be true, ours wins by default.” (Chapters 37, 29.)

    (2) “Since no events in the far distant past can be scientifically falsified, then evolution must clearly be the cause of everything.” (Chapter 37.)

    (3) “Evolution is the only theory which scientists believe to be correct, therefore it must be the right one.” (Chapter 30.)

    WRONG WRONG WRONG. I don’t know where you got this. If this really was all we had for arguments for evolution, I can see why people wouldn’t believe it. Unfortunatly these are all outright lies or straw-men. Sorry.

  207. Maz Herman said

    Chris, maybe you can tell me how my eye evolved? How do I see without everything being where it is supposed to be? Have YOU read anything other than evolutionist dogma?

  208. Chris C. said

    I love how it is referred to as ‘dogma.’ We don’t refer to the heliocentric ‘dogma’ do we? Well, I guess some people do.

    In response to your question, yes, I have read quite a bit of creationist / ID writings as I actually went to a private, Christian (mostly baptist) high school that taught literal, young-earth creationism.

    As there are many different types of eyes, let’s take the human eye for example. It stared out as a patch of light-sensitive cells in our flatworm ancestors. These type of cells would be favored by natural selection because they allow for movement towards light, air, etc. Then, any sort of concavity in the shape of the cells, simliar to a concave lens, would allow light to focus better and actually begin to form an image. Over many sucessive generations, greater concavity would be selected for until the eye reached the shape of a circle or parabola. In many species, this is all we see. A circular hole of light-sensitive cells.

    The human eye advanced further. A mucous membrane developed over the cave of cells to filter ligh and provide focal points. This transition is all the more easier to discern in pictures:

    As I said, this theory has been very well cofirmed by modern studies. And some deficiencies such as blind spots and detached retinas are results of historical constraints in our eye’s evolution. Needless to say, the eye is not irreducibly complex when one actually takes the time to figure out how it evolved. In answer to the famous question, “What’s the use of half an eye?” I say half an eye is 1% better than 49% of an eye.

  209. Maz Herman said

    I notice that Chris mentioned ”Lucy”. Did you know that she was a he?
    And he was more like a chimp or orangutang…can’t quite remember which, but certainly NOT as one Museum in America had her created to look, walking upright like she was on a cat walk!

  210. Chris C. said

    Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis, is a ~3.5 million year old hominid. She was discovered by Don Johansen a couple decades ago…can’t remember exactly when. Anyways, it is a female specimin. I don’t know where you got the other misinformaion. Secondly, yes, Lucy WAS bipedal. She did walk upright. As I have mentioned before, severa things lead us to the conclusion that A. afarensis was a bipedal species.

    1) In the cranium of the species, the foramen magnum (the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes) is located at the base of the skull, not towards the rear as in quadrapedal species. Even with no other evidence, this would be a ner dead give-away of bipedality.
    2) The illium and ischium (pelvic bones) are shortened and sit together more like a cradle as opposed to the blade like strcutures of the chimp pelvis. The bones fit together in a cup or bowl-like shape. This is, anatomically, another indication of bipedality.
    3) The femur attaches to the pelvis and angles inward towards the knees. This allows the legs to swing at the proper angle for walking evenly, as opposed to the wobbling ape-like walk of, well, apes!
    4) A set of hominid footprints found near the same region as Lucy shows two bi-pedal hominids walkign side by side. These footprints, known as the Laetoli footprints, were found by Mary Leaky. They date to ~3.2 million years old. They also indicate that, at this time period, ful bipedality had already evolved in our ancestors.

    If you don’t wan’t to take this info on my word, then I encourage you to do some of your own research. I will again recommend the book, “The Chosen Species” by Arsuaga. However, I want you to see that your info presented in post 209 is demonstrably wrong and is nothing but, again, just the alking points of psuedo-scientific charlatans.

  211. Maz Herman said

    A Dr. David Menton did a talk on ”Lucy is no lady”, recently on a Creation programe on a Christian Channel. I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about.

  212. Mike S said

    Fred, Chris, ABC, Amanda, Brad, Dawg, John, ADB, F.L.A., and our many other bloggers.

    I would like to ask you to take some time to listen to a couple of recordings that Tim Keller from Redeemer Church in New York City has posted on their website. He just wrote a book named “The Reason For God, Belief in an Age of Skepticism”. Fred I especially thought of you and our head buttings as I listened. For those of you who are mp3 savy you can download them for free. For those not you can simply click and listen on line.

    Anyone who has ever been challenged by skepticism, either your own or by someone else’s and you wondered how to answer such questions, will benefit greatly from listening to this powerful philisophical reasoning put forth in a very gentle, non attacking way. I especially recommend the first one labeled “Exclusivity: How can there be just one true religion?” Fred, I believe you would really enjoy and benefit from listening to that one as well as the one labeled “Absolutism: Don’t we all have to find truth for ourselves?” I have not heard the rest of them. I have listened to the first two at least 3 times now because they are packed with so much positive reasoning that I want to make sure I understand them completely.

    I will paste the link on the next post but you can also find it by going to Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York City’s website.

  213. Mike S said


  214. Educated Dawg said

    My my my, Chris sure is getting a little angry. Brings to mind Dawkins during the Dawkins/Lennox discussion 🙂

  215. Chris C. said

    My frustration stems from the fact that I have already answered the same question multiple times; and additionally that every time I refute an argumet, rather than analyzing my counterarguments, people just bring up something new as though I’ve said nothing of note.

    Unfortunatly Dr. Menton’s video is only available for purchase (through the disreputbale Answers in Genesis gang) and not free for everyone to view. If his information is so revolutionary to the sciences, why doesn’t he give it out for free? Certainly as a professor he has all the money he needs.

  216. John said

    Hello again everyone. I’ve been away fishing. Anyway,…. yes Educated Dawg, there are errors, but as Chris implied, I don’t have the time to go over them all. Still interesting though. You see, I have a large collection of material from those with an opposing view, so that link of yours would be greatly appreciated, thankyou.You actually feel that way about humanity? Why do you even bother wanting to live? I hope that your Christian Heaven is everything that you want it to be.
    Thank you Mr. Sears for the opportunity.I shall try and listen to it if I can do it for free[because I’m a cheepskate].
    Chris C., your doing an exemplarily fine job, but do you remember what I told you on the “Are you a red letter Christian” site? Or the F. L. A. in post #177?
    Don’t let it get to you so, for it will be used against you.I understand. Just try to have a good time.

  217. F. L. A. said

    MY TURN.

  218. Willie said

    I have Keller’s book. It’s the same old apologetics nonsense. There is nothing new there.

  219. Maz Herman said

    Chris. I have the DVD and I guess some people have to work to earn a living they can’t just give away DVD’s ad hoc. I am investigating this further however….you see I am open to re-search anything I hear. I’m not indoctrinated by the gymnastics of evolutionary theory.
    YES, IT’S STILL A THEORY. Why does every evolutionist keep talking about evidence and facts as if it’s been proved without question. Why the hoax’s if they have enough REAL evidence?

  220. Maz Herman said

    F.L.A. Evolutionary dogma has CONTROLLED and INDOCTRINATED the population of the world for years! They have a momopoly in the schools of our children and WILL NOT allow any other belief or knowledge of our origins be taught. THAT IS REAL CONTROL.

  221. Mike S said

    I have read what you have had to say. Same old atheistic nonsense. Nothing new there.

  222. Maz Herman said

    Chris. Sorry, I missed your enlightening information about how the eye evolved.

  223. Mike S said

    My last post was to highlight your tendency to make broad reaching and generalized but very absolute statements without establishing a foundation on which you can make such claims. There seem to be a lot of those on both sides throughout this blog. This is evidence of arrogant superiority positioning. What I am curious about is the motivation for such claims. Are you really seeking honest back and forth dialogue from which you can learn something or are you just doing what it appears, trying to make other people look less superior than you?

    I like Tim Keller’s point he makes toward the end of his piece on Exclusivity:

    Take moralistic religion into the center of your life and you will fell superior to the secularists.

  224. Mike S said

    Oops I hit submit by mistake. Wasn’t finished:

    Take secularism into the center of your life and you’ll feel superior to all of those stupid religious people.

    Take the Gospel into the center of your life and you will be humbled before people who don’t believe what you believe and you will seek to serve people who don’t believe what you believe and you’ll know that a Man (Jesus) who loves people who don’t love Him is what your whole life is built on.

  225. Chris C. said

    There have been some famous hoaxes such as Piltdown man and also supposed footprints of humans and dinosaurs together. I don’t think people are creating these hoaxes because there isn’t enough evidence for evolution. Rather, there is a great ammount of fame that comes from making groundbreaking discoveries. Don Johansen (found Lucy) and Mary and Louis Leaky have their names in every significant anthopology and biology textbook in the higher education system. Think that sort of fame isn’t tempting to people, most of whom spend their whole life searching without any such amazing finds?

    Hoaxes are bad science and are bad FOR science. But humans are sometimes selfish and overly ambitious. Fortunatly the scientific community at large has been able to expose these hoaxes in the past.

    Maz, regarding the eye, I am quite aware that was simplistic. I am not a chemist nor an opthamologist, nor am I an author of any books on the subject. You contend that the eye MUST have been created in it’s current state. I shared evidence that the eye could easily have evolved and showed a probable sequence of steps. If you want something less simlpistic you’re going to have to find it on your own. Im sorry to say I cannot supply any bio-chemical information off the top of my head.

    In regards to post 219, (“YES, IT’S STILL A THEORY”). This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the word ‘theory’ in a scientific context. You and I, in our everday speech, might use the word to mean ‘something unsure, up for debate’. In science, a theory is a collection of hypotheses which explain some natural process. In the case of evolution, it spans dozens of disciplines and has hundreds of confirmed hypotheses. The theory, in its modern sythesis, has been around now for one hundred years. It has been modified, and will continue to be modified. But the basis of the theory (the non-random selection of random variation with descent) has not been overturned by any branch of science. As scientifc ‘theories’ go, it is one of the strongest we have.

  226. Maz Herman said

    Chris. You talk about ”a probable sequence of events”.
    That’s a word evolutionists often use ”probable” ”maybe” ”possibly” etc., but it’s not ”DID”.
    Assumptions are a main part of evolutionary thinking, and I have had that before about what the word ”theory” means.
    One problem for Darwins Theory of Evolution, which he admitted himself, was the fossil record.
    Why was that Chris?
    And, yes, I already have a scientific explanation for how the eye works and how it COULD NOT have evolved because of the intricate and complicated chemical reactions needed. The eye is one of the most commplex of organs in our body. NO WAY could it have JUST evolved BY CHANCE MUTATIONS.
    And talking of mutations. They tend to entropy NOT IMPROVEMENT.
    Mutations usually have LESS information in their DNA NOT MORE.
    The very nature of DNA, which contains all the information needed for a cell to make what it is SUPPOSE TO BE, means it can only LOSE information NOT ADD NEW information. THAT PUTS A SPANNER IN THE WORKS FOR EVOLUTION.

  227. Chris C. said

    “That’s a word evolutionists often use ”probable” ”maybe” ”possibly” etc., but it’s not ”DID”.”

    That’s because science relies on inductive arguments. We do not seek to prove things with absolute certainty. Every problem Darwin mentioned in his book, he used as a rheotircal device. Such as the oft-misquoted, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Except that after this, Dawin went on to describe with clarity exactly how the eye evolved. It was a rhetorical device. Darwin wasn’t really miffed. He devotes an entire chapter to ‘Problems with the Theory’ and answers every one of them.

    Again, the fossil record does confirm evolutionary theory. You just reject fossil evidence because it does not conform to your religious beliefs. Also, that you see no way the eye could have evolved is in no way an argument that it didn’t evolve. It simply means you don’t understand how it happened.

    I agree that the majority of mutations are detrimental. However, there are many mutations which, given a certain environment and climate, could be helpful. Evolution only says that, through generations, beneficial mutations will accumulate and detrimental ones will be sorted out. This is how the eye evolved: through a combination of a few mutations and mostly just selection within standard variation over millions of years.

    Do you think you understand information theory and DNA better than every single microbiologist out there? Don’t you think your point about DNA has been thought of numerous times before by people far better educated than you or I? I can tell you it has been broght up and answered many times. It is not a ‘spanner in the works’ for evolutionary theory.

  228. Educated Dawg said

    Chris C.,

    Do you think that every microbiologist is a macro-evolutionists? 😦

    What are some of the beneficial mutations out there? Sickle cell anemia? Down syndrome? Cancer?

    Again, it is a world-view issue, not an evidence issue. Your world-view will determine how you interpret the evidence. Macro-evolution is no more Scientific than Biblical creationism. That is fact, not theory 😉

  229. Chris C. said

    “Do you think that every microbiologist is a macro-evolutionists?”

    No, but I think it is safe to say the vast majority are.

    I’m not going to post the link because I don’t care to have the TTL police have to approve my post. But go to the talkorigins page dealing with mutations. There are beneficial mutations which have been observed. Listing nucleotide deletions such as Down Syndrome as evidence that all mutations are negative is misleading.

    If it is not an evidence issue then why is it that only fundemntalist Christians disregrd all of todays best available evidence? Saying you interpret it differently is akin to saying I just “see God differently,” than you do. No, I don’t believe in any gods just like you don’t accept the evidence for evolution.

    “Macro-evolution is no more Scientific than Biblical creationism.” Actually it is. Just to show you:

    Evolutionists say the world is ~4.5 billion years old and that humans have existed for ~100,000 yrs. This is a known fact which no good scientists disagree with. The bible, to be fair, says nothing specific about how old the earth is; but certainly indicates that man has been around for just a few thousand years. This is false, laughably false.

  230. Educated Dawg said

    Wow! Chris C. has just concluded that Isaac Newton and many other Bible believing scientists were/are not “good scientists”. Wow.

    I do hope that every compromising Christian that thinks its ok to accept macro-evolution and still believe the bible is reading this thread. Chris C, you are helping to get my point across, especially with post #229. Christians should not and cannot compromise the biblical account of God creating by mixing in atheistic macro-evolution. Thank you for supporting us in this endeavor Chris 🙂

    Instead of posting a link to the humanistic talkorigins site, just reference some good mutations that show proof that information was gained through macro-evolution.

  231. Maz Herman said

    Chris, If an Omniscient, Omnipotent God Created the Universe, don’t you think He could create the Physics that goes with it?
    Science is really only knowledge of things around us.
    The thing is the more scientists discover, the more problems it creates for evolutionists.
    E.G: DNA! Also pictures from Hubbles telescope has created problems for Ev’s.
    You say that Darwin said about the formation of the eye by natural selection ”absurd in the highest degree”, how then could he possibly know how it was evolved? How high does absurd have to be before it becomes impossible?

  232. F. L. A. said


  233. Fred said

    The fundamentalist young earth Creationists can have no real debate with what science teaches us, so they insist on obfuscation. They just can’t stand their only other alternative: admitting that they are wrong.

    Chris makes his excellent replies to their ridiculous posts and yet they ignore what is said again and again and again…

    Chris, they understand you, but they do not want to admit that they understand you. Dig?


  234. Fred said

    “I’m not going to post the link because I don’t care to have the TTL police have to approve my post.” – Chris C.

    Then allow me. Hope this helps. It probably won’t but…


  235. Maz Herman said

    Fred, I thought we WERE having a real debate…or are we all wasting time here?
    Science just DOESN’T prove evolution.
    Has it ever been proved in a laboratory?
    Someone tried to create life once in a lab and then went on to say that life could be created without INTELLIGENCE!!!!! How UNintelligent can someone be?
    If INTELLIGENT MAN CAN’T create life, what chance has CHANCE?

  236. Fred said

    Maz, in this thread you have had the scientific method and scientific terminology explained to you repeatedly. You continue to misrepresent what the scientific method is and does. Why? Do you not understand? Or are you being obtuse?

  237. Fred said

    Sorry, I should have asked “are you being deliberately obtuse”.

  238. Maz Herman said

    Fred. For something to be found to be true doesn’t science rely on empirical evidence?
    But we have none for evolution.
    And I’m neither mentally slow or emotionally insensitive.
    Maybe I just can’t figure out what science you have that proves evolution.

  239. Fred said

    Again with the misrepresentations?

    Please see posts: 3,5,16,29,32,53,61,80,98,99,125,139,155,156,157,159,161,164,171,205,206,208,210,225,227,22,9

    and my favorite: post 126 from ADB

  240. Maz Herman said

    I’m sorry Fred that you had to type out all those numbers but that’s a lot to read!
    I joined this debate late….204, so I missed a lot of what has been written.
    It still doesn’t change what I believe.

  241. Anonymous said

    Why are you so nasty to people? I think you and Willie are cut out of the same mold. You claim to have ultimate knowledge but don’t back any of it up. words words words

  242. Fred said

    Maz, I was glad to do it.

  243. Fred said

    Anonymous, I dunno, I often react thusly when confronted with intellectual dishonesty. Sorry.

  244. Fred said

    Furthermore, Anonymous, I have made no such claims. I only claim that young earth creationists are willfully ignorant of what natural philosophy teaches us. Their own words convict them.

  245. Chris C. said

    Newton, Gaileo, Kepler…list them all if you want. They obviously couldn’t have been evolutionists because the theory hadn’t been advanced.

    At the point, people saw the staggering heights that life had acheived and could see no way to get from the ground (basic single-celled organisms) to the top of the mountain (humans, specialized structures, etc.) Even skeptics like Hume, who were uncomfortabel with the notion of special creation, had no means of explanation for life.

    Then Darwin (and A.R. Wallace to be fair) proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection, a ‘crane’ which could easily lift single cells from their primordial beginnings to hieghts otherwise thought impossible.

    And still, there exist many people who are firm in their religious faith and are excellent scientists. Science is not anti-god. (Dare I say it again?) Science is agnostic with respect to god insofar as those claims about god are non-empirical. Whether someone believes in god is not a direct indicator of their abilities as a scientist. With all of the information we now have, however, someone who beleives all life was created within the last 10k years is a bad scientist.

    Maz, if you want to continue attacking evolutionary theory with capitalized letters and many exclamation marks, go on. But I may stop replying to your comments as they indicate a lack of understanding of real evolutionary theory and science in general. I’m not trying to be arrogant. Notice, I don’t interrupt many of the purely theological discussions on here saying things like, “You know God is just made up! How can you believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, thats obviously made-up!” Etc.

    One thing though: “You say that Darwin said about the formation of the eye by natural selection ”absurd in the highest degree”, how then could he possibly know how it was evolved? How high does absurd have to be before it becomes impossible?”
    You missed the point here. Darwin was pretending that te eye was this horrible problem for his theory so that when he shot down the notion that the eye must have been created, it would make his argument look all the better. Imagine a boxer pretending to be weak, and as his opponent comes in close, the boxer lands a huge, unexpected succer punch. This is a rhetorical device known as procatalepsis. Hope that’s clearer.

  246. Jeff42 said

    Chris C,

    Wow, you guys have one burning here. How do you guys find time for all this?

    Your story interests me. You say that you were raised Christian and went to a Christian High School. If I remember right, you say that it was coming to an understanding of natural selection that turned you away from the faith. Did this happen in college?

  247. Chris C. said

    I was always a bit of a skeptic by nature and never fully bought into the young-earth story in high school. My freshman year in college I took an anthropology course on human evolution to ‘get the other point of view’ so to speak. I found the course fascinting but even then didn’t have a full enough understanding of evolutionary theory.

    This wont do anything but confirm the fears of many Christians regarding Richard Dawkins, but it was his book The Selfish Gene whic cemented in my mind the necessity of natural selection in bringing about the variety in the world today. And later, his book The God Delusion led me from chrisianity to plain monotheism, and then eventually to atheism, with the help of many other excellent books and lots of thinking. So yes — in college mostly. Although I was never fully converted to the young earth side of things.

  248. Anonymous said

    Fred said “I have made no such claims. I only claim that young earth creationists are willfully ignorant of what natural philosophy teaches us. Their own words convict them.”

    You just made a claim that placed yourself as intellectually superior to Young Earth Creationists. Do you care to back that up with a foundation or do you like to just pump up your own pride and ego. Does it make you feel better call people ignorant?

  249. Jeff42 said

    OK. Thanks for being transparent. So, because you came to see natural selection as the mechanism of all life, you no longer saw any need for a god. It is interesting that you never considered theistic evolution (not that I believe in this either), but made the jump all the way to atheism. I would surmise from this that you have no place in your worldview for the supernatural. Correct me if I am wrong.

  250. Chris C. said

    No, no place for it at all.

  251. If the link adds to the debate, then we will post. If it contains obscenity, profanity, etc. we won’t post.

  252. Fred said

    “You just made a claim that placed yourself as intellectually superior to Young Earth Creationists.”

    No, I didn’t. If it makes me more intellectually honest than the them, so be it. It isn’t necessarily the superior intellect that produces honesty.

    “Do you care to back that up with a foundation or do you like to just pump up your own pride and ego.”

    Did you not care to read the posts I recommended earlier?

    “Does it make you feel better call people ignorant?”

    Does it make you feel better to be anti-intellectual?

    As a rule I will only call people on being ignorant if they come by it as willfully as some Young Earth Creationists do; if they choose ignorance.

  253. Jeff42 said

    Don’t you think that this fact colors the way you view the “evidence.” I fully admit that I am predisposed to accept the miraculous (only because of God’s grace in my life). Here is what I think happens. In this discussion you find two groups – one predisposed to believe in God, and the other predisposed not to. The unbeliever interprets the evidence in view of his most basic presuppositions, his worldview if you will. Since he has already ruled out the supernatural, he interprets the evidence in a way that supports his worldview. On the other hand, you have the believer who interprets the very same evidence and sees a lack of support of atheism and plenty of support for his belief in God. It is silly to think that either side comes to the evidence with a “neutral” mind. I think this is why it is so evident that in this discussion both sides have their defenses up, and neither side is converted to the other’s way of thinking.

    For the unbeliever, no amount of “evidence” will ever be enough to convert him, and this is true for the other side as well. You see no evidence for the existence of a Creator. Yet, the Scriptures say that the evidence is everywhere:

    Psalm 19:1-3
    The heavens declare the glory of God,
    and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
    [2] Day to day pours out speech,
    and night to night reveals knowledge.
    [3] There is no speech, nor are there words,
    whose voice is not heard.

    Romans 1:19-20
    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

    John 3:19-21
    And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. [20] For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. [21] But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.

    Chris, I don’t point these things out to condemn you. I am simply stating what I believe, by God’s grace, to be the basic underlying issues of this debate. Everyone is guided by his most basic network of presuppositions, his worldview. No amount of “evidence” will ever convert the soul. This is the work of the Spirit of God. When Jesus enemies saw him raise Lazarus from the dead they did not repent and believe, they wanted to kill him even more!

    Don’t get me wrong. I am not against science and education. I believe that Christians have a responsibility to be well informed and present good arguments, but the heart must be changed by God, not man.

    Again, thanks for being so candid.

  254. Chris C. said

    No no, it wasn’t like that at all. I just understand you all check the links and I didn’t want to slow down the discussion by taking the time to have it checked out.

    In response to E. Dawg’s claim about beneficial mutations: here is one example. I picked it because it was ironic he chose sicle cell disease as an example of an exclusively harmful mutation.

    (The following is taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html)

    Sickle cell resistance to malaria
    The sickle cell allele causes the normally round blood cell to have a sickle shape. The effect of this allele depends on whether a person has one or two copies of the allele. It is generally fatal if a person has two copies. If they have one they have sickle shaped blood cells.

    In general this is an undesirable mutation because the sickle cells are less efficient than normal cells. In areas where malaria is prevalent it turns out to be favorable because people with sickle shaped blood cells are less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes.

    This is an example where a mutation decreases the normal efficiency of the body (its fitness in one sense) but none-the-less provides a relative advantage.

  255. Anonymous said

    “As a rule I will only call people on being ignorant if they come by it as willfully as some Young Earth Creationists do”

    Fred you’re just full of baloney. You just broke your own rule by calling me anti-intellectual when you don’t even have a clue as to who I am or what I believe. I am not a “Young Earth Creationist” by the way. Yet I would not stoop to name calling and childish behavior.

  256. Chris C. said


    I want to take issue with two things. In spirit I agree with you. Everyone has biases. But we all start out as atheists (strange to think, I know).

    1) I absolutely would change my point of view given the right evidence. A dinosaur fossil and a human fossil found in the same rock layer would do-in evolution. As far as god? Id like a DNA test from the blood on the cross and then a current DNA test delivered to be right now direct from Jesus himself. And I want to watch him perform the test. That’s silly, I know, but it would be convincing to me. Extraordinary claims (like those of the god of the bible) require extraordinary evidence. The human eye is not evidence, the cosmos are not evidence. We can either explain how these things came about, or know enough about them to suppose it was a natural process and not a divine one.

    If I have a bias, it is toward skepticism. I think that is a healthy, scientific bias. A god as powerful as the god of the bible could easily convince me if he so chose.

    2) I don’t see believing in god as being a totally equal position to non-beleif. They are not two equal worldviews. People in New Guinea who have never heard of jesus are just as much atheists with respect to him as I am. I don’t have to rely on evidence to ‘prove’ my position. It is the default position. You, however, do make fantastic claims.

  257. Fred said

    “Fred you’re just full of baloney.”

    Right back ‘atcha!

    “I am not a “Young Earth Creationist” by the way. Yet I would not stoop to name calling and childish behavior.”

    I applaud you for your intellectual achievement here. Your condescension in deeming me worthy of your chastisement is magnificent!

  258. Jeff42 said

    Interesting. I think your post just proved my point.

    “I absolutely would change my point of view given the right evidence.”

    That’s a statement of faith. And, by the way, neither you or I get to set the standard that God must meet. To use a biblical metaphor, He is the potter; we are the clay. He is the one who sets the standard. He says that we have all the proof we are going to get, and that such proof is sufficient to hold us without excuse if we do not believe. The bible presents unbelief as a matter of the will. See above.

    “I don’t have to rely on evidence to ‘prove’ my position. It is the default position.”

    This is exactly my point. At the most basic level both sides would make this statement. Each side looks at the other a says, “Prove it.” You see your position as the default position; I see mine as the default position. Our basic presuppositions shine through. You say that I make fantastic claims, and yet I could say the same to you. You are the one claiming that God does not exist. I would think you would need to prove that assertion, something we both know is impossible to do.

    You sight the people of New Guinea and call them “atheists.” Technically this is not the case. They do believe in a god or gods, just not Jesus whom they have not heard of. How would they believe in Jesus without hearing the gospel? But, the fact is that the world over, an overwhelming majority of people have believed in a deity because they saw the evidence all around them, and have a witness within them. Most never dreamed that such complexity and order created itself.

    Acts 17:30-31
    The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, [31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

    Chris, please don’t see me as your enemy. I am not. I believe that you are created in God’s image and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. I don’t expect you to say that I am right. I only ask that you consider these things. When I get the time I plan on reading the book you sighted in post #247.

  259. Chris C. said

    “You are the one claiming that God does not exist. I would think you would need to prove that assertion, something we both know is impossible to do.”

    Do you ever worrying about disproving other people’s religions? You obviously think they are wrong, but on what basis? If you can answer that question, just imagine Christianiy among that list of hundreds of religions you reject and you will probably understand my viewpoint better than I could articulat it.

    “But, the fact is that the world over, an overwhelming majority of people have believed in a deity because they saw the evidence all around them, and have a witness within them.”

    I think an equally (no, more) compelling argument is that people created religion to help them cope with the harshness of life, death, hunger, and strife. They created gods to explain things which they had no worldly explanation for. Look at the religions which pre-date monotheism — a relatively recent aberration. They are all nature-oriented and pantheistic; they all seek to explain nature by invoking numerous powerful gods and demigods. This seems more like a group of ignorant Homo sapiens making up answers to things than it does the revelations of a god who otherwise remains silent until only a few thousand years ago.

  260. F. L. A. said



  261. Jeff42 said

    No. I never do worry about that. And my point here was not to actually disprove anything. It was only to point out that both sides have a basic world and life view that they live by, and that neither side comes to the evidence from a neutral stance. Both sides make significant faith statements. Yes, I think other religions are wrong, but I admitted my bias from the start.

    I respect your opinion regarding the religions of the world. I simply disagree. I happen to think that men the world over are predominantly religious because they know that God exists. They pervert that knowledge because of the universality of sin. As to your statement that God remained silent until two thousand years ago, this is simply not true. You missed the point of Romans 1. God’s existence has been clearly seen since the beginning in what he has made. Gen. 1:1 – In the beginning God created … The God of Christianity is the God of creation and beyond, the God of eternity.

  262. Chris C. said

    Fair enough, Jeff. I should have said that god just didn’t bother to write any of that stuff down untill a few thousad years ago.

  263. Mike S said

    Jeff42, excellent points! Way to follow 2 Peter 3:15-16!! You go Bro!!

  264. abc's said

    regarding p 258

    “I absolutely would change my point of view given the right evidence.”

    Why do you believe that to be a statement of faith?

    What you have said is all good and well, and i’ve seen this line of reasoning before, but I don’t find it compelling. You say that we all start with our presuppositions and then we find evidence to support our worldview.
    Where is the evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? Where is the evidence that shows that life was created and did not evolve over time from a common ancestor?
    There is plenty of evidence to support evolution. I’m not really interested in semantic arguments.
    Can you honestly say that if you objectively look at all of the evidence that it points to the creation story?
    How can faith be epistemologically valid when it provides no method for distinction between true and false propositions?

  265. Maz Herman said

    To all those who believe in evolution: Just take time and LOOK at the world around you and how everything is made.
    Look at the butterfly and how it comes into being. Look at the beautiful flowers, their colours and hues, their intricate detail etc. etc. etc. Do I have to go on…..I think we’ve quoted the scripture about the Creation witnesses to a CREATOR, and you still believe it came by CHANCE alone. When I look around and see the beauty (Trying not to see the corruption sin caused) I am overawed at how God, Infinite and Eternal, has constructed the most delicate and complex things in nature.
    I don’t understand why some people can’t see it.
    And THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (I use capitals for emphasis) for Evolution however much you try and present it. There is NOTHING you can show me that is clearly evidence of chance.

  266. abc's said


    I already know that

    “There is NOTHING you can show me that is clearly evidence of chance.”

    I’m just asking for evidence from you. Quoting from scripture does nothing for me. I’m just asking for evidence that supports the creation story and contradicts evolution.

  267. Maz Herman said

    Abc’s. If I showed it to you as obviously some have already Would you then accept Creation?
    I don’t think so.
    But I have mentioned DNA before. Everything has it. It contains the information to grow what it is meant to grow. Giraffe DNA will make giraffes………..etc. (I don’t want to bore you!) But I hope you get my gist Abc’s. DNA is THERE within everything and the information CANNOT EVOLVE. DNA loses information…..thus we get mutations, but it CANNOT GAIN the information needed for full blown Evolution. Microbes to man. Blobs to Brains.

  268. Chris C. said


    You keep saying ‘chance’ as if that is how we evolutionists say everything came into being. Chance is not the proper alternative to divine creation. Natural selection is not a random process but is the very opposit of chance. It selects the specific traits and characteristics that are favored in an environment.

    No evolutionists say that eveything just popped into bing in its complete state. The eye forming in a single generation would indeed by astronomically improbable. But over thousands of smaller generations with the non-random selection pressure, natural selection can play a very deliberate role in creating and guiding species.

    Your evidence for the fact that butterflies cannot evolve is that they are just so beautiful; that DNA is too complex. That’s not evidence. Its called the argument from ignorance. If I say, “I just see no way a creator could have done all this!” you are free to reject that argument without response because it isn’t an argument.

    Maz, just google, ‘evidence for evolution’. How do you discount the hundreds of evidences out there. That website I posted a few posts up, talkorigins, has a collectio of evidence from dozens of fields os study. What you mean is that you refuse the evidence; and if you contiue insisting that ‘chance’ played the role in bringing about life, I’d say you’re rejecting evidence you don’t fully understand.

  269. abc's said


    So that’s it? DNA, the final nail in the coffin. “Evolutions deathknell.”

    What was the name of the creation scientist that discovered DNA?

    This is just the argument from irreducible complexity coming up again.

    How does “dna” provide evidence that the creation story is true? How would you derive the story starting with information about what dna is?

  270. Maz Herman said

    You have done just what I expected you to do.
    Chris: No I didn’t mean that evolutionists believe it all ”popped into being in it’s complete state” where did I say that?
    It, according to the evolutionist, took millions and millions of years.
    Natural selection DOES occur in nature, but within animal kinds, but NEVER across the gena.
    And Abc’s: God put the information in DNA. It was there at the beginning, when He created every living kind, as stated in Genesis. Everything was created ”after it’s own kind.”
    DNA CANNOT EVOLVE. Do you believe it can then?

  271. Jeff42 said

    Hi abc,

    I wanted to give you a short response to your questions before I have to leave this morning.

    Obviously, Chris made a statement of faith when he said, “I absolutely would change my point of view given the right evidence.” He was stating what he believes he would do when confronted with the “right evidence.” But, at the moment of decision, he could decide not to accept the evidence. Jesus opponents had just seen him feed 5000 men (not counting women and children) with 5 loaves and two fish when they asked him to show them “a sign.” Signs/evidence is not sufficient to change the heart.

    I have not taken a stand here on the young earth debate. My point was that neither side comes to the evidence from a neutral stance.

    “Can you honestly say that if you objectively look at all of the evidence that it points to the creation story?”

    Yes. To me it is ridiculous to think that the order and complexity we see all around us created itself (no matter how much time is allowed), which is the obvious conclusion if there is not intelligence behind it.

    You said that faith “provides no method for distinction between true and false propositions.” Your a right. Your God-given ability to reason does that. Faith is a response to truth. The Reformers defined faith as knowledge, assent, and trust – knowledge of the facts, assent to the truth of those facts, and trust in their truth. Once we know the facts of the gospel, we decide whether or not we believe them, and if we believe them (by God’s grace), we trust in Christ alone for salvation. Faith is not a blind leap into the dark. It is a response to propositional truth, in the case of the believer, the fact that Christ is the Son of God and was raised from the dead. The resurrection is the crowning proof that Christ is who he said he was. This is why we are to be witnesses of his resurrection. If you want proof, look into the resurrection.

    Acts 17:30-31
    The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, [31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

    This is fun, but I really must get ready to go now.

    May God’s richest and best be yours in Christ.

  272. Maz Herman said

    PS. Chris: IIIIII don’t insist chance brought about life… but evolutionists do…..whether it’s some or all.
    There is only two choices that I can see:
    Either God created everything, or:
    It all came by chance, by evolution.
    What other choice have we?
    If we say by Intelligent Design then where does that intelligence come from?
    You can’t just ignore that question….though some may try.

  273. abc's said


    I am familiar with Genesis and I already could’ve just guessed that DNAwas created in the beginning.

    What i’m really referring to with my question are the bits about the talking snake, and Adam and Eve, and eating the fruit of knowledge… that kind of thing. What evidence is there to support the creation story.

  274. Chris C. said


    You go into a grocery store and select the best fruits from the tray. Is that chance? No. It’s deliberate and one could almost guess which fruits you are going to pick based on their quality.

    This is how natural selection works. It is NOT a process of chance. It selects the traits and adaptations which best fit the current environment.

    The only part of life coming about on earth that required chance was the beginning. So let’s do a thought experiment here.

    There are roughly 10^11 stars in the Milky Way galaxy. There are roughly 10^11 galaxies in the universe. These are very rough figures but you will see that we can be off by several factors of 10 without any problems. This gives us 10^22 stars in the universe. Let’s say that stars having ‘earth-like planets’ is a fairly rare ocurrance. Maybe only 1 in a million stars. This leaves us with (10^22 / 10^6) 10^16 stars with earth-like planets. And lets say again that the chances of life arising from the given elements in each of these solar systems is also very rare. Maybe it only happens 1 in a billion planets.

    Given these staggeringly long odds (and I don’t think there is any reason to think the birth of life is such an impobable event), life would STILL have arisen on (10^16 / 10^9 = 10^7) or 10 million planets! Again, even if the chanes of life arising on an earth-like planet are only 1 in a billion, life would still have arisen on 10 million planets throuought the universe!

    So, this one time we did have to rely on the element of chance, our odds were actually pretty good.

    By the way, the word ‘kinds’ is not a scientific word. It doesn’t mean anything to real scientists. If you want to talk about natural selection occurring in different genera or species, fine. But it doesn’t occur within ‘kinds’. I mentioned something like this in P. 164 but I’ll quote it here regarding the distinction between micro/macro evolution:

    “Once again, this distinction between natural selection and speciation is a poor attempt to espouse some science while rejecting that you dislike. Speciation is only the result of many years (decades, generations, millenia) of work by gene flow, genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. You don’t accept one, but not the other.”

    Good day to all.

  275. Maz Herman said

    Chris, Great maths there but not EVIDENCE. All assumptions again…as you say ”thought experiments”.
    We can all do those.
    Kinds….genera….species. What IS science is the fact that there are different….er….er….er…kinds (whatever you want to call them scientifically or otherwise)in the animal kingdom….Cat ”kind”, dog ”kind” , fish ”kind”, bird ”kind”…do you understand?
    God made them in…………kinds!
    Natural selection DOES happen within kinds. How about Darwins famous finches? Or the famous peppered moths? Within their…..kind!

  276. Maz Herman said

    I can’t remember who questioned me about a statement I made about ”Lucy” being a male not a female but I have done a little research and it seems that she was female. So, what I heard from Dr. David Menton was either wrong or misheard.
    If I hear anything else I will come back to it.
    But there is an interesting story about ”Lucy”. Some years ago John Mackay, the International Director of a Creation ministry, saw a TV programme produced by PBS in the USA as part of their NOVA TV series. On this, Prof: C. Owen Lovejoy (Kent State University, Ohio) claimed that the reason ”Lucy’s” hip looked like an apes was that it had been stood on by a large animal after she died. He then took an angle grinder to a cast of the hip and RESHAPED IT TO LOOK MORE LIKE THAT OF A HUMAN! (You have to laugh!) Is this scientific?

  277. Fred said

    Maz, the problem isn’t that there isn’t any “evidence” for the science. The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that there is.

    The Scientific community unambiguously disagrees with you. Why?

    If you think you know better than every Biology department in every accredited college in the world then write your thesis and stun the world!

    Otherwise why can’t you admit that Creationist religious ideas and prevailing scientific opinion don’t consiliate?

  278. Chris C. said

    How about Darwins famous finches?

    How about them? How about the fact the genetic evidence shows they all originate from common ancestor that was blown off course a few hundred years ago. That through processes of genetic drift (and the Founder effect) each island of the galapagos is now inhabited with varied species, all descended from that one, each species filling ecological niches as they become available.

  279. Chris C. said


    I actually watched that video in a freshman seminar on human origins. Guess what? We didn’t find it funny. Seeing as other hip bones have been found that support Lovejoy’s ideas, I think what he did was acceptable. Remember, this is a man who spent years of his life learning about skeletal structure. I think he might know when a bone has suffered fossilization trauma; I think he might know the most logical way for bones to be pieced together.

  280. Maz Herman said

    Chris: I don’t acknowledge that there is any evidence for evolution because there is’nt and actually you have said nothing to come near to convincing me either.
    But then YOU WON’T acknowledge what I put forward as evidence either…and probably for the same reason.
    There are also a great number of scientists that DO believe in Creation.
    Most if not all evolutionist scientists WON’T acknowledge evidence for Creation either because on the most part they don’t WANT to believe in the God that Created.
    And I didn’t expect you to find the Prof’s reconstruction job funny.
    Actualy it’s quite sad.

  281. abc's said


    I really don’t understand the repetition of statements like this.

    “Most if not all evolutionist scientists WON’T acknowledge evidence for Creation either because on the most part they don’t WANT to believe in the God that Created.”

    It’s a complete non sequitur. If you look at the evidence as it presents itself, it will not lead you to the creation story from the Bible.

  282. Educated Dawg said

    AiG had a special issue of its ‘Answers’ magazine dealing with astronomy last month. Maybe Chris C would enjoy it? I’m sure if he told them he was a skeptic that wanted to refute their articles, they would gladly send him a free copy and tell him “have at it”.

    The majority of Americans do not believe we evolved from apelike creatures, yet just like the homosexual agenda, so to has the evolutionists had loud voices and lots of money(tax payer provided) to push forth their cause. Yet, as has been stated, where is the evidence? Either fossil, genetic or what have you – where is the macro-evolutionary evidence?

    Out of all the posts, there is no actual proof of macro-evolution stated. The supposed lineage of homo sapiens was put into question with a Creationist response. No genetic examples have been given except retroviruses which are possible examples of micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.

    One thing that is becoming quite clear is the anger and animosity coming from atheists responding to doubts concerning macro-evolution. Again, a reminder of Dawkins and Lennox with Dawkins becoming upset and angry toward the end of the discussion.

  283. Fred said

    Hogwash, E. Dawg. The thing that is abundantly clear here is the inability of Creationists to reconcile their religious beliefs with Science. Therefore they make up their own “science”.


  284. Anonymous said

    Regarding the finches. Can you you say “MICRO-evolution”? The finches were still finches. And I think they still are. Larger beaks or smaller beaks they’re still finches, not chickens… No evidences for one species to another that I know of…

  285. abc's said

    Educated Dawg

    Your statements equating evolution with the gay rights movement are just as baseless, irrelevant and off topic now as they were last week.

    Also, Scientific inquiry is still not determined by popular opinion.

    You previously claimed to use information about endogenous retroviruses to “teach” creationism.

    Please take a few minutes to describe just what ERV’s are. Then tell me how they are evidence for creation and how they provide evidence that macro evolution is impossible.

    As far as the anger and animosity thing, i’m not sure if you’re being serious. You seem to want to jump at these kinds of things as a way to end the conversation. I really don’t understand what your point is. Who cares if Dawkins and Lennox raised their voices or disagreed?

  286. John said

    Mrs. Herman, don’t overlook the theologically devout minority that both believe in the evolutionary sciences AND creator deities.
    And I’m not just speaking about pagans[smile].

  287. Willie said

    ERVs have nothing to do with micro-evolution. Read. Study. Learn.

  288. Chris C. said


    I think I actually have responded to all of the evidence you have brought forth — at least that which was factually based and not scriptural. I can explain (for the most part) why what you offer as evidence is bunk. I can offer scientific, logical explanations for why it is wrong. All you offer me is religious sentiments — well meant — but worthless in affirming scientific theories.

    The reason the scientific community doesn’t regard creationism as science is because there is no evidence to suppot it. The number of Christian scientists who accept evolution is astronomically larger than the number of Christian scientists who do not accept it. As far as appeals to authority go, mine is better. Look up Ken Miller on youtube. He is a strong Christian and also a staunch advocate of evolution. The point is, scientists (as a community) really aren’t all conspiring to eliminate god from scientific discourse.

    E. Dawg,

    I’m no astrophysicist, but I’ll gladly read ‘Answers’ latest edition.

    YOU SAID: “The majority of Americans do not believe we evolved from apelike creatures, yet just like the homosexual agenda, so to has the evolutionists had loud voices and lots of money(tax payer provided) to push forth their cause.”

    Nearly 4 in 10 americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. 5 in 10 think the civil war ocurred before 1800. Americans are ignorant. Most world citizens are. It is sad but true. Evolution by natural selection, while not a complex idea, is certainly counter-intuitive. It takes a great deal of consciousness-raising for people raised by creationists to believe real science. If scientists have a ’cause’ it is knowledge and education. Not some consipiracy. Nice red herring about homosexuality there — sure to appeal to all the other homophobes on the board here!

    It should be abundantly clear to anyone reading this debate that, in fact, numerous evidences for speciation have been presented. Every ‘question’ regarding human ancestry I answered. You may chose to be ignorant of the evidence, but until you can refute it, please stop saying it doesn’t exist. The talkorigins site, as I mentioned, has dozens of articles on their page as evidences for evolution. Check it out.

    Anonymous #284,

    When one species of finch (likely Geospiza fortis) becomes 20 species, filling dozens of ecological niches, that is speciation (or as you like, macroevolution) at its finest. The book, “The Beak of the Finch” by Jonathan Weiner is an excellent resource here — and it won the Pulitzer so it is very accessable to people not enamored with scientific jargon.

    In regards to the comments about intensity and anger in tone, let me propose this analogy. You and a friend are at a magic show and see a magician cut a woman in half. Your friend exclaims, “Magic! It’s a miracle!” You then explain to him how the trick was done, providing testimony from other magicians, pictures of the fake body-parts, and a recording from the magician himself explaining how he does his trick. Then your friend says, “Yeah, but its MAGIC!” And you reply, “No, I just showed you how he did it. It’s very simple.” Your friend says, “But where’s the evidence?” You show him the pictures, the recordings again. “But you don’t have any evidence!” the friend continues to insist.

    This is what it feels like. This is why its frustrating and angry, and why sometimes our tone borders on rude. Why do it then? Because I learn a great deal myself. I try to be as civil as possible. But I like to say, “People deserve repect; their beleifs, however, may not.”

  289. Chris C. said

    I was just browsing and found this excellent resource for macro-evolutionary evidence and also for transitional forms. I am not an expert on much of this, but do have a good understanding of hominid evolution and also the therapsid-mammal transition. If you look at nothing else, take a look at that therapsid-mammal transition and the evidence presented by the gradual shrinking and movement of the jaw bones (in synapsids) into the inner ear (in mammals). Its great stuff for all of those in the “NO EVIDENCE!” crowd.


  290. Maz Herman said

    Chris, Those who believe in evolution (and I still believed it even when I became a Christian because that is ALL I was taught at school, until I was shown otherwise) and Christianity, have a problem. If death entered this world through Adams sin at the Beginning 6000 years ago, how come evolutionists believe in millions of years with thousands of fossils millions of years old.
    In other words millions of dead things in the ground BEFORE SIN AND DEATH???
    This doesn’t add up.

  291. Maz Herman said

    Sorry that should have been for John, not Chris.

  292. Maz Herman said

    Chris, My authority for what I say is far higher than yours!

  293. Willie said

    In other words millions of dead things in the ground BEFORE SIN AND DEATH??? This doesn’t add up.

    Stupid scientists with their stupid facts. They are just poking around in the ground and making stuff up. They should take some time to read the Bible, the greatest geology textbook ever written. I for one am sick of all these fossils challenging my prejudices and ignorance. Thinking hurts.

  294. Maz Herman said

    Some of the ”stupid” scientists out there who believe in evolution are some of the most intelligent people there are…………but that’s the problem. To God their wisdom is foolishness.
    They look through scientific eyes, searching for proof from a world view and are so desperate to find it they will see anything they want to see.
    Let’s get down to science shall we?
    Anyone who believes in Evolution….give us some science to prove it.
    And I will give you some to prove Creation.

  295. Chris C. said

    Re: post 290

    Perhaps those people take a more pragmatic view of scripture than you do? Perhaps they see some figurative language in there.

    Basing your religion on the belief that death is only 6,000 years old will be the deathknelll of christianity. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. I’m not even going to equivocate about this: any scientist who disagrees with that number(by a large magnatude) isn’t worth the paper their diploma is printed on.

  296. Chris C. said

    It hasnt been approved by the moderators yet, but my link in 289 provides all the proof one could ever want for evolution. Check it out when it passes moderation.

  297. Maz Herman said

    Chris: You believe the earth is 4.5 million years old, I believe it’s only 6000 years old……
    By what dating method do you use to come to your conclusion? C14, Radiometric….? Rocks? The Grand Canyon?
    I did go onto that site you posted on 289 and I was immediately met with ”THE P O S S I B L E MORPHOLOGIES OF PREDICTED COMMON ANCESTORS.” POSSIBLE? Or ACTUAL?
    It states below ”All fossilized animals found SHOULD CONFORM to the STANDARD Phylogenetic tree. SHOULD THEY? What about DO THEY? They have already made their mind up.
    I’v read about the bird to dynosaur thing. How do scales (flaps of SKIN) turn into feathers (made of a different material altogether) then? Archaeopteryx for example had fully formed feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings. It’s brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrevelant to it’s ALLEGED transitional status….a number of extinct BIRDS had teeth, while many reptiles do not.
    I could go on…..

  298. Fred said

    Welcome to Young Earth Creationism.

    Where ignorance is celebrated as enlightenment!

    Willfulness is the new humility!

    Assimilation is the new autonomy!

    Dogma is the new wisdom!

    Shall we burn the libraries now?

    The Bible is the new Science book!

    Hello, New Dark Ages!!!

  299. Maz Herman said

    And ponder this: Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of the origin of the species in his famous book of that title in 1859. However, Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, considered the nations top evolutionist until he died, observed: ”Darwin NEVER really did discuss the origin of species in his ”On The Origin of Species”. Not only could Darwin NOT cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else in the entire subsequent century of evolutionary study. ”The formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects in evolutionary biology”.
    S.R. Palumbi, ”Marine Speciation,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (1994).

  300. Maz Herman said

    Fred: Is that the most intelligent thing you can say?
    Who kept on about science? Where’s the science in your statement. You are just waffling….

  301. Fred said

    Maz, you have ignored every attempt made here to explain the Scientific Method and the results it produces.

    You are being deliberately obtuse and unreasonable.


    Because you cannot reconcile your religious beliefs with science you feign ignorance?


    You make your religion look backward and ignorant.


    Can we not just agree that science says one thing and your religion says another?

    Until you decide to be reasonable no amount of reasoning will do. So I resort to sarcasm to answer your bigotry.


  302. Willie said

    Isn’t it ironic that the very phenomenon they don’t believe in is killing them. If they would adapt and evolve with modern science they might have a chance, but as it stands now they are pretty much finished.

  303. Chris C. said

    Wow, a top expert on evolution who seemingly doubts his own theory? Seems like quote mining to me — there’s something the creationists are well known for.

    It is my understanding that most rocks are dated using Uranium-Lead dating, since differring isotopes of these materials have half-life’s in the millions of years. These large scopes of time are convenient for aging rocks which can be quit old.

    You will note, on the talkorigins page, that good scientists never claim to prove anything for certain, at least as it pertains to their theory. You obviously scanned through a lengthy page and picked out a couple words and tried to shed doubt on the theory of evolution.

    All fossilized animals found SHOULD CONFORM to the STANDARD Phylogenetic tree. SHOULD THEY? What about DO THEY?”

    They do. You just didn’t actually read through the information once you found your tidbits to quote-mine.

    I’m no expert on the reptilian-avian transition, but it is commonly theorized that wings helped with thermoregulation at fisrt, and then reached a threshold where they became adaptations for flying. Joel Kingsolver at UNC-Chapel Hill did excellent research in this area. I should know since I took a class from him.

    I’m interested in your response to my ideas regarding your theology. I believe you have set up a dangerous dichotomy such that: either the earth is 6,000 years old and the Bible is right and God can be trusted or, the earth is ancient and thus the bible is unreliable. I say this is dangerous (to your religion anyway) because all modern science and common sense dictates that the earth is billions of years old. Most people, knowing this, would be forced to reject christianity based on your dichotomy.

  304. Anonymous said

    Chris said, “good scientists never claim to prove anything for certain” Then why do they claim to be “certain” about evolution? They just failed your own criteria. You’re talking in circles Chris. Can’t you see that?

  305. Maz Herman said

    Unreasonable. Bigotted. Ignorant. Obtuse. It works both ways Fred.
    I’v tried the scientific way and I still get sarcasm.
    Who’s being Obtuse?

  306. Anonymous said

    Fred is!!

  307. Chris C. said

    There is a difference between scientific language and the day-to-day language we use to describe things. As a philosophical rule, scientists do not ‘prove’ anything. What they do is form theories based on inductive arguments.

    Take the example:
    Premise: Every lion I have ever seen has sharp teeth.
    Conclusion: The next lion I see will have sharp teeth.

    This is not deductively valid. There is no way to truly prove or know that the next lion will have sharp teeth. But based on our knowledge of lions and past experiences, we can be reasonably certain that the next lion we see will have teeth. Thus this argument is said to be deductively invalid but inductively strong.

    Nearly every scientific theory is just one big inductive argument, relying on evidence and laws of nature to supply the inductive strength.

    So, as the philosophy of science is concerned, science has not proven evolution to be true, nor proven the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. For all common intents and purposes, however, these things are certain. There is a distinction, Anonymous 304. I hope it is clearer now.

  308. Educated Dawg said


    Can we keep this civilized and “scientific”?

    Name calling isn’t helping this issue Fred. It sure isn’t helping your side.

  309. Maz Herman said

    Chris: The Uranium dating method is based on the assumptions to do with the rate of decay of uranium to lead. A byproduct of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas, which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
    By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed.
    (This is consistant with geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found).
    HOWEVER, there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is, at first glance, surprising for long agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with it’s tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
    Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, ofcourse, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons.
    After samples were analized by a world-class expert on helium diffusion from minerals, and the rates measured, the consistent answer was that the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. in fact, the results show that because of the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few THOUSAND years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at todays rate) of radioactive decay has taken place. Since then, interestingly enough, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5,680 (+-2000) years. And this expert by the way was NOT A CREATIONIST.

  310. Fred said

    Yes, by all means let’s keep this scientific. Maz has not done so. You have not done so either, Mr. Educated Dawg.

    As for name calling, to what do you refer?

    Was ‘bigotry’ too strong a word? Would you prefer obstinate?

    You guys are the ones who started the deliberate provocations on this thread.

    Your “science” is not science at all. You insist on calling a dog a cat and you got called on it.

  311. Chris C. said

    “The Uranium dating method is based on the assumptions to do with the rate of decay of uranium to lead.”

    Kind of like math is based on the assumption that 10 – 4 = 6? Seems like a safe assumption.

    Maz, if you will provide links or a descripion of how to acess that information in its oriinal form, I’ll gladly investigate. In the meantime, would you be willing to answer my question in the bottom of post 303?

  312. Maz Herman said

    Chris: I was wondering which side you were o in your last post.
    ”scientists do not ‘prove’ anything”
    ”they form theories based on inductive arguments”
    ”science has not proven evolution to be true, nor proven the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.”
    ”For all common intents and purposes however, these thing are certain”
    Not proven but certain….THAT IS REALLY SCIENTIFIC Chris.

  313. Chris C. said

    Did you even get what I was saying? I was saying there is a difference in the way the scientific method regards things and they way we regard them in our every day speech.

    Science may say we have not “proven” the germ theory of disease. It is doubtful then, how germs are transmitted? Things can be certain in common knowledge but not proven by science. Thusfar you seem to not grasp the distinction.

  314. Maz Herman said

    Chris: I got the information about Uranium from an article in CREATION magazine 26(2) March-May 2004. It was headed ”Radiometric Dating Breakthroughs. New evidence for a young earth.”
    It was written by Carl Wieland. He is CEO of Answers in Genesis. No doubt you could get this information about Uranium on their web site http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org.

  315. Educated Dawg said

    “You insist on calling a dog a cat..”

    Now, do tell, where in all these posts have young-earth crationists called a dog a cat? If anything, it is the evolutionists that are literally calling a dog a cat 😉
    Yep, that is really Scientific 🙂

    Maz is bringing up some pretty good questions and comments. Seems Chris C is indeed getting into a pickle. Will he evolve into a hamburger, or potato salad?

  316. Educated Dawg said

    “You insist on calling a dog a cat..”

    Now, do tell, where in all these posts have young-earth crationists called a dog a cat? If anything, it is the evolutionists that are literally calling a dog a cat 😉
    Yep, that is really Scientific 🙂

    Maz is bringing up some pretty good questions and comments. Seems Chris C is indeed getting into a pickle. Will he evolve into a hamburger, or potato salad?

  317. Maz Herman said

    Chris: The earth is around 6,000 years old, and the Bible is right Chris, I know the God Who had it written down. I trust Him implicitly. Dangerous? Believing in God is in no way dangerous, but not believing in Him is.
    You say ”all modern science and common sense dictates that the earth is billions of years old”
    I think I covered the dating of the earth in my last post (by no means exhaustive).

  318. Maz Herman said

    I’m going to have to go now. Will be back later.

  319. Fred said

    Maz, if you will check the links in post #198 above you will find the rebuttals to that AiG Radiometric article you are so proud of.

    That article refers to the RATE(Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) study from AiG which was never published or reviewed in any real scientific way as far as I know.

    I don’t pretend to be a Geologist or to know their ways, but these types of rebuttals to AiG are usually fun and easy to understand for anyone.

  320. Fred said

    Here’s another interesting link to a rebuttal of the AiG RATE study:


  321. Educated Dawg said

    The RATE project is headed by ICR, not AiG. But AiG is involved in this.

    I’d recommend that the evolutonists sign up to receive ICR’s Acts & Facts monthly newsletter. This months publication dealt with how major debates took place back in the 70’s and 80’s concerning evolution and creation. Dr Henry Morris leading the way. ICR cut back on debates, focusing more on Scientific research. AiG stepped up with debates and creationist outreaches.

    I also noticed that right many of their Scientists, both at ICR and AiG have had articles published within the secular Scientific community. These can be verified by visiting the ICR and AiG websites.

  322. Chris C. said

    Oh goodness. I don’t have an exhaustive ammount of anti-creationist information on the tip of my tongue. I truly am in a pickle. Hope you were kidding about the cat-dog thing … I thought we had dispelled those erroneous notions of pig-birds, cat-dogs, and whale-cows, and other such pointless straw-men accusations.

    Fred, P. 319:
    I too found a nice article by Dr. Kevin R. Henke exposing the frauds of the so-called ‘findings’ Maz mentioned. The original findings were done by D. R. Humphries and yes, he is a young-earther, unlike Maz (maybe mistakenly) said. I don’t see the point in linking to it here as I’m sure it will be dismissed along with any other inconvenient truths. Claiming that the earth is 6000 years old is based solely on religious dogma. The evidence for a young earth is akin to the evidence the holocaust didn’t happen. That is, it is all made up, distorted, deliberaly misleading, or outright false.

    If you want to believe demonstrable falsehoods because your religion tells you to then that is okay. We still let people believe that the earth rests on the back of a turtle if they wish. But don’t call it science and don’t put it in a classroom where it may infect the minds of future world citizens.

    Still insistent that your view really is scientific? Then demonstrate it. The status quo has been overturned many times in the past (heliocentrism, germ theory, round-earth), but never because of dogma; always because of evidence.

    “If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can’t do it. You are a fake. ” — Richard Dawkins

  323. Fred said

    Yes, thanks, E. Dawg, my mistake.

  324. Fred said

    Chris, yes I posted the link to Henke’s essay (pending moderation) that I am sure will be dismissed by the resident shellbackers.

    Oops! There I am calling names again!

  325. Marc said

    What do you base your thinking on? Who do you give the authority of your beliefs? The Bible, which has never been proven wrong OR man, which history has shown repeatedly to be in error. The theory that Darwin proposed does not even resemble the theory of evolution that many biologists believe today. They have tweaked their theory so many times to fit their observation. Rather than observe first and then form a theory, which is what true scientist, do.

    On the other hand, no serious minded Christian has ever found errors in the Bible. The Word of God does not change, it is infallible. Man is not.

    There is no conflict between God and science, none whatsoever. Science is made through the observation of His creation. There is conflict between God and man. That is why we NEED Jesus Christ.

    I base my thinking on God and his Word. I give Him authority over my beliefs.

  326. Willie said

    I’m going to have to go now. Will be back later.

    He’s probably on some other board telling people to google ‘building 7’.

  327. Fred said

    Stay down, fellows, we don’t need 600 posts!

  328. abc's said


    “Rather than observe first and then form a theory, which is what true scientist, do.”

    What observations can be made, and what evidence observed that taken on its own would lead you to the story of creation?

    “On the other hand, no serious minded Christian has ever found errors in the Bible.”

    This is because any “serious minded Christian” starts with the belief that the Bible is inerrant. They must believe in the Bible in spite of the evidence.

    “The Word of God does not change, it is infallible.”

    How can faith be epistemologically valid when it provides no method for distinction between true and false propositions?

  329. Willie said

    How can faith be epistemologically valid when it provides no method for distinction between true and false propositions?

    Easy. A proposition is valid if it agrees with whatever my pastor thinks is true.

  330. Maz Herman said

    Fred: It seems you cannot control the attitude. We agree that we disagree in the origins of life, why all the names, the sarcasm? I believe with all my heart that God exists, that He created all things as the Bible teaches. I believe in Jesus Christ, He was a real historical man living in a real historical land. Historians, not particularly Christian, wrote about Him.
    It was when I realised that He really had existed in history (not just in Bible stories at Sunday school) that started my search for Who He really was. I came to the conclusion that he wasn’t a liar, he wasn’t a fraud (He fulfilled far too many prophecies for that) and He wasn’t a lunatic. He had to be Who He said He was. The Son of God. Historically He died at the hands of the Romans, after a very unjust trial by the leaders of the Jews, then miraculously He rose from the dead. The evidence is irrefutable, found by those who sort to disprove it rather than prove it. They came to know the Truth. I’m not going to attempt to explain that here tonight…too long.
    What I am trying to say is this Fred, I believe in God and you believe in evolution, I don’t call you names or get sarcastic, all I am here for is hopefully I will be able to show you what I know and believe to be the Truth. I’v tried the scientific way, as someone else suggested, and rather than get into the scientific debate like grown people, and putting each side over in a gentlemanly way (for me just gentle!) you tend to resort to putting people down and treating them like they are just ignorant religeous people who grasp at fraudulant scientists for their Creation belief.
    O.K. Fred, Chris, do we continue to debate in a civilized way whatever you may think of me (I am trying to be as honest as any human being can be) or do I call it a day.
    I like to debate, but only with people who truly want to hear aswell as talk. I’v gone onto your web sites but to be honest I can’t see anything that makes me change my beliefs.
    I’v got more science to share if you are willing to listen.
    With the risk of being labelled emotional, I am motivated by Gods Love, and Hid Love alone.

  331. Maz Herman said

    Willie: Why are you being sarcastic because I had to leave the debate earlier. I had things to do….and you obviously havn’t heard…I’m a female!

  332. Willie said

    Sorry. She.I forgot.

  333. Fred said

    “I’v got more science to share if you are willing to listen.” – Maz

    You haven’t presented any yet! How can you present more?

  334. Willie said

    I believe with all my heart that God exists, that He created all things as the Bible teaches.

    Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would be before the sermon started. That’s always their fallback position. What, my ‘evidence’ is a joke…well it doesn’t matter because I believe…blah blah…Jesus…blah blah…John 3:16…etc.

    He had to be Who He said He was.

    Just like Apollonius of Tyana and Joseph Smith.

    they are just ignorant religeous people who grasp at fraudulant scientists for their Creation belief.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  335. Anonymous said

    Fred, question for you… Do you hate God as much as you hate the Christians on this site?

  336. Anonymous said

    And Willie, yes I already know you do.

  337. Fred said

    Maz, I don’t really want to engage yourself personally in these discussions. I would much rather we each address the topic and the blog in general.

    There is a world of science available to us and it’s right down the street at the Public Library. We find it in the catalog under Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Paleontology etc, etc.

    We also find a Religion section. That is where we find young earth creation and Genesis.

    Until we can agree that Creationism, or Young Earth Creationism as put forth by Christian fundamentalists is not what science teaches us, then we are not going to get along very well. Especially if we address each other personally.

    Oh, and to answer your question from post #330: “We agree that we disagree in the origins of life, why all the names, the sarcasm?”

    I don’t remember agreeing to that, but we probably do disagree. What names have I called you? I am sarcastic because it’s hard not to be.


  338. Fred said

    Anonymous, I hate ignorance.

  339. Maz Herman said

    It seems nobody who is a Christian can say anything right on here. You don’t accept any science from us because you say it isn’t and you don’t want a ”sermon”. O.K.
    That means I have nothing else to debate about here so, Bye guys!

  340. Anonymous said

    Fred, don’t be so hard on yourself.

  341. Willie said

    nothing else to debate about here so, Bye guys!

    ouch. she tapped out.

  342. F. L. A. said

    OH WELL.

  343. Bob Griffin said

    Been to Miami for a wedding last weekend and got very behind.

    For Chris C

    193 – You are smarter than the designer. Amazing.

    227 – A few pages later in the book, Darwin says we must suppose each state is multiplied by the million. Very scientific.

    245/268 Natural selection is a mindless process, but it gets everything right? How could it put together our DNA, which starts with 3 billion base pairs that have to be in the correct order at once? You have more faith than me to believe that.

    313 – Step 1 of the scientific process is to observe the phenomena – not observe something now and make sweeping inferences contrary to what our world shows us.

  344. Bob Griffin said

    Chris C

    256 – There are over 60 old testament prophecies that came true in the person of Jesus Christ. That record of accuracy can be matched no where else.

  345. Willie said

    There are over 60 old testament prophecies that came true in the person of Jesus Christ.


  346. Bob Griffin said


    Youre mocking facts. Give me an example of any modern day psychic getting near 60 correct. How about 50? 40? 30?
    20? 10? Doesnt happen anywhere except in the bible.

  347. Willie said

    Where does your 60 percent figure come from? I thought the bible was 100 percent correct.

  348. F. L. A. said


  349. Fred said

    Excuse me for butting in, Bob, but the phenomenon scientists observe is speciation. Various species exist. That phenomenon is best explained scientifically by Darwin’s theory.

    And your 60 prophesies allegedly came true. Your using the Bible to prove it is true is hardly the same thing as yourself predicting the outcome of the next 60 lottery numbers.

  350. Chris C. said

    How hard would it have been for the gospel writers to simply make up some facts (or all of them) regarding Jesus in order to fulfill prophecy? That seems quite a bit more likely to me.

    In reference to post 227, what ‘state’ was supposed to be multiplied in the millions? Sorry I don’t understand what youre referencing here.

    Regarding natural selection, think of it like a seive. Yes, a seive is mindless but it never fails to sort things out, big from small. Natural selection works the same way except it sorts by fitness level.

    Thats right about observation, Bob. Except we don’t make ‘sweeping inferences contrary to what our world shows us.’ We make theories that explain the data. Evolution, by and large, accounts for our data correctly.

    One final thing. Don’t pretend that ‘faith’ in science is the same as religious faith. You believe a man turned water into wine for no reason other than an old book says so. That is religious faith. You and I both believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Why? Because of observations about the natural world and inductive logic. There is a distinction between these types of belief. One is grounded in reason, the other is not.

  351. Tripp said

    Watch the trailer:


  352. John said

    Interesting, Tripp.I don’t suppose that a Pagan Witch’s theological views of Theistic Evolution would be very welcome in such a “protest”, though. Or would it?

  353. WW said

    “Expelled” is a joke More like “Flunked.”

  354. Tripp said

    Hateful and blind is no way to go through life, Willie. What are your plans when you die?

  355. abc's said

    Since no one has yet to attempt to answer my question i’ll spell it out in detal.

    No one will ever convert to Christianity based on the Genesis story, or the story of Noah and the flood, or Jonah and the whale, or Job, or Moses, etc.

    People convert to Christianity based on the story of Jesus. It’s a realy nice story about a God that cares about us so much that he comes down to Earth to teach us a few things and provides a method for redemption and salvation.

    Once you believe in that, then you become softened up for the other incredible and provably false stories in the Bible. This is the only reason that you believe in creationism. The science does not support the story of Adam and Eve and the garden and a talking snake.

    My question still is:
    What evidence can you provide from the natural world that will make the story of Genesis the only accurate account for the beginning of all things, and at the same time proves that evolution is not that case?

    If evolution is wrong, then you must have some real evidence to prove it wrong. You can’t just criticize the theory. You have to have evidence that is based on other scientific observations made about the natural world.

    It’s ok that you can’t provide evidence. That’s because there isn’t any that supports your claim. It is not Science, it is religion. There’s nothing wrong with believing in creationism. It is only wrong to claim that it is Science.

  356. Willie said

    What Abc said x 2.

  357. Bob Griffin said

    Willie – 347

    I said 60 prophecies came true, not that 60% of the bible was correct. Can you name any other book like that?

  358. Bob Griffin said

    349 – Fred

    I didnt mention a lottery.

  359. Willie said

    bob- my mistake. sorry misread your comment as 60 percent correct. Can you name any of these prophecies?

  360. Bob Griffin said

    350 – Chris C

    It would have been very hard. The predictions were made 500 – 1000 years in advance.

    What “state”? Beats me. It comes straight from Darwins book. Maybe you can elaborate for me.

    What inductive logic shows us a transitional form? Once again, I dont see what he says. By the way, the Bible is based on a lot of reason. We can actually see what it says through archaeology, not have to infer from it like Darwin.

    Speaking of transitional forms – many people have slammed my ideas of them. Imply that I dont get the theory. On page 151 of his book, Darwin talks about a land carnivorous animal converting to one with aquatic habits. I see a mermaid. What forms do you see as transitional?

  361. Willie said

    On page 151 of his book, Darwin talks about a land carnivorous animal converting to one with aquatic habits. I see a mermaid. What forms do you see as transitional?

    Ask and ye shall receive.

  362. abc's said


    I assume the whole mermaid bit is a joke, but…

    I have never seen a mermaid, nor have I seen mermaid fossils. If we did find mermaid fossils, then the theory of evolution would predict that we should find other transitional fossils that show a possible line of transition from apes into mermaids, and we would expect that mermaids share a common ancestor with apes and humans.
    We don’t find any of this, so it is reasonable to assume that there are no such things as mermaids.

  363. Fred said

    Bob, do even read the answers to your questions?
    You said:

    “There are over 60 old testament prophecies that came true in the person of Jesus Christ. That record of accuracy can be matched no where else.”

    You also said:

    “Give me an example of any modern day psychic getting near 60 correct.”

    Bob, you are using the Bible to prove what the Bible says is true. That is hardly the same thing as someone predicting the next 60 lottery numbers (or the next 60 anythings).

    Do you understand the difference?

  364. Chris C. said

    Hey Bob,

    I’ll admit I have never read Darwin’s book word-for-word. I have read lots of segments for classes, etc. but not the whole thing. That said, modern science has changed since Darwin wrote his book. His fundamental idea (natural selection) is as powerful and correct now as it was in 1859. However, other aspects of his theory have been added to, revised, changed, etc. We now have what we call Neodarwinism or, more correctly, the Modern Synthesis which adds in all of the heritablility information provided by Mendel. I won’t swear every word in Darwin’s book is right.

    Let’s talk about just one fulfilled prophecy. Micah 5:2 indicates Jesus will be born in Bethlehem. Mary and Joeph were, of course, from Nazareth. So the Gospel writers used the census of Quiinius to explain that Joseph would have had to return to Bethlehem becuase “he was of the lineage of David.”

    That would be akin to a census today asking me to return to Ireland since my great x 10 grandfather was from ireland. Why should Joseph have to return to Bethlehem at all? It might make sense to go to a central location, but not to a place simply because your great great granfather was from there.

    Second, the census of Quirinius (well, of Ceasar really, but issued by Quirinius) ocurred in 7 A.D., AFTER the death of King Herod in 4 A.D.. The Bible specifically says that Jesus was born under the reign of King Herrod and that Herrod even had enough time on the throne to learn about the baby that was being worshipped. He even had enough time to issue a decree that all newborns be killed.

    So, was Jesus born in 1 or 2 A.D.? Or was it 7 A.D.? The gospel writers were obviously just trying to fulfill prophecy by making up a reason to have Joseph be in Bethlehem for their story.

    When the New Testament was written the Torah and other books of the bible had long been known of. It is not inconceivable or improbable that the Gospel writers knew of messianic prophecies and tried to fulfill them in their writing. And what more, the Bible wasn’t assembled as we have it today until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s by a bunch of preists and religious scholars. They certainly left out a lot more gospels and books than they saw fit to include. Might have been easy to pick only the ones that made the best story…

  365. F. L. A. said


  366. Chris C. said

    Yeah, apologies for the side-track. Bob brought it up tho! *pointing finger*

  367. Bob Griffin said


    You saw the qoute from the book. What should the forms look like?

    You make my point – we dont see what he says – but then you assume that proves his point. We dont see it so that proves it.
    Why the hang up on the transitional forms? We should have them based on his theory ( except for the convenient part where he says they exterminate themselves )

  368. Bob Griffin said

    Fred 363

    Why not use fact to prove fact? For your sake, lets just drop any modern day examples. Where else do you find anyone predicting with such accuracy?

  369. Bob Griffin said

    Chris 364

    Yes, you can probably pick apart each one and you will get agreement on either side. I just choose to look at them in totality and see this could not have happened by chance or by manipulation of the gospel writers.

  370. John said

    Pythia.The prophetess of Delphi.

  371. Educated Dawg said


  372. Chris C. said


    I think unltimatly we’re talking in circles. You asked, “where are the transitional forms?”

    Evidence of transitional forms has since been provided. Hominid transition, reptile-mammal tranition, mammal-whale transition, I think we even touched on dinosaur-avian transition.

    You (or others such as Maz) have dismissed every example and every peice of evidence provided. And then you ask again “Where are the transitional forms??”

    While there is a great deal more evidence out there and a lot more info on the subject (look at the link in post 289), sufficient info has been provided on transitional forms. I think ultimatly, no ammount of scientific evidence could persuade you so I’ll just stop answering that particular question since it leads us no where.

  373. abc's said


    “Why the hang up on the transitional forms?”

    I would ask you the same question.
    The evidence is there. We do have transitional fossils. Why the hang up?

    I would also like to point out again that transitional fossils provide just one set of evidences that support the theory of evolution.

  374. Bob Griffin said

    Darwin asks in the book – Why is nature not all in confusion? In other words, why arent things transitioning around us. I cant get past that one. I guess well have to disagree on that one.

  375. abc's said

    That’s fair to disagree.

    I see that things are transitioning all of the time. This is exactly what Darwin observed with the birds. He could see how nature was constantly in transition.
    Nature doesn’t appear in confusion because the changes from one generation to the next are so small. We should never expect to see a bird lay and egg that hatches and a little lion comes roaring out. Nor should we see some type of bird-lion.
    The large phenotype changes that differentiate species and phyla come about over many many successive generations with changes in environmental pressures.

  376. John said

    See post#60.

  377. Fred said

    Bob, do you understand that you are trying to use the Bible to prove what the Bible says is true? Show us where the Bible’s predictions are proven independently.

  378. Fred said


  379. Educated Dawg said

    Considering that the Bible was written over a period of 1500 years by 40+ men from different locations in three different languages, it being regarded as one book is really a miracle in itself.

    Try getting 40 men of the same town to write a story, each taking a different part and see what it comes out to be.

    Just look at the Quran written by one man and how much it is inconsistent even in itself. You can’t even go to it in order to get proven prophesies. The book of Mormon, again written by one man, yet inconsistent and in great error concerning prophesies.

    The Bible stands alone in regard to prophecy. Nostradamus couldn’t even come close 😉

    Yet, since evolutionists deny any of the supernatural and disregard miracles. What does it matter if the Bible makes prophetic claims? Isn’t like the evolutionist would say “ok, give that to God. it’s true.” Now, come on! Natural Science admitting there is a God? That’s like God believing in atheists. 🙂

    And, Fred, are you sure you’re a Christian? You reject core doctrines of the Christian faith. Are you related to Obama?

  380. Willie said

    Yes, it’s amazing how consistent the Bible is. And that’s just the short list.

  381. Educated Dawg said

    I don’t know which is more fascinating, skepticsannotatedbible or talkorigins? They’re both hilarious.

    The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit, for they are spiritually discerned. Let God be true and every man a liar.

    These same sites adhere to atheistic evolution, the same dogma that said African pigmies were “missing links” in the hominid lineage. The same dogma that says “uniformitarianism”, no wait, “punctuated equilibrium”……….etc.

  382. Educated Dawg said

    Ok, I think this thread has ran its course. The information is here for anyone to see. The links have been referenced. We have more than enough information here for everyone to read, study and interpret.

    I am convinced that this battle is deeper than “Science vs Religion”. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a constant jab at the Bible and Jesus Christ by the atheists and skeptics here as well as Dawkins, Huxley, Gould, Bozarth, etc.

    No Science museum is titled “Theistic evolutionary science center” – They are instead “Natural Science Center” thereby leaving out any sign of a deity in regard to origins. All the theistic evolutionists here are just fooling themselves if they think modern evolutionary thought is compatable with their religion. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Brown laugh as they produce their written works against all Deity, but especially the Christian God.

    Great thread this was. I enjoyed it. Good night 🙂

  383. Fred said

    We’ve been dismissed by Mr. Dawg! It’s like Barney Fife telling the crowd to move along!

  384. Anonymous said

    Yes, move along Ernest T.!!!

  385. Joe said

    Apparently Mr. Willie can’t think for himself. All he’s doing is pulling in links from other sources who do the thinking for him.

  386. Chris C. said


    I’ll grant you that skeptics annotated bible is a bit over the top on some things. But TalkOrigins is a legitmate site that publishes peer reviewed work and contains (almost exclusively) well-researched information.

    It is obvious some of you are willing to trust god over anything your senses tell you. As I have said all along, this is okay, but it is not science. And that’s why there’s a battle. Most christians, globally, have accepted the truth of evolution and reconciled it with their theory. The battle is not between really between religion and science, but between science and non-science.

    Evolution has never held to uniformitarian theory. And I think if anything in this thread should be abudantly clear, it is that those who critize the theory almost always mischaracterize it, oversimplify it, or fail to grasp it completely.

  387. Chris C. said

    ***And that’s why there’s a battle. Most christians, globally, have accepted the truth of evolution and reconciled it with their religion Sorry for the typo.

  388. F. L. A. said


  389. Bob Griffin said

    Chris C and abc

    My problem with transitional forms is we dont see any living ones. What would your inference be looking at nature? All species are by kind, not half one and half another. If we have millions of species and billions of years, why does it look like evolution stopped all at once? If all these slow changes are taking place over all these years, it would make sense that you should see it happening now. Even Darwin thought that.

  390. abc's said


    I can only really say that you have an incorrect perception of what a transitional form is. Everything is in transition. We don’t know what types of changes may occur in the environment to necessitate change in animals.
    Things appear to be grouped into “kinds” because that’s the way we have given order to things. If a creature has feathers, 2 wings and a beak we designate those kinds of things as birds. Nature didn’t design birds to be birds like, we ascribed that value to them.
    We do see the slow changes taking place. We even encourage them when we selectively breed animals. Maybe we can agree that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal, but look at the differences we have with the different breeds of dog that exist now. Those different breeds haven’t existed since the beginning of time.
    In nature, wolves are pretty well adapted to their environments and they are fairly similar to each other.
    At one point in time some of them became domesticated and they continued to evolve into the different types of dogs that we have today as a result of natural selection and our selective breeding.
    This is the best example I can think of off hand, but we’ve done the same thing with plants and fish.

    Taking the example a bit further…
    Chihuahas and wolves share a common ancestor.
    If we chose to, we could continue to breed chihuahas to select for exotic traits. One day a chihuaha could be born that has a genetic defect that causes it to have no teeth.
    We could then breed that dog with no teeth until we have an entire group of chihuahas with no teeth. Then we could select another trait that will randomly show up in time, such as a dog with no teeth and no tail.
    If we kept doing this over a long period of time wouldn’t you expect their to come a point in time where the animals that are born are so vastly different from the original chihuaha that it might be prudent to consider it an entirely different animal?
    We couldn’t begin an experiment like that and expect for the chihuahas to slowly evolve until they become birds, because we can’t account for the random genetic mutations that may show up.

  391. Fred said

    Bob, you asked the same question (“Why don’t we see transitional species?”, or variations thereof ten times on this thread in your posts 57,154,160,165,182,191,192,360,367 and

    You have been answered directly nine times in posts 156,161,164,171,183,193,361,362,372.

    Do you not care to understand, or do you not even read the replies?

    If you are sincere about learning what Science teaches us about the origins of species I am going to post a link to an indispensable resource for doing just that.

  392. Fred said

    Bob, here is the link:


    Hope this helps.

  393. F. L. A. said


  394. John said

    Thank you, Fred!

  395. Fred said

    Da nada!

  396. Bob Griffin said

    ABC 390

    Everyone keeps saying I have an incorrect perception of a transitional form. Darwin himself tries to explain an animal that goes from land to aquatic form. Nobody will explain that. As for the human breeders, they have not been able to make one breed turn into another. Just like Darwins theory, it sounds possible but we dont see it.

  397. Bob Griffin said

    Fred 391

    I keep asking about the transitional species because just like Darwin, I dont see them. I hear the lame excuse that we are all transitional species. If evolution works like you and Darwin think it does, we should have millions of examples. Our world (inference) shows us that all the species are defined, not changing. I cant get past the excuses that we are all transitional forms, or the earlier forms have exterminated themselves.

  398. Fred said

    Bob, that book I recommended will help you understand. Check it out.
    I am posting a link to the Talkorigins section on transitional fossils.

  399. Fred said

    here it is:

  400. abc's said


    “Everyone keeps saying I have an incorrect perception of a transitional form.”

    Just think about that.

    “As for the human breeders, they have not been able to make one breed turn into another.”

    The Doberman Pinscher is a classic and well documented example.

    As for land to sea..

  401. Bob Griffin said


    I checked it out. I was getting heat because I mentioned things like cat-dog, whale to person, etc. The article you linked to has species to species transitions. So why am I getting heat?

  402. Bob Griffin said


    Im familiar w ambulocetus. Many fossil finds have different interpretations. Many hoaxes too. As for the breeds, I meant something like dog to cat.

  403. abc's said

    It goes back to the general misunderstanding.

    Why do you expect that a dog should evolve until it becomes a cat or a person?
    It’s not likely to happen that way. What we should expect is that after many successive changes and generations we will have a new type of animal that can no longer be called a dog.

    On a different tack, I would like to learn something.

    How would you describe the ambulocetus, and how does it both fit the predictions made by the “theory of intelligent design” as well as provide evidence that macro evolution is not possible?

  404. Bob Griffin said


    We are told we all came from one animal. Lets say it was a dog. That will have to give us a cat and a person and all the other animals we see. I guess I do have a general misunderstanding of this grand theory that I cant see happening. It just doesnt make common sense to happen like Darwin says.

    As to ambulocetus, many conclusions and renderings can be made based on one set of artifacts. I saw the movie A Flock of Dodos. I think they found a whale fossil, and an armlike fossil nearby. They said obviously the whale was growing an arm, and this proves evoltion. I would think something with an arm died next to the whale.

  405. abc's said

    It is good to be skeptical of things like finding a fossil of an arm with fossils of a whale like creature. It’s not fair to be dismissive of all of the information based on that initial skepticism.
    It took maybe 15 seconds for me to do an internet search and find this.


  406. F. L. A. said


  407. Anonymous said


    The Maker of all human beings will be recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to a serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart.

    This is due to a malfunction in the original prototype units code named Adam and Eve, resulting in the reproduction of the same defect in all subsequent units.

    This defect has been technically termed “Subsequential Internal Non-Morality,” or more commonly known as SIN, as it is primarily expressed.

    other symptoms include:
    1. Loss of direction
    2. Foul vocal emissions
    3. Amnesia of origin
    4. Lack of peace and joy
    5. Selfish or violent behavior
    6. Depression or confusion in the mental component
    7. Fearfulness
    8. Idolatry
    9. Rebellion

    The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at fault for this defect, is providing factory-authorized repair and service free of charge to correct this SIN defect. The Repair Technician, Jesus, has most generously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. There is no additional fee required.

    The number to call for repair in all areas is:


    Once connected, please upload your burden of SIN through the REPENTANCE procedure. Next, download ATONEMENT from the Repair Technician, Jesus, into the heart component. No matter how big or small the SIN defect is, Jesus will replace it with:
    1. Love
    2. Joy
    3. Peace
    4. Patience
    5. Kindness
    6. Goodness
    7. Faithfulness
    8. Gentleness
    9. Self control

    Please see the operating manual, the B.I.B.L.E. (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth), for further details on the use of these fixes.

    WARNING: Continuing to operate the human being unit without correction voids any manufacturer warranties, exposing the unit to dangers and problems too numerous to list and will result in the human unit being permanently impounded.

    DANGER: The human being units not responding to this recall action will have to be scrapped in the furnace. The SIN defect will not be permitted to enter Heaven so as to prevent contamination of that facility.

    Thank you for your attention!

    Your FATHER in Heaven

  408. Bob Griffin said


    I can take about 15 seconds and get many pages on the hoaxes done over the last 100 years. Why do evolutionists need to create a hoax to prove their point?

  409. Bob Griffin said

    406 fla

    No, I really dont get the concept. It just doesnt make sense. And once again, our world shows us nothing that looks like that. Maybe thats why Im having trouble with the concept.

    We may have some of the same type bones as a whale. Dont you think a common designer would use some of the same parts?

  410. abc's said


    You are changing the subject now. You asked specifically for an example of a transitional fossil of a creature making the transition from land back to sea. Ambulocetus is one of several different creatures that we have fossil evidence of that have been discovered.
    Ignoring the evidence doesn’t make it go away. There must have a rational explanation.

  411. Bob Griffin said


    Im not ignoring the evidence. If you tell me millions of things changed over millions or billions of years, logic would tell you that we should see many examples of this. You can come up with only a few supposed examples. You should have millions of examples for me to argue about, not just a few.

  412. abc's said

    I thought to make the conversation easier we could start with just one, but if you’d like to deal with many at once, I guess we could start with this very short list.
    Check out each one and provide a brief description of what each thing actually is/was and why each is not a transitional form.
    Also explain how the creation story would predict that we should find these types of fossils.
    Lastly, explain how we can start with the evidence from these fossils and logically work towards the creation story as described in the book of Genesis.

    Nautiloids to Ammonoids

    Fish to Amphibians
    Tiktaalik roseae
    Pederpes finneyae

    Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)

    Synapsid (mammal-like “reptiles”) to mammals

    Diapsid reptiles to birds

    Evolution of whales

    Evolution of the horse

    Non-human apes to modern humans
    Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
    Homo rudolfensis
    Homo habilis
    Homo erectus

  413. John said

    Very well done ABC’s![gentle applause]

    Anonymous post#407, that was great.I made a copy of it to share with the Christians within my life. Thanks[smile]

  414. Anonymous said

    Thanks John
    Happy to make you smile!!

  415. John said

    And happy to make you happy, as well.
    You always were one of my favorites.

  416. Bob Griffin said


    I checked out a few. They have some good artists. Got to go to Florida again this weekend. Ill check back Sunday night.

  417. Bob Griffin said

    Ill check out your list this week.

    Lets assume we have no bible, and no creation story from Genesis. Go outside and look at the world. Does your inference tell you we were created at the same time by kind or evolved from 1 animal?

  418. F. L. A. said


  419. BT said

    Just glancing at these remarks – I wonder if the more militant creationists don’t actually glimpse some truth in the theory of evolution — and find it terrifying. I know I did, before I finally accepted it. So did Dawkins (in the first chapter of The God Delusion), and many others who have left the church behind. Evolution is not something we want to “believe” – there’s absolutely nothing comforting about it. I don’t want it to be true. But it doesn’t matter what I want. It is true. It’s a matter of accepting the truth and denying the creationist myth. Oh, the theory will be modified endlessly as we discover more about our universe, but the theory will hold. Christianity’s only hope is a militant theocracy that bans such thinking. And I believe that has happened before.

    When Dawkins spoke in Va. recently, he was asked to provide some idea of earth’s timeline. He held out his arm and said, If life on earth begins at my shoulder, then the whole of human existence is the brush of a nail file against the end of my finger. I find that terrifying. And distances — if the light from distant stars takes millions of years to reach us – and even hardcore creationists believe that — I’m to believe that God created this light “already in progress” when he created the earth? I suppose. I suppose you can throw the God-box around anything. But when you do that you’re not thinking. You’re rationalizing your fear. And I dont blame you. I wish I believed the creationist fairy tale, same as you.


  420. Chris C. said

    In response to BT and his assertion “Evolution is not something we want to “believe” – there’s absolutely nothing comforting about it.”

    “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will never in fact see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly these unborn greats include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupifying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.”

    and also,

    “After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked – as I am surprisingly often – why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way around, isn’t it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?”

    From Unweaving the Rainbow, by Richard Dawkins.

  421. BT said

    Thanks, Chip. I read that book long ago but I’d forgotten those elegant passages. I’ll reconsider my position in the universe in light of Dawkins’ wisdom. And thanks for addressing my larger point – that a universe so overwhelmingly vast and indifferent isn’t honored – even envisioned – by the authors of “the good book.”

    The men who wrote the bible, and the men who have fiddled with it over the centuries to suit their own purposes, are small thinkers. The apostle Paul is no Dawkins.

  422. Anonymous said

    418 fla

    Only one animal? Im not sure. Darwin doesnt explain absolute beginnings. He assumes that some one or few species were already here. Can you tell me which ones, and how we evolved from them?

  423. Anonymous said

    BT and Chris C

    For evolution to happen, we had to start off somewhere with a strand of DNA. A DNA strand is composed of 3 billion base pairs, which have to be in exact order at the right time. Did the mindless process of natural selection just happen to get it right? You are putting a lot of faith in nature getting the first step correct.

  424. BT said

    As the election heats up we’ll be getting more and more of this – “are democrats the party of death?” “can a christian be half-muslim?” “does the bible condone female rule?” “Do evolutionists hate America?” Religious “reasons” to vote corporate – to vote republican. It’s so obvious.

    For A – maybe I missed something in my reading of Darwin, but I don’t think his theories extended to cosmology. A, when you say, “putting a lot of faith in” you’re parroting the republican/christian line, “it takes more faith to be an _____ (fill in your opponent)…” I don’t “believe” in Darwinism, I don’t have “faith” in it, I simply understand it. I’m not sure that you do. I know it’s a strange predicament and I’m not trying to be condescending — but in order to truly understand the theory you have to let go of your creation myth. I suggest you begin with – God Created Evolution – and see what happens. Begin there and maybe it will become more clear to you.

  425. Chris C. said


    Again, Darwin’s work is the foundation of modern evolutionary theory, but it is certainly not complete or utterly correct. DNA didn’t necessarily have to start off exactly like we see it today. It could well have been a much simpler thing. Some organic chemists have proposed that in fact RNA was the first to come into being. I don’t think anyone has all the answers as to how this happened. But then again, a hundred years ago we didn’t understand nuclear fusion. We might well have said, “I don’t see any way the sun could just start producing so much energy without burning out! It must be GOD!” The argument from ignorance is not a valid form of reasoning. Just because you or I cannot explain something doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation.

    Secondly, just because you have an explanation (God) does not mean that is necessarily better then others not yet having an explanation. I know it is deeply unsatisfying to most reliious believers, but honest people and scientists very often have to say, “I don’t know.” This isn’t an admission of error or a problem for scintific theory. It’s just the truth.

  426. Bob Griffin said

    424 BT

    Lets assume there is no religion and no bible. It takes more faith to believe Darwin than to believe all was created.

  427. Bob Griffin said

    Chris C

    Were not sure how it all came about – fine. But DNA still has 3 billion base pairs in the correct order at once. How did that happen? Did it start with 1 million? 10 million? 1 billion? Seems like that would be hard to do.

    I dont have a problem saying neither of us can prove our point with 100% certainty. I just think the evidence for my side makes a better case.

  428. Chris C. said

    What evidence Bob?

    To the best of my knowledge the only points made on the side of young earth creationism is that:

    Evolution is wrong.
    It can’t be proven.
    Supposed evidence ‘A’ for evolution is invalid for some reason…

    I haven’t seen anything offered that actually bolsters the argument for YEC. Only that evolution is somehw wrong.

  429. F. L. A. said


  430. BT said

    For Bob, entry 426 –

    By that logic, a flat world theory required less faith than a round world theory… in the 14th century. It’s so obvious that the sun rises and sets – only it doesn’t. Creationists are stuck in a similar rut.

    Let us assume there is no God and no Bible — how did we get here? If you cannot take the first step – imaging the absence of God, you’ll never understand Darwin or his Theory of Evolution.

  431. Bob Griffin said


    Chris C

    I didnt mean YEC. I just meant the evidence for creation vs evolution.

    Any idea on how the 3 billion base pairs came together?

  432. Bob Griffin said

    BT 430

    Im talking all the evidence now – not 14th century. I think incredible complexity shows design – you dont. Same question for you – how do the 3 billion base pairs of dna come together?

    I thought the standard line was evolution is not anti God. I am open to the fact we may not have a God. Are you open to the fact we may have one?

  433. abc's said


    in answer to

    “how do the 3 billion base pairs of dna come together?”

    By the slow gradual process of replication and natural selection.

    During the first billion years on earth, there was little free oxygen and no ozone to absorb UV radiation from the sun. Yet, simple organic molecules were formed under such harsh conditions, based solely on the well understood laws of physics.

    Laboratory experiments simulating the primitive earth have confirmed that organic molecules could have been formed. When gases such as CO2, CH4, NH3, and H2 were heated with water and energized by electrical discharge or by UV radiation, they reacted and formed small organic molecules. More importantly, the organic molecules that were crucial to life (amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and fatty acids) were also generated.
    Organic molecules such as amino acids and nucleotides can interact to form polymers. The polymer of amino acids and nucleotides are called polypeptides and polynucleotides respectively. These polymers are capable of directing their own synthesis.

    Voila. If you have matter you also have the electromagnetic forces. Give those forces enough time to work and you will get atoms. Those atoms will form molecules, the molecules will form polymers and those polymers will begin to self replicate.
    At this point in time, you don’t have life, but you do have organic molecules that are capable of reproduction, errors will happen during replication and natural selection will inevitably take place.
    These organic self-replicating molecules will begin to compete with each other for resources.
    Some of these strings of organice molecules probably connected to each other to form a very rudimentary and primitive “cell membrane”. You probably get the idea by now, but basically, things started very simply.
    We are pretty late on the scene so to speak and most of the life we observe is very complex and continues to become more complex.

  434. Bob Griffin said


    I dont get the idea. You sound like Darwin. Lab studies show something COULD HAVE formed. Lets give you the point and say amino acids, etc did form by themselves. Now you have to have 3 billion base pairs together at the same time. A very slow, mindless process will do this? Explain to me how to get from base pair 1 to base pair 3 billion. Say you have 1 amino acid floating around in the primordial soup – take it from there.

  435. abc's said


    First, let me say the we are now well outside any area of science that I have expertise in.
    What we are talking about now is biochemistry and not darwinian evolution.
    This single amino acid that we hypothetically start with, is it hydrophilic? hydrophobic? Polar/nonpolar? Is it charged when it is in a neutral solution, acidic, or basic ph? Is it ionizable? Aromatic? Aliphatic?
    I could go on and describe in detal my understanding and interpretation of the evidence but I think that would miss the point. Suffice it to say that no matter how complex you believe it to be, in reality things are a lot more complex than that.
    We don’t know the exact steps that it took to move from molecules to microbes. There is a lot of good work out there that is based on evidence and there are a few competing theories. If you were sincere in wanting to know the answer to your question then you would have already done the research. I do have my own understanding of how it may have happened.

    In many other posts I have asked a few simple questions regarding the creation story and interpretations of some of the transitional fossils we have. I didn’t receive an answer to those, so I don’t feel it’s necessary to answer any more questions either.
    The evidence is out there.
    Good luck to everyone in their search for the truth.

  436. Bob Griffin said


    It doesnt matter what kind of acid it is. Pick any one. Tell me how you get from there to 3 billion base pairs. We have to start somewhere. I am sincere. It boggles my mind to think these could come together by a mindless process.

    My problem w the transitional fossils is we have some that are created by scientists and artists to look like they want it to. We dont find stages A-Z to prove the theory. Darwins says they eliminate themselves, but he didnt observe that. I guess we will have to interpret the data in our own way.

  437. Willie said

    Willie’s impression of a conversation with Bob Griffin:
    BG: Where are the transitional fossils?
    ABC: Here they are. (gives evidence)
    BG: But my question is where are the transitional fossils?
    ABC: Here are some more.
    BG: Yes, but where are the transitional fossils?

  438. abc's said


    Like I said before about molecules to microbes… I don’t know. I am familiar with the competing theories and there is one that I think is most plausible and makes the most sense to me based on the evidence.

    As far as what you say about transitional forms, to me it sounds like you are saying that no transitional form will ever count as evidence because it could just be an artists misinterpretation. I can’t argue with that.

    Instead of looking at evolution from simple cellular life to the complex myriad of species we have today, try a different approach. Think about it this way.
    If we look through the fossil record and geologic layers, why don’t we find fossils of dogs that are 80 million years old?

    If we dig deep enough we can find layers of rock that only contain fossils of very simple microbes. We can also find layers that include exotic types of aquatic life that do not exist today.
    If evolution is true we should expect to see these things. We can also predict that the layers between “only microbes” to “microbes and lots of exotic fish” should have some types of intermediates that are more complex or “evolved” than microbes, but less complex than the newer fish.

    This is what we find, everywhere on Earth.

    The geologic record provides evidence that there was a time when there was no animal life on land. There’s a lot of life running around on dry land today. We should expect to find intermediates that could’ve plausibly bridged that gap, and we do.

    What’s even more amazing is that we can predict exactly where and “when” we should find these intermediates. Every so often we are lucky enough to find a partially fossilized animal that fits the description of an intermediate, and… it is always “where” and “when” we expect it to be.

    There are a lot of conditions that have to be just right for a dead animal to fossilize. In your daily life, how many fossils do you stumble over and discover when you walk around? I’m willing to bet that it isn’t very many. I bet you don’t even have any fossilized remains of a childhood pet.

    We can’t expect to have a fossil of every single animal that ever existed. It seems like this is the kind of thing you are expecting in order for it to count as evidence.

    And it bears repeating again: the fossil record is only one piece of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

  439. Bob Griffin said


    This is more like it.

    BG Show me the steps from 1 – 100.
    ABC Here’s step 20.
    BG Thats not 1- -100.
    ABC Heres step 30.
    BG Still cant find 1 – 100.

    Darwin himself wondered why we dont find the fossils, but he also said they exterminate themselves. Which is it?

  440. abc's said


    I like that analogy.
    Here’s my interpretation.

    Bob: Show me 1 – 100
    ABC: Here’s step 20
    Bob: Show me 1 – 100
    ABC: Here’s step 30
    Bob: Show me 1 – 100
    ABC: It is unreasonable to expect to find 1 – 100.
    Bob: Because there was no step 1 – 100. There are no steps.
    ABC: How do you account for step 20 and 30?

  441. Bob Griffin said


    Why is it unreasonable to find steps 1 – 100?

    I account for step 20 and 30 as your interpretation of fossils.

  442. abc's said


    It is exactly as unreasonable as this.

    ABC: Bob, can you provide me with a list of names of every one of your direct ancestors for the last 5000 years? I understand that it could be difficult, but you should be able to find the fossilized remains of all of them.

    Bob: Here you go. This is a list of my direct ancestors for the last 300 years. Here is also good genetic evidence to show that they came out of Europe before that and they were a part of such and such tradition. I also have an old family crest tapestry that has been dated back to 750 years. Here is also a skeleton from a tomb that bears my family name and is over 1500 years old.

    ABC: That’s interesting, but how do I know you didn’t just make that up? It makes more sense to say that your first ancestor was created 300 years ago. You don’t have any evidence to prove that this isn’t the case.

  443. Anonymous said

    Q: Old fossils – a problem for evolutionists?
    A: According to evolutionists, the oldest fossils ever found are a blue-green algae that lived along the coast of Australia and South Africa. These fossils have been dated by them to be 3.5 billion years old. But when they examined these fossils under the microscope, they found that they were identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today. Dr William Schopf Dr William Schopf, a leading evolutionist, says that this presents a tremendous problem for evolution.
    Evolution is based upon change, and yet these algae don’t appear to have changed at all in their supposed 3.5 billion years. If evolution is based on everything changing, why do we find these oldest fossils to be identical to the living algae today? And it’s not just the blue-green algae – scientists continue to find many living animals that appear to have hardly changed at all compared to their fossils that are allegedly millions of years old.

  444. abc's said


    I would like to see the article you are quoting from.

    I’m not disagreeing with you for the purpose of disagreeing, i’m just going to ask a few questions that immediately come to mind.

    Who wrote the article, and why?

    Blue Green Algae is a much simpler lifeform than something like an amphibian. It’s no surprise that the oldest fossils found are very simple organisms.

    Because blue green algae is such a simple micro organism, would a few slight changes in the genetic material cause it to become a completely different organism? By this I mean, could one or two base changes in the genetic code cause the blue green algae to actually be red algae or something different enough to no longer be blue green algae?

    Sharks are another good example of a species that hasn’t changed in millions of years. The reason is because they are very well adapted to their environment and the oceans haven’t changed much (which would change selective pressures).

    Is it even true that the oldest fossils are blue green algae and 3.5 billion years old?

    These fossils were found along the coastline. It fits predictions made by the theory because life should have first arisen and thrived in water.

    Evolution is not based on everything changing. It is based upon genetic mutation and natural selection. If there are no significant mutations and no changes in natural selection we should expect to see little to no change over time. It’s a prediction of the theory.

    What about all of the fossils that we find that do show change? Do we discredit all of that science based on a few other finds that don’t contradict predictions made by the theory?

    It would pose a much bigger problem if these fossils were found at the top of a mountain, or there were mammal remains within the same geologic layer, or if instead of being blue green algae it was something totally unrecognizable and non cellular.

  445. Chris C. said

    This probably came from some christian news site as it incudes the words “leading evolutionist”. In reality, people generally call themselves “evolutionary biologists” or “evolutionary scientists”, not “evolutionists”.

  446. Willie said

    Apparently this is AiG’s handiwork. They manufacture these stories and the faithful never bother to check it out.


  447. abc's said


    You were right on the money.

    Answers in Genesis repeats the blue-green algae lie

    John Stear

    Young Earth creationists (YECs) are often accused of lying in order to support their young Earth claims. A lie can be defined as:

    1. A false statement or piece of information deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

    2. Anything meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

    On 14 November 2003 Answers in Genesis (AiG), in their Answers Update Weekly News, claimed that a prominent scientist, Dr William Schopf, a Professor of Paleobiology at the University of California, made a statement indicating that because 3.5 million year old blue-green algae found along the coasts of Australia and South Africa was identical to blue-green-algae found today, it posed a problem for evolution.

    Early in 2004, I and two colleagues wrote a rebuttal to that “Weekly News”, pointing out that AiG’s allegation against Dr Schopf were false. In addition, I contacted Dr Schopf who confirmed that the opinion attributed to him by AiG was indeed false.

    On 4 December 2004 I received another issue of AiG’s Weekly News with the same title, worded exactly the same and making the same claim about Dr Schopf.

    In an effort to have AiG admit they repeated the same lie about Dr Schopf I sent the message below to AiG’s “Feedback” page.

    Dear AiG

    In your “Answers Update” of 14 November 2003 you raised the question of blue-green algae fossils, claiming that because these fossils haven’t changed in 3.5 million years they posed a problem for evolution.

    You also claimed that a quote by Dr William Schopf, a Professor of Paleobiology at the University of California, confirmed your claim. I contacted Dr Schopf and discovered that that quote has been shown, by Scopf himself, to be a fabrication. I subsequently wrote an article revealing your duplicity and posted it on my web site No Answers in Genesis. This article may be read at aig and algae.htm.

    On 4 December 2004 I received, by email, a repeat of your 2003 article. It now seems clear that you have no compunction about lying to further your cause and worse, if that’s possible, you are prepared to repeat your lies.

    Dr Carl Wieland, CEO of Answers in Genesis in Australia, replied to my message, saying, in part –

    I know we are fallible, being human. But I think you know better than to think that we would deliberately lie … We do not engage in “fabrications”, but if there is something in our publications that is in (inadvertent) error, a correction will be forthcoming in due course.

    It’s clear that AiG deliberately misquoted Dr Schopf so Wieland’s claim that they don’t deliberately lie is nonsense. Clearly, they intended to “deceive or give a wrong impression” regarding what Dr Schopf said. They lied, and an acknowledgement and correction should be forthcoming posthaste

  448. Bob Griffin said

    442 Abc

    We do have many records proving people were here 5000 years ago – even though they wouldnt be my direct line. How many steps in evolution would that be over 5000 years?

  449. Chris C. said

    The rate of change is variable Bob. 5000 years is what, 1000 generations give or take? Not a particularly long time in evolutionary terms.

    Anyways, fossil evidence (among many other lines) demonstrates that humans’ anatomical structure has changed very little since our birth ~200,000 years ago.

  450. Bob Griffin said


    My point is we dont need a theory to see where we came from. We have recorded history. It doesnt show what Darwin theorizes.

  451. Anonymous said

    Here’s a challenge for all the atheists out there – a chance for you to win $1000.00.


  452. Anonymous said

    Recorded history is roughly 6000-7000 years old. Darwinian theory makes conjectures about things spanning billions of years. If you saw a basketball player miss one shot, it would not be fair to say, “he is a bad basketball player.” Michael Joran, the greatest ever, missed his fair share.

    It seems you think that because there has been no great human evolutionary change since the dawn of recorded history, that somehow Darwin’s theory is wrong. Yet his theory has held up for 150 years and has been confirmed by dozens of lines of evidence. Just because you found one small isntance where no change ocurred, does not mean change has not ocurred in the past. So no, we don’t need a theory to explain our direct ancestry…but to explain where our species came from, we do need scientific theories because, as noted, human history is very limited.

  453. Anonymous said

    The above post (452) was mine.

    — Chris C.

  454. John said

    That was an interesting challenge in post#451, but I think I noticed a tiny little flaw.It was that part near the end were the man said that the evolutionist could not remain self sufficient in his thinking in a debate against a theist.It gives one the impression that to believe in evolution, one can’t help but be agnostic or atheistic in mindset. It does not account for people like me that are theistic and still have a large degree of faith in the Natural/Evolutionary Sciences.I would love to read the admissions.
    What did you Atheist think about it?

    Another thing was that the darn image kept wavering.One of my family members said it was like being stoned on Weed[smile].

  455. Bob Griffin said


    Just like human history, I can see Michael play many games. I dont just see one shot and theorize the rest. I dont have to conjecture about things over billions of years. Sounds just like Darwin – suppose, suppose, suppose. Look out your window and tell me what transitions you see. Darwin himself wondered why we dont see that happening. If his theory is correct, I would assume we would see something in our world actually transitioning.

  456. Bob Griffin said


    Still waiting for your ideas on how 3 billion base pairs of DNA come together in the correct order at the correct time.

  457. Fred said

    FWIW: the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas, TX that E.Dawg (and others)is so proud of has apparently been denied accreditation by the state:

    from the full story in the Dallas Morning News by Terrence Stutz here:


    “AUSTIN — A bid by the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research to train future science teachers — focusing on creationism instead of Darwin’s theory of evolution — was flatly rejected by Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board members on Wednesday. “

  458. John said

    [Knowing grin]Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
    Thanks Fred.

  459. zerxil said

    JOB WAS THE OLDEST BOOK?!?! Um, i don’t argue with animals. So if humans are animals why shouldn’t I kill evil people?? dogs evolved from wolves…you can breed wolves & come up with any breed of dog but you cant take dogs & get wolves. macro(it could be micro, don’t know) evolution. can we breed humans from monkeys or vice versa?? I think not. just my opinion. i thought you said this thread was Darwin right of wrong..& i thought wow but no i digress. only got to post 40 so ill say some more in a few…

  460. zerxil said

    # Willie Says:
    When they started taking the Biblical view of the solar system out of schools”

    hey could someone post the difference of the above & WHAT THEY TEACH NOW?

    I praise the Lord for giving me the witness of the Holy Spirit and a word of faith that all who worship truly will not have their privates (lol) trampled in the day of the lord.

    For you see, being in a church doesnt’ make you a garage(christian)any more than being (inside a garage)a christian makes you a car.
    lol, sry but lol

    All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. And plus the bible says so. You see, to God all your righteousness is as filthy rags. And not just any rags. these were rags that The Bible Answer man blew his nose in. Therefore since you are lukewarm I will spew you out like malt liquor(so how much did you drink before you spit it out).

    And I’ll be praying that you stop resisting the Lord. Amen.
    Willie please tell me you were making fun of someone…
    if you believe in evolution everyone & everything is out to get you… thats the survival of the fittest baby (yes i know but i couldn’t resist.) ok wolves & dogs can produce ofspring … please don’t have sex with monkeys.. but if you do….69 that would be amphibians wouldn’t it or maybe dolphans? 76 the mermaid were porposes (boy that would take a lot of liqueur those suckers are uuugly) Hey!! is it legal to belive in a mediam aged earth where god created man & creatures and then they have evolved over time….

  461. zerxil said

    254 THERE IS A YAM RELIGON SOME WHERE I dont know where, they eat the yams & sickle cells go away, when it is maliria season they dont eat yams and it comes back…

  462. Chris C. said


    Regarding the Yams, I posted this comment on the thread about Understanding the World of Wicca about a month ago…

    But religion, as a practice, is ubiquitous to the human population. I think, overall, it is still important — not necessarily because it is true, but because it holds such cultural and historical significance. Here, allow me to indulge in a story:

    There is a tribe in Africa who holds a “Yam Festival” every year at a varied time (similar in scope to the way the date of Easter varies). The religious leaders tell people not to harvest or consume their yams until the very exact date comes. This date is chosen, supposedly by much deliberation and religious guidance, by the elders.

    The yams themselves have a special power: they contain a protein that actually helps to alleviate the symptoms and effects of Sickle Cell Anemia. So those people who eat the yams will, for a time, be rid of the complications of their Sickle Cell disease. However, SCA is actually a beneficial condition for preventing the spread of the malaria virus because the sickled blood cells will not allow the malaria to breed and spread. SCA is actually a mutation that, while harmful, has a net positive effect in areas affected by malaria, such as Africa and India.

    The interesting part is that, if the people of these villages were to eat yams year round, or during the height of the malarial season, then their ability to fend off the disease through sickle cell anemia would be compromised. However, if they wait until the mosquitoes are out of season, so to speak, then they can eat the yams and have the best of both worlds:
    -Protection from the complications of sickle cell anemia during part of year when yams are eaten and,
    -Protection from malaria because of sickle cell anemia which is allowed to ‘run free’ without the benefits of yam consumption during the rest of the year.

    While all of this is seen and understood clearly through modern biology and the evolution of population genetics, the people of these villages still perform these Yam Festivals as a totally religious tradition. They had no scientific knowledge of malaria and SCA etc., when these festivals began thousands of years ago. But through religion and culture they have been able to reap the same benefits we gain from our modern scientific knowledge. And while their gods are fictitious and their religions not technically “true”, their religious beliefs and practices still serve some purpose.

    Interestingly, Christians and Muslims who come to the area to ‘evangelize’ often require the statues of the African yam gods and fertility gods to be torn down and destroyed. There are those atheists and religious folk who wish that all religions (or all but theirs) be eradicated from the earth. This sort of cultural isolationism and religious-ethnocentrism is unnecessary and, as demonstrated, at times harmful. Religion has played an important part in our history. Hopefully real education will continue to outpace religion as a source of natural knowledge. But indeed, without some measure of cultural identity, some of which must come from our religious past, we might all be doomed to the fate of those African fertility gods: cast aside as unwanted – or worse – unnecessary.

  463. zerxil said

    187 was actually good,
    273 “What i’m really referring to with my question are the bits about the talking snake, and Adam and Eve, and eating the fruit of knowledge… that kind of thing. What evidence is there to support the creation story.” um thats not the creation story thats the sin story telling why we need a savier….when he took the rib & before is the creation story.

  464. Chris C. said

    Nice way to dodge the question, Zerxil.

    The point ABCs was getting at was what evidence is there to support the existence of anything like the Garden of Eden or the events that supposedly ocurred there?

  465. John said

    And I still know many people who think that men have one less rib, or women one extra than men because of that story, which is not true of course.
    Welcome to the party Zerxil.

    Chris C.,in Ethiopia a team of Japanese researchers has unearthed nine fossilized teeth from a previously unknown great ape thought to have lived ten million years ago.They have named it Chororapithecus abyssinicus and believe it to be a direct ancestor of todays great apes,especially gorillas.
    Have you heard of this news? I read about it in the newest issue of the magazine “Science Illustrated”,pg.22[I just picked it up today].

  466. zerxil said

    274 “Given these staggeringly long odds (and I don’t think there is any reason to think the birth of life is such an impobable event), life would STILL have arisen on (10^16 / 10^9 = 10^7) or 10 million planets! Again, even if the chanes of life arising on an earth-like planet are only 1 in a billion, life would still have arisen on 10 million planets throuought the universe!”

    how did life spring up?? what are the odds of 10 million basic life forms to evolve & live 1 million years than repeat, oh a million times??

    288 i guess you should perform the trick yourself…

    350 “One final thing. Don’t pretend that ‘faith’ in science is the same as religious faith. You believe a man turned water into wine for no reason other than an old book says so. That is religious faith. You and I both believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Why? Because of observations about the natural world and inductive logic. There is a distinction between these types of belief. One is grounded in reason, the other is not.” have you guys ever been to Alaska it gets dark for about 3 months…where is the sun?!?!?!

  467. zerxil said

    368 I have had vivaed (thats what spell check says) dreams come true….like reading the paper at the break table at work…before I ever went there to apply for the job, and you cant say that rug wall covering was common, and others as well..but cant control them. I have figured to lick my hand & if I taste it it is a “prophetic” dream. does this disqualify any posts i make? why or why not?

  468. John said

    Your posts are…..perplexing, Zerxil.

  469. zerxil said

    464 birds can talk, why couldn’t serpents..i mean you say birds evolved from reptiles. some fish creatures have lost their legs. where in the bible does it state adam & eve started in the garden? they were kicked out of it. the cradle of civilization is located where the garden of eden was located, o you mean how the herbivores evolved…into carnivores.

  470. zerxil said

    vivid? 465 i honestly did too, we don’t??

  471. F. L. A. said

    No, you don’t.

  472. zerxil said

    465 by the way if i took one of your ribs would your children have 1 less rib??!?!

  473. F. L. A. said

    John has no children, and the answer is no of course.

  474. zerxil said

    320 on the home page for that site it states
    “Evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.”
    Well I can actually agree with that definition, but I always thought descent was going down.
    So how do you get higher life forms??
    “This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).”
    They should have stoped here but no.
    “Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.”
    Evolution helps us to understand the history of life, but not give us said history.

  475. F. L. A. said

    Descent as in descend, which means[aside from going down]to be derived by birth,lineage. This is how the word is used within the evolutionary sciences, as well as within the title of C.Darwin’s most famous book. Understand?

  476. Chris C. said

    Zerxil if you want to provide evidence for why creation is more scientifically valid than evolution, be my guest.

    But could you please use something resembling english grammar so we can understand what you are saying and respond to it.

  477. John said

    [grin]I was SO thinking that when I typed post #468 after reading post#460.

    What did you think of the information within the lower half of post #465 Chris C.? You did not respond to it, so I was unsure if I should just assume that you already knew about it or not. I have always had a keen interest in the ancient world and it’s creatures.

  478. Chris C. said

    Sorry I missed it, John. I’ll check it out.

  479. Anonymous said

    First) Creation explains how life began. evolution explains how animals change.
    Second) you mean young earth creation. because I can cram evolution or any other hypothisis into creation.
    Thirdly) I actualy belive in macro evolution (it could be micro still not sure.) and anyone can prove it.
    The problem with strait eveloution as i see it is the dating methods. Why can’t you use the same method on all matter to test the time it has been here? Because it will give you the wrong answers.
    Also Can you get a little more exact than 340,000,000 give or take 5,000,000? so if somehow i prove with a different dating meathod it is 4 mill years which is correct.

    so macro eveloution is the most provable meathod

    by the way canines are not canivorus. they are omnivorus if i remember correctly & felines like cat nip more than mice

    The () were corrections.

  480. zerxil said

    First) Creation explains how life began. evolution explains how animals change.
    Second) you mean young earth creation. because I can cram evolution or any other hypothisis into creation.
    Thirdly) I actualy belive in macro evolution (it could be micro still not sure.) and anyone can prove it.
    The problem with strait eveloution as i see it is the dating methods. Why can’t you use the same method on all matter to test the time it has been here? Because it will give you the wrong answers.
    Also Can you get a little more exact than 340,000,000 give or take 5,000,000? so if somehow i prove with a different dating meathod it is 4 mill years which is correct.

    so macro eveloution is the most provable meathod

    by the way canines are not canivorus. they are omnivorus if i remember correctly & felines like cat nip more than mice

    The () were corrections.

  481. Chris C. said

    The reason you cannot use the same dating method is because substances decay at different rates.

    Some elements, like carbon, decay at a very well known rate. It happens to be fairly quick, and so we cannot use carbon dating on anything more than 50,000 years old.

    Potassium, Lead, Uranium, etc all decay much more slowly, but because they decay so slowly, we cannot pinpoint an exact time for objects hundreds of millions of years old. I’m sure this basic information could be retrieved by a quick google search.

  482. F. L. A. said

    When you use words like canines and felines, Zerxil, it sounds like you are thinking more of house cats and dogs instead of lions and wolves.There is a huge difference.There are some exceptions of course, like foxes, but over all canines and felines are carnivores.Domesticated dogs and cats are, for lack of a better label….weird in regards to this issue.You could call them carnivores with….”omnivorous tendencies”.Alright, I’ll shut up about it now.Now I’m hungry and have to go hunt for something to eat.All this talk about cats and dogs….

  483. Mike S. said

    mmmm. Makes me crave chinese food! JK

  484. F. L. A. said

    ME TOO!!!
    But Chinese people are not very common around these parts..uh, nevermind.

  485. Bob Griffin said

    457 Fred

    Im shocked. No debate allowed by evolutionists. Those who are unsure of their theory shy from debate.

  486. Fred said

    re: 485

    Bob, your side just lost this one debate in Texas. Perhaps you are feigning shock? Could it be that you just can’t accept defeat graciously?

  487. ExPelled said

    I hope all will go see “Expelled, no intellegence allowed”

  488. zerxil said

    Any animal fossels that are say 70,000 years would have no carbon, right?
    Some elements, like carbon, decay at a very well known rate. It happens to be fairly quick, and so we cannot use carbon dating on anything more than 50,000 years old.

  489. F. L. A. said

    Yes, and your point would be……?
    But there are other, better types of dating, Zerxil.Would you like a list?

  490. Bob Griffin said

    Fred 486

    Darwin says on the second page of his book that we should have debate on both sides about evolution. He freely admitted many places that people would come to the exact opposite conclusions of what he said. Why do modern day evolutionists go to great lengths to go against Darwins wishes and stifle debate?

  491. F. L. A. said

    What about modern day evolutionists like us on this site, Bob Griffin?
    If one wanted to generalize, then could not the same be charged against modern day young earth creationists?And if not, then why not?

  492. Fred said

    But Bob, they HAD that debate just recently in Texas. It looks like you just don’t like the resulting decision to keep your religion out of the science class.

    Does it demean your religious beliefs to admit that science and your religion teach us different things about the origins of species?

  493. Real Science said

    “The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.[8]

    Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a model. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using the scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.

    While performing experiments, Scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important that this tendency does not bias their interpretation.[9]” – WIKIPEDIA

    Now, lets see, Darwinian evolution does NOT fit the criteria to be considered legitimate Science. But Darwinian scientists do fit the criteria of being biased in their interpretation of experiments. Very interesting.

    By the way, I hope everyone will go see the movie “Expelled; no intellegence allowed”

  494. Fred said

    “Now, lets see, Darwinian evolution does NOT fit the criteria to be considered legitimate Science. But Darwinian scientists do fit the criteria of being biased in their interpretation of experiments.” – Post 493

    In two sentences this person has refuted every science book in every library in the world.

    Are we supposed be impressed?

  495. Chris C. said

    It’s pretty tough to recreate speciation in a lab as most organisms have many months, years, and sometimes decades between generations.

    I know you intentionally only provided some very narrow definitions of science as they pertain to experimental stuff. But really, theoretical science is a much larger enterprise. Evolution is a theory (no, this does not lend doubt to its validity) that unites many different facts and observations about the world. Every time new species are discovered, every time climates change, environemnts are interrupted, niches are mixed-up, evolutionary theory is put to the test. The whole of modern medicine and biology is grounded in the theory of evolution.

    And yet, there is not discovery or finding which has refuted the basis of the theory. No, modern evolutionary theory is not the same as Darwin’s theory, and it’s not the same as it was 10 years ago. But the basis of the idea is the same. Don’t you think if it really was “not true science” or if it was all just a big lie, someone would have figured that out? Sorry, there isnt a conspiracy against creationists. You guys are just on the wrong side of the facts on this one.

    Which leads me to “Expelled”. First of all, the film provides NO evidence for intelligent design, it simply tries to poke holes in evolution and tries to equate the theory with Hitler somehow. I’m not going to delve into why all of that is wrong (but will if anyone is curious) for now. Additionally, the major evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers who were interviewed for the film were lied to about the purpose of the film in the first place. Lying for Jesus…how nice. Google Panda’s Thumb and check out that website. It details all of the numerous deceits and lies that make up the bulk of Expelled.

  496. zerxil said

    * the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
    * mathematical calculations are used (BASED ON??)
    * the state of decay (IF ITS A FOSSIL IT WOULDN’T DECAY MORE BECAUSE ITS A FOSSIL), carbon-14 (NOT IF ITS MORE THAN 70,000 YEARS OLD), and isotopes figure in calculations
    * tree of life relationships often help sort the dates

    Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable.

  497. John said

    Thank you for the website Chris C.
    Real Science and Zerxil[That’s an interesting name. Is this your real name?Thank you for spelling better.], what exactly do you propose it is that we should believe in regards to this issue?
    Are you a young-earth creationist? A creationist? I was wondering if you would be real specific about your theological convictions, to help us get a better understanding of were you are coming from.
    Hopefully you’ve taken the time to read EVERYTHING posted from the beginning up to this point so that you completely understand were WE are coming from, so we don’t have to repeat anything we’ve already posted above.

  498. Zerxil - Philip said

    497 I have read all the posts & even went to most of the sites. I’m a middle age creationist. God created the universe, rocks, and nonliving stuff. It does not say anywhere how long this took. By the way, how long does it take dimonds to form? 3 weeks!

    Than the seven day creation, during which time he made the garden. Than the rest of the garden story.

    Than the farm grains, & some herbivores start evolving into carnivores, By the way during ww2 most zoo lions were given a high proten diet consisting of very little or no meat.

    God is not all knowing, if he was he wouldn’t have to look at something to tell if it was good or not. If God can mess up humans will. If God is all knowing the bible is dead wrong.

    no but the name fits me.. and I like it.

    495 “Additionally, the major evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers who were interviewed for the film were lied to about the purpose of the film in the first place” They signed a waiver or they would sue.

  499. Chris C. said

    And the waiver indicated the film was called “Crossraods: Where Reliigon and Science Meet” or something to that effect. Yet the producers had already purchased a web domain for a film called Expelled at this same time. In other words, Dawkins et al were deliberatly mislead about the subject matter and title of the film. Just read what any of them have to say about it on their blogs.

  500. Zerxil said

    I know middle earth, but it was too good


    Creation Model Passes Big Test
    by Fazale Rana, Ph.D.

    This past fall I took part in a pro football “pick’em” contest. For readers unfamiliar with this game, let me explain that the contestants demonstrate their football “smarts” by predicting the outcome of NFL games played each week. Even though I consider myself to be quite knowledgeable about football, I finished dead last. No matter what, I just couldn’t predict the winners. (I guess there’s always next year.)

    In some ways, science operates like a football pick’em contest. Scientists develop hypotheses, theories, and models to explain some aspect of nature’s workings. These ideas have logical consequences that lead to predictions about what scientists should have already discovered and what they will uncover in the future.

    Scientists consider a theory to be valid only if it harmonizes with current scientific data and successfully predicts future scientific advances. Those theories that repeatedly fail to make successful prognostications must be reconsidered. They are not merely relegated to “last place,” as I was; they are rejected.

    As an example of how this process works, a new fossil discovery from an ancient rock formation in South Africa weighs in on the predictions game. In our book, Origins of Life, Hugh Ross and I developed a scientific model for life’s origin based on Genesis 1:2 and Deuteronomy 32:9-12.1 Reasons To Believe’s creation model makes several predictions that can be used to evaluate its validity. For example, the model predicts that life should appear early in Earth’s history and that the first life forms should be inherently complex.

    Evolutionary origin of life models, on the other hand, require a long “percolation” time, perhaps up to 1 billion years, before life can emerge from a primordial soup. These naturalistic scenarios also predict that the first life forms should be relatively simple.2

    Numerous lines of fossil and geochemical evidence indicate that life was present remarkably early in Earth’s history, possibly as far back as 3.8+ billion years ago.3 (Prior to about 3.8 billion years ago, life would have been impossible on Earth, because the planet’s conditions were “hellishly” unsuitable for life.4) In spite of the weight of evidence in favor of early life on Earth, some origin-of-life researchers have questioned the authenticity of the most important and high-profile examples. These scientists maintain that the markers for early life are actually artifacts produced by inorganic processes.5

    In the face of this challenge, RTB’s model predicts that future discoveries will strengthen the evidence for early life on Earth. Such a discovery was made recently by two scientists from Stanford University.6 These investigators recovered new fossil and geochemical evidence for early life on Earth in a 3.416 billion-year-old rock formation from South Africa. Their data indicate that anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced the biological remains found in these ancient rocks. Even though such microbes are single-celled, their biochemical makeup is remarkably complex.

    In support of RTB’s model, this new discovery confirms the early appearance of complex metabolic life forms on Earth. These facts find ready explanation if a Creator intervened to make Earth’s first life forms. At the same time, this discovery of early life runs counter to the predictions of evolutionary models. I guess there’s always next year¾but origin-of-life research isn’t football pick’em.

  501. Bob Griffin said

    491 FLA

    Creationists dont stifle debate. You will debate here, but where is the debate in the classroom?

  502. Bob Griffin said

    492 Fred

    They had debate somewhere other than the classroom and decided to keep it out of the classroom. That would be stifling debate.

    My beliefs say God started creation. What did Darwin think?

  503. zerxil said

    If a rock melts & reforms does it retain the same age?

  504. F. L. A. said

    I am not allowed within classrooms[can you imagine?! What a hoot THAT would be!Har!Har!Har!].I believe that C.Darwin was an agnostic, but I could be wrong of course.It seems that way after reading his work, at least.

    Zerxil, what kind of a rock is it and how did it melt[toothy grin]?I have something to tell you about those old lions…..later after I eat.And how is a diamond made within 3 weeks? Naturally? What kind of a diamond? T.T.F.N.

  505. Fred said

    re: 502

    Bob still won’t be humble enough to admit he has been beaten:

    “They had debate somewhere other than the classroom and decided to keep it out of the classroom.”(Bob)

    Isn’t that the same thing that I said? (three times now?) (Fred)

    “That would be stifling debate.”(Bob)

    How is having a debate the same as stifling debate? (Fred)

  506. Fred said

    “I am not allowed within classrooms[can you imagine?! What a hoot THAT would be!Har!Har!Har!].” (F.L.A.)

    Why not? Why would it be funny to take a class?

  507. zerxil said

    504 well biology lab might be interested in that, you would have to be dead first though. hmm, The kind that fossils are found in, not the kind you were thinking. Man can make any kind of diamond in 3 weeks.

    505 Stifling debate, or preventing them altogether, IN CLASSROOMS is what Bob was referring to.

  508. zerxil said

    506 He says he is un-human. Somewhere from Calthuila (as in call of) to illiathed (purple squid faced humanoid), and yes it is misspelled.

  509. Fred said

    Zerx, he is still beaten. Science debates don’t include “God did it” for good reason. Bob knows that, probably, but he likes the attention.

    Are you saying that F.L.A. is a Lovecraft character?

  510. F. L. A. said

    Are you making reference to an H.P. Lovecraft monster? Squid faced humanoid? I never said that I was squid faced or humanoid[LAUGHTER]!I also never came right out and admitted to being inhuman, except perhaps hypothetically or psychologically.I just…hint…and have fun letting people draw their own conclusions.And nobody can prove anything one way or the other anyway, for all you all know, I could be a 14 year-old city girl in Canada, so try not to get too worked up over it.And neither of my overall dominant colors are purple.

    I do not believe that man made diamonds should count Zerxil, unless I misunderstood your motivation for bringing diamonds up.Also, some very interesting things came up when I typed your chosen name into this computers search engine…..

    Fred, nevermind about the class-comment.It’s part of an inside joke that I can’t share with you.

  511. F. L. A. said

    Sorry, I got distracted and had to go.I was hurt hours ago and I’m making a mess all over.I have to go for now. Be back tomorrow-ish.

  512. John said

    Hello everybody!
    Today while I was in town I noticed that Ken Ham has a new[I don’t know HOW new, I just saw it for the first time today.]book out that is called “The New ANSWERS Book…Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible”.It’s very interesting, as most of his literature is, and Ken Ham himself helps by answering 10 of those 25 questions.Do any of the Young-Earth Creationists here have this book? If so, then we can go through it together.To help aid in our debate here.For the evolutionists and old-Earth Christians here that think Ken Hams full of it, I still recommend giving the book a good read[If you decide to buy it, it’s $14.99 without tax.Yes I know that’s kinda steep for such a load of nonsense as this, but the humorous qualities that you’ll discover within the book will make it worthwhile.378 pages of pseudo-scientific silliness!]as it’s always helpful to understand things from the oppositions perspective.
    Zerxil,I like your choice of dark fantasy author.But F. L. A. has nothing to do with H.P.Lovecraft.Where did you get such an idea? What it that squid comparison that F. L. A. used?

  513. Anonymous said

    Have to go to Jamaica until next Wed. I will try and see what exotic species I can find and come up with a new theory a la Darwin.

  514. Bob Griffin said

    513 was from Bob Griffin.

  515. ADB said

    Think I’ll stick with his Answers in Genesis and the ICR websites, don’t have the extra money to contribute to his cause.

  516. XYZ said

    You can read many of the AiG books on their website – just go to the study guides section.

    I’d like to recommend a book that I really enjoy: ‘The Stranger on the road to Emmaus’

    It can be purchased at GoodSeed dot com. Or it can be downloaded free of charge.

    But since Christians are pseudo-scientific, it really doesn’t matter what they bring to the “table” because it will be discredited as religious non-sense as soon as Deity is mentioned. Yep, “no intellegence allowed”! 😉

  517. F. L. A. said

    XYZ,don’t let the opinions of a few stop YOU from debating, though.
    It’s not Christians as a whole but Young Earth Creationists Christians that get this sort of criticism.And if you yourself ARE one of these individuals then do know that your in good company, for there are others like you that regularly read and respond.Like Bob Griffin.

    ADB, I believe that John has kept the receate so that after reading the book he can simply return it for a refund.

  518. John said

    Yes.I’m using it as a bookmark[smile].

  519. John said

    Hey Some Guy!
    Some Guy?



    Oh well.

  520. zerxil said

    “with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.”

    “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Darwin closing of a certain book. On the Origin of Species

    biographer James Moore describes Darwin’s vision as being of God creating life through the laws of nature.


  521. F. L. A. said

    Well you know Zerxil, Darwin himself was not an atheist.

  522. zerxil said

    Darwin was an IDer

  523. Bob Griffin said

    Fred 505

    “How is having debate the same as stifling debate?”

    I guess you cant admit you are stifling debate in the classroom.

  524. zerxil said

    FLA, what about them lions? Look at Jan. Darwinism vs ID, but Darwin was an IDer. How is Fred stifling debate in the classroom? Some guy has been stifled…*smile*

  525. zerxil said

    “by David Catchpoole

    Earlier this century, A female African lion, born and raised in America, lived her entire lifetime of nine years without ever eating meat.1 In fact, her owners, Georges and Margaret Westbeau,2 alarmed by scientists’ reports that carnivorous animals cannot live without meat, went to great lengths to try to coax their unusual pet (‘Little Tyke’) to develop a taste for it. They even advertised a cash reward for anyone who could devise a meat-containing formula that the lioness would like. The curator of a New York zoo advised the Westbeaus that putting a few drops of blood in Little Tyke’s milk bottle would help in weaning her, but the lioness cub refused to touch it — even when only a single drop of blood had been added.

    The more knowledgeable animal experts among the many visitors to the Westbeaus’ 100 acre (40 hectare) ranch also proffered advice, but nothing worked. Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk. By four years of age she was fully grown and weighed 352 pounds (160 kg).

    As Georges Westbeau writes, it was ‘a young visitor’ to Hidden Valley ranch who finally put his mind at ease in response to the question of how Little Tyke could be persuaded to eat meat (thought to be essential for carnivores to survive):

    Lion (not ‘Little Tyke’)‘He turned to look at me with serious eyes, then asked, “Don’t you read your Bible?” I admitted I didn’t read it as much as I probably should. He continued, “Read Genesis 1:30, and you will get your answer.” At my first opportunity I got my Bible and turned to the passage he had indicated. To my astonishment, I read these words: “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”’

    The owners of Little Tyke, though apparently not Christians, were so reassured by this that they no longer worried about her refusal to eat meat, and turned their attention instead to refining her ‘vegetarian’3 diet further, learning of new grains to add to the lioness’s food. These numerous grains were ground and stirred together while in the dry state, then cooked and mixed with the milk and eggs. The lioness was fed this mixture each morning and evening, and sometimes at midday as well. (To condition her teeth and gums — as she steadfastly refused all offers of bones to gnaw — Little Tyke was given heavy rubber boots to chew on, which generally lasted about three weeks.) The lioness not only survived on this diet, she thrived. One of America’s ‘most able zoo curators’ apparently said that the lioness ‘was the best of her species he had ever viewed.’

    As well as Little Tyke, the Westbeaus cared for a menagerie of other animals at their ranch. A large number of the many visitors to Hidden Valley were motivated by the prospect of seeing ‘the lion that lives with the lamb’ — a situation similar to the prophecies of Isaiah 11:6. The sight of the lioness living placidly alongside sheep, cattle, and peafowl made a profound impression on many visitors. Television footage4 and newspaper photos of Little Tyke also moved many people, such as one who wrote, ‘Nothing has made me happier than your picture of the lion and the lamb. It has helped me believe in the Bible.’

    In the light of Little Tyke’s situation, along with anecdotes of other carnivorous animals surviving on vegetarian diets,5 it is certainly easier to relate to the Genesis account of animals living solely on plants before Adam’s Fall.6

    Mr Westbeau’s observation of the lioness that ‘To condition her stomach she would spend an hour at a time eating the succulent tall grass in the fields’, is also a vivid reminder of the prophecies of Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25, ‘… the lion will eat straw like the ox.’
    References and notes


    Westbeau, G., Little Tyke: the story of a gentle vegetarian lioness, Theosophical Publishing House, IL, USA, 1986. (Information is drawn from pp. 3–6, 17, 32–35, 59–60, 113–114.)

    The lioness had been given to the Westbeaus as a badly mauled one-day-old cub, by the zoo where her mother was kept. The mother had killed all cubs from her four earlier pregnancies immediately after birth. This time though, anxious zoo attendants were standing by, ready to scramble to rescue the offspring at the moment of delivery. With ‘Little Tyke’ they succeeded — but not before the mother’s quick and powerful jaws had injured the cub’s right front leg.

    Many people would include eggs in ‘vegetarian’ diets today, if unfertilised, as no killing of animals is involved. Though it seems unlikely that eggs (or milk for adult animals) were part of the pre-Fall diet, the point to note here is that lions do not need meat to survive. Many plants are now extinct; it is highly likely that there were very rich protein sources in the pre-Fall / pre-Flood plant kingdom.

    Sadly, while in Hollywood for filming of a nation-wide television broadcast, Little Tyke contracted pneumonia, and she died a few weeks later.

    While living in Indonesia in the 1980s, several families told me that they never fed meat to their pet dogs — though it is possible that bones might have been present in the scraps fed to them. Other reports suggest that this is a widespread phenomenon in that country.

    The Bible does not give us details of how the change from plant-eating to meat-eating has occurred after the Fall; one possibility is by divine ‘redesign’. Hence, even if lions today did need meat to survive, it would not invalidate Genesis. See Answers in Genesis’ The Answers Book for a fuller discussion. ”

    by the way this story has been checked for accuracy.

  526. angry birds free online game…

    […]Was Darwin right or wrong? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  527. hip replacement…

    […]Was Darwin right or wrong? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  528. Apple Tv Review…

    […]Was Darwin right or wrong? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  529. bigfoot willow…

    […]Was Darwin right or wrong? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  530. angry birds plys…

    […]Was Darwin right or wrong? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  531. Hello, i believe that i saw you visited my blog thus i came to go back the choose?.I am attempting to in finding issues to improve my web site!I suppose its ok to make use of a few of your ideas!!

  532. Eden Eternal…

    […]Was Darwin right or wrong? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  533. Who Assinates the Assasin…

    […]Was Darwin right or wrong? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  534. teledyski disco polo…

    […]Was Darwin right or wrong? « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

  535. Wow that was unusual. I just wrote an very long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t appear. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again.
    Anyhow, just wanted to say wonderful blog!

  536. I every time used to read paragraph in news papers but now as I am a
    user of internet thus from now I am using net for content, thanks to web.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: