Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Was Darwin right or wrong?

Posted by truthtalklive on May 19, 2008

Today’s show is a best of so please do not call in.

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.


Get your button

You can listen to the show online after the show at www.wtru.com


1,184 Responses to “Was Darwin right or wrong?”

  1. unBiblical titles said

    Well, since the show will be postponed, let me start off with the negative remarks:

    Where in the Bible does it say to give an elders wife a secular title such as “1st Lady”?

    What if the local church is governed by a plurality of elders? Would that be 1st, 2nd, 3rd lady?

    Don’t the deacon’s wives feel left out of this title giving?

    I wonder why paul never was referred to as “Doctor Paul the apostle”? Being a Jew of Jews, a Rabbi, and obviously learned in at least 3 languages….yet never did he take on a title of Pastor Paul, Dr. Paul, Bishop Paul, etc.

    Seems like the modern church has become nothing more than a business with a President(pastor), vice President(co-pastor), members of congress(deacons) and the wife of the President(1st lady).

    Lets not forget the problem that comes when the President(pastor) is a woman 😦 Would that be “First gentleman) for the husband of the woman-pastor? 😉

  2. some guy said

    unbib title–what does your post have to do with Darwin? It’s nice that you make comment about titles in the church; what about first foot washer? 🙂 Would you sign up for that? Jesus did

    anyways, church govt. should never look like the world because it [the world] functions much like darwins theory–survival of the fittest or fattest!

    Yes, unfortunately some churches function more like business because they cant function like a hospital, because they don’t know how to love or serve sensibly. Only in a way that sees their bottom line @ the top. This is somehow called–vision.

  3. unBiblical titles said

    my mistake. when I started typing the above post, the title was dealing with 1st ladies.

    So, I’ll save my comments concerning “1st ladies” till that show is on.

    “Was Darwin right or wrong?” – He was dead wrong! 😉

  4. some guy said

    that show may never happen; care to elaborate on how Darwin was wrong for the skeptics out there. No need to get ultra scientific on us–cuz I ain’t 🙂

    Like other prominent skeptics of evolution, I too honestly believe that it is in fact a faith that our public schools preach on a daily basis. Why can’t this be called church? I guess because music is not allowed.

    any pro-darwinists out there–bring it!

  5. 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*

    “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.

  6. kimbatigger said

    I am disappointed in the way Tracy’s call was handled. Instead of a discussion of creationism vs evolution, Tracy’s comments were talked over and his opinion ridiculed. For those of us who are seekers of the truth, a presentation of both sides with an intelligent discussion would have been more thought provoking.
    What if we are all a “work in progress” and you are seeing the transitional form right now?

  7. zerxil said

    um, We are a transitional form. From sinner to saint.

  8. John said

    Zerxil, where did you get such an……”odd” story of information in your post #5? Perhaps the lions mother had killed all of the rest of her offspring because she knew that there was something terribly wrong with them[grin].Wild animals do that sometimes for the betterment of their species.

    Some Guy, welcome back. Are you SURE that you want me[knowledgeable pro-Darwinists]to bring it?
    I can’t believe that we’re debating this same topic YET AGAIN[sigh….].Did everyone reading here already read the original site by this same name waaaay back in February 21st of this year? It had 525 posts, and just about EVERYTHING concerning this subject was covered.If you didn’t read it go and check it out and THEN come back[or…just stay there] with your questions and comments.

  9. John said

    The lion may lay with the lamb, but only the lion will get a good nights sleep.[snicker,snicker]

  10. some guy said

    As for Little Tyke, I have no issue about an isolated cub like this one; I have seen snakes with alligators inside their abdomen before. Freak things can happen in this world. Our discussion is of a wider scope. Your thought that evolution has some part to play in the diets of animals cannot be substantiated outside of singular instances; where is the pattern. You need more examples. Even if there is some shred of evidence to support this; there still remains today, no testimonial evidence of a transition b/w species. Your running out of time folks; apparently trillions of years has not been enough time to surface the evidence. How much longer should we wait?

    In regards to your bible analysis, please pay careful attention to the earth setting in chapter 1; it is awesome and perfect and yes a vegans paradise. But as we read on, the drama unfolds. Within chapter 3, things really begin to change; animals begin to shed blood (vs.21). Soon thereafter, death becomes the sentence for all the world, except for Noah and his boat. If you read carefully in chapter 9:3, the first steak’n’shake is permitted by God. Evolution is not the reason; if so, God is the author, not time and chance. In regards to prophecy, make sure to note that in Revelation 19, many birds will be feeding on flesh before the return to normal living conditions mentioned earlier.

    John–how knowledeable are you? Answer these questions as briefly as you can please: 1) Where did we come from. 2) What went wrong or (why do deleterious things happen). 3) what will correct it?

  11. John said

    You should get an reasonable idea of how knowledgeable I am on this topic by reading the original site of this topic.Or others concerning related topics.Remember my questions for you back on the “Does Oboma’s Paster Speak for the Black Church?” in my post#25? You never met me on the original site or answered my questions about the Anthropic Principle that you brought up.Perhaps you should go back and reread it?

    It is difficult for me to answer your three questions because you have left too much for me to assume before trying to answer them.
    For example, in question #1, when you use the word “we”, are you thinking of humanity, or something more? Just an example.I tend to nit-pick over little details like that[smile].I’m going to go for the night, but I’ll be back eventually.My associate and friend the F. L. A. my feel obligated to jump in and debate with you some in my absence, just pretend that it’s a creepier version of me.

  12. ADB said

    Once again a parade of folks who know not the first thing about the ordinary rules of Biblical interpretation.

  13. Zerxil said

    1) we came from our parents. 2)thats the way the world works.
    3) starting over (only a temp fix see “Noahs flood”)

  14. Zerxil said

    ansers in genises

  15. Maz said

    I am surprised that this topic of conversation is back seeing as we almost completely thrashed it back in February…I for one pulled out as it was obvious the evolutionists could not accept the creationists view seriously, saying that we were unscientific. I was willing to bring scientific evidence forward but evolutionistic bias was rampant.
    As someone said before, evolution is as much about faith as any religion.
    And #10 was right, we’ve had plenty of time to find the evidence sufficient to prove Darwinism…….and we are still waiting! And not your bone here and a tooth there…there should be fossils everywhere….millions of them to cover the millions of years they supposedly lived and died on earth!

  16. Maz said

    John: You deffinitely add flavour to these blogs. I like your humour. (-:

  17. F. L. A. said

    We covered that on the original site, Maz, but the theistic biasness of the Young Earth Creationists seemed to prohibit them from understanding and accepting.Anything and everything.You should not have pulled out so quickly.
    Please feel free to bring your scientific evidences forward.

  18. Maz said

    F.L.A: I felt it was the right time to pull out last time,and I do like to take a break from the madness sometimes!:-)
    We are probably going to cover a lot of things that we discussed in the original site. So I am not going into depth with some of it.
    My main evidences for Creation and therefore Design by a Designer is:-

    1. The testimony of DNA.
    2. Entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    3. The fossil record.

    Starting with the third option, this was one problem that even Darwin agreed didn’t go well for evolution because there wasn’t any fossil evidence to prove we evolved from lower to higher animals i.e: transitional forms.

    Number 2 also doesn’t go well for evolution because we are talking about order into chaos and not chaos into order and design as evolutionary theory proposes.
    Ofcourse this brought up the question of whether we were in an open or closed system which might change things.

    Number 1. Of all of the above I really believe DNA proves that at the least we are dealing with an intelligence in the Universe, because as amazing as cells are on their own, DNA actually contains information which has to have it’s origin in an Intelligent Source. Namely God.

    Well, that’s a start!

  19. some guy said

    great job maz! Again I pose the same 3 questions as earlier posted, but with clarification to hopefully eliminate cute answers:

    1. Where did homo sapiens come from?
    2. What caused our created world to go from ideal to horrific?
    3. How do we correct the problem with ourselves?

    The obvious answers cannot be addressed by natural selection only supernatural selection.

    “To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. ‘Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing.” –Isaac Newton

  20. Fred said

    Science doesn’t teach us what you fundamentalists say that it does.

    Do you lack the humility to admit that?

  21. Alex said

    Darwin is at the very least partially right. We see evolution happen on a small scale with things such as viruses. We don’t see evolution on a large scale, like a origin of all species. the reason ID is scoffed at in our society is that there is zero scientific evidence supporting. At least with evolution we can see it happen in nature.

    The Bible shouldn’t be your handbook on how to explain natural phenomenon. We know a lot more now than we did then.

    P.S. Darwin never claimed to be completely right. He was just posing a theory that seems to work at some level. If he thought he was completely right he wouldn’t have written chapters in his book on DOUBT…

  22. Mike S. said

    So Fred
    Who is your question posed to? Fundamentalist Evolutionists, Fundamentalist Scientists, Fundamentalist Atheists? You know they “Fundamentalists” exist in all categories. Fundamentalism is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what the fundamental is.

    My question is rhetorical. I know who you are referring to. And I resemble that remark! 🙂

  23. Maz said

    Some Guy: Great and wise words by Isaac Newton.

    Fred: It all depends what science you are talking about. The evolutionists interpretation or the Creationists? We all interpret science differently according to what glasses we are wearing. I believe my glasses reveal the truth. But in any case most evidence speaks for itself. In other words, if there isn’t any, then that proves a theory false. Evolution seems to fall into that category.

    I agree with Mike, there are fundamentals in all areas of religion and philosophy. I would call myself a fundamentalist because I believe in the fundamental truths of Gods Word.

    Fred: If I had anything to admit, I would, in all humility. Would you humbly admit that science doesn’t prove evolution?

    Alex: Could you explain the evolution that is happening ”on a small scale with things such as viruses”.

    By the way, has anyone noticed (if they read the book) that Darwin never really gave the origin of the species in his book ”The Origin of the Species”?

  24. zerxil said

    Fred, what do fundamentalists say it teaches & what are fundamentalists?

    ” We don’t see evolution on a large scale, like a origin of all species.”
    because there isn’t any evidence?

    “The Bible shouldn’t be your handbook on how to explain natural phenomenon. We know a lot more now than we did then.”
    Thats what the ancient Greeks thought too. Um it doesn’t explain anything. It’s more history than science.
    Science doesn’t explain stuff either, it is a ridged test of hypothesis, & history of hypothesis that have “made it” to the therie and law stages.

    um, there is a book that has ID in it that is older than almost any other books, it hasn’t been dis-proved. Therefor any theories that come after it need to be proved more then this one. I have, I think, proven that rock ages don’t matter when comparing with the bible (even literally). evolution explains alot about the animals from the beginning to the flood. specifically carnivores & how Noah was able to put all the animals into the arc. How much room in the arc would it have taken to put alot of seeds in? The Bible states there where dinosaur like creatures during Job’s time. The Bible has been proven to be Historically accurate numerous times.

  25. some guy said

    Alex writes: “The Bible shouldn’t be your handbook on how to explain natural phenomenon. We know a lot more now than we did then.”

    Well then, what shall we use to explain natural events–chronicles from the HMS Beagle, or better yet, how about the weather channel–yeah, they have it right, b/c they make the weather right? No, they are just observers…and so was Darwin. His grandiose mistake, just like anyone who believes like him, is that observation isn’t enough; we have to fill the void somehow..and voila–darwinism. A faith of sort that articulates time and chance as supreme ruler and judge of creation.

    Could the anthropic principle be considered a scientific observation presupposing a more than chance origin of the universe? If not by chance, perhaps, a purposeful design from a designer, one whom we are all subservient to?

  26. zerxil said

    1. Where did homo sapiens come from? God, lightning struck mud, or both
    2. What caused our created world to go from ideal to horrific?”
    Is it horrific? Than thats “mans'” fault, anyway you slice it.
    3. How do we correct the problem with ourselves?
    you only have one? slowly & with help.

  27. some guy said

    thanks Dr. Phil 🙂

  28. zerxil said

    some guy just killed Shrouders Cat… you spell it right.

  29. Fred said

    Science doubts. Religion is certain. There is no humility in the fundamentalist (young earth creationist) refuting the sciences with a blithe recitation of some answersingenesis pseudo-science.

  30. Jeff42 said


    Thanks for the chuckle with the pot/kettle comment on humility! I sure don’t see much humility coming from atheistic scientists these days either.

    “Science doubts.”

    Maybe so, but I don’t hear much doubt or humility as they belittle the idea of a Creator.

    Thanks for the laugh!

  31. zerxil said

    So, I & all other literal bible believing Christians have no humility? And you know this from my almost anon. posts on a site that states they want me to post them. Almost everyone has some humility. You Fred, for instance, may have some yourself.

    some guy
    I resemble that remark… gotta go home be back in a few hours.

  32. John said

    …[Should I even waste my time, again?]…..
    Did you read through the whole original site Some Guy? It does not seem so, for some of the answers that you seek are already recorded there for posterity.Ferox said it well in post#17.
    I may be wrong, but I believe that I have debated with people of your mindset on numerous sites concerning this issue, and you’re all the same, basically.You request information that when supplied you will never accept, and ask questions that when answered you will never believe the answers to, not in a million years.People like you always seem to ask the same questions over and over and over……….And if you’re a Young Earth Creationist, then you have adopted a theological view in which the rules of real natural sciences and history as we know them do not and can never apply.Real natural sciences and history are not suitable to support or co-exist with the spiritual needs of the Young Earth Creationist, so they, with the help of people like Ken Ham, create their own custom made versions of pseudo sciences to fit their theological needs.It’s not ignorance.It’s “refined” ignorance.
    So….that said, I do not really believe that you actually want factual answers or hard scientific and historical evidences that would go against your theological beliefs.Or do you? And if so then what for, then, if you have already made up your mind not to believe any of it? To test you’re powers of debate? To try and build up yourself of your faith in some way? Because you may have a fantasy of making a wise evolutionists look “beaten” in some fashion? Good luck with that.
    Perhaps I will answer your questions if one is asked that was not already covered within the original site, unless it’s just my Pagan, heretical, opinion on something in particular that you want[but how valuable could THAT really be to you? I don’t know.].
    If not then perhaps I’ll take a little break from this and just watch the show.
    Thankyou Maz.I enjoy reading your posts too.I always did[toothy grin].
    Alex and Fred, should you decide to continue posting,good luck, and do TRY to not take things so seriously and still have a little fun.
    Goodnight[for now].

  33. ncguy said

    Darwin was right about a lot of things and wrong about others. Science has tested and refined his theories well beyond what Darwin could have imagined 150 years ago. Modern evolutionary theory is one of the most well-tested theories with an incredible amount of evidence. It is on par with gravitational theory and germ theory, maybe even more solid, but you don’t hear about folks being up in arms about those theories

    Evolution is real. It just is. There is no denying it unless you just decide not to look at the evidence. It is right there for everyone to see. Study it for yourselves. The basics are not complex, but few folks criticizing the science even understand it. Why? My guess is that they have decided not to understand it. I don’t know.

    And you don’t have to give up your faith. It should strengthen it and allow you to embrace the fact that we are all part of a deeply connected creation.

    Take care, y’all.

  34. Anonymous said

    “Maybe so, but I don’t hear much doubt or humility as they belittle the idea of a Creator.”

    The reason scientists belittle the idea of a creator is that we’ve seen no proof of one in nature. Sure, the universe and all in it could be explained by a creator, we’ve just not seen anything to point to that; unless you take the word of people that lived thousands of years ago to be complete fact. I mean, they could be right. They could be telling the truth and the bible could be the inspired word of God. BUT thats making a lot of assumptions most scientists aren’t ready to make.

  35. Alex said

    ^ That was me.

    I’m a Christian and an Atheist. I try to rationalize everything I do. At this point, I find that I can’t prove or disprove God. I believe Jesus preached unconditional love so beautifully reached the whole world and (metaphorically) shook it to its core. I take his teaching on God with a big “if.”

    I’m taking 10 cool points away from the first 20 people who say I’m not a Christian.

  36. some guy said

    John wrote: So….that said, I do not really believe that you actually want factual answers or hard scientific and historical evidences that would go against your theological beliefs.Or do you? And if so then what for, then, if you have already made up your mind not to believe any of it? To test you’re powers of debate? To try and build up yourself of your faith in some way? Because you may have a fantasy of making a wise evolutionists look “beaten” in some fashion? Good luck with that.

    If you recall, I began my posting with the herald “bring it”, so please allow me to repeat myself–I’m still waiting! And by the way ncguy, your response of “Evolution is real. It just is.” is classic. Why is the sky blue? I dunno, it just is 🙂 Come on folks where is the science! Sounds more like religion to me.

    John, I am not personally fantasizing about anything, except to tear down secular philosophies that exalt themselves against the supremacy of Christ. I have found the truth and it has undoubtedly set me free indeed. God is no respecter of persons, and He will entertain the most pagan,heretical,humanistic mind and show himself real if one is open minded.

  37. Tripp said

    Alex – My impression is that you’re another atheist just trying to stir up the pot and not a Christian at all. A Christian doesn’t have the word “if” in his or her vocabulary.

  38. Maz said

    John: A lot of what you said in your post #32 could aptly be applied to evolutionists who I have found will not accept any answers we give either and for similar reasons. Honestly John, I find evolutionists highly ignorant and decidedly rigid with their world view. They will not listen to any Creationists interpretation of science because they have decided if it’s Creationist it can’t be scientific. As Some Guy has said, evolutionists in the main have already made up their mind not to believe anything we bring onto this site as science. To them the Bible and science are not compatible. But they are wrong.
    This is what I found on the original site. (And you can’t expect anyone to read all over 500 posts on there). It didn’t matter what science we brought forward it was not accepted as science from the Old Earthers because we are ‘religious’ and believe in something they have categorically rejected.
    Evolutionists just will not admit that Evolution is still a theory which has not been proved by science, infact it is another faith, but built on sand not rock.

  39. some guy said

    yeah Al, you appear most confused with your supposed identity. You may want to consult Dr. Phil on post#26 for guidance.

    Christianity is the greatest intellectual system the mind of man has ever touched.
    –Francis Schaeffer

  40. Maz said

    Alex: Can you explain how you can be a Christian AND an athiest?

  41. Maz said

    Alex: (Under Anon) You said, ”The reason scientists belittle the idea of a creator is that we have seen no proof of one in nature”.

    Have you read Romans lately? Ch 1 v 20 states ”For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” If you can’t see the beauty and majesty of a Creators work out there in the world and up in the Heavens then either you are wearing the wrong glasses or you need to go to Spec Savers. I don’t mean to be sarc.(not really) but I can’t understand why people cannot look out at what is right infront of them in this world and not see the handywork of a Supreme Architect and Creator.
    A friend of mine and I were just talking this morning about the intricate and beautiful detail put into the tiniest flower. The vivid colours found in nature are far better than any man can make. I can only presume that people who don’t see all this must have their eyes closed.

  42. Maz said

    Alex: You still havn’t answered my question about evolution on a small scale…such as viruses, asked on #23.

  43. Some Thing said

    “Perhaps I will answer your questions if one is asked that was not already covered within the original site…”-John

    “Bring it”, indeed.Try again, Some Guy[huge sharotoothed grin].
    Maz, why can’t you read all of those posts on the original site?How long could it possibaly take?
    Good day.
    F. L. A.

  44. Maz said

    F.L.A: Because I’v read them all before and it would be more relevant to aleast touch on what we are discussing at the moment. I am not prepared to go into anything at length as we have covered all this before but going through all those posts again would be tedious.
    One does wonder why we are going over old ground with the same subject anyway.

  45. some guy said

    I find it interesting that the ones who advocate for darwin are telling others to go back to some point of origin for context. Why can’t we just go with the flow on this thread and see what evolves, which would be more in line with Chuck and the good ship lollipop! 🙂

  46. zerxil said

    23 yes he did, Darwin said it was created…

  47. Alex said

    @ post 23.

    We do see evolution on a small scale. It is proven that viruses change thier makeup and become more deadly and more resistant to drugs and such. Thats the microevolution that we do see. What we don’t see is macroevolution which is an origin of all life.

    “My impression is that you’re another atheist just trying to stir up the pot and not a Christian at all. A Christian doesn’t have the word “if” in his or her vocabulary.”

    A Christian doesn’t have “if” in his vocabulary? Why not. Would I have to blindly accept the Bible as complete fact while ignoring all outside information in order to be a Christian? I think not. Also, I’m not going to go all in on something I can’t sense. I’m not going to trust people (i.e. people who wrote the scriptures) because people aren’t perfect. The could be lying or crazy or trying to manipulate me. If what they say is true, its a good belief system and a good way to live your life.

  48. Alex said

    @Maz’s post 41.

    If the universe and everything in it is the brainchild of a creator, I’d just like some proof that he did it. So would everyone else. Most people, including myself aren’t prepared to stop and say, “Yeah, case closed, God did it.” Just because something is complex beyond our understanding doesn’t mean a God created it.

  49. Maz said

    Alex: If evolution is happening atall on the microscopic level it would be happening in the macro too, but it isn’t doing either. You may be talking about mutation, which is different.

    And being a Christian means you have to believe God is, and that He sent His Son to die for your sins, that He rose again from the dead, and that He is the ascended Lord. Being a Christian means having Christ living in you by the Spirit? Does He live in you?
    Do you put an ‘if’ to any of these?
    Do you not believe the scriptures are inspired by God then? That the writers wrote as they ”were moved by the Holy Spirit?” The Spirit of God cannot lie Alex. And you have to learn to trust some people sometime if not everyone all the time.

  50. Maz said

    Alex: ”I’d just like some proof that he did it. So would everyone else.” That is not true.
    I don’t need the proof, I believe by faith that He did do it, His Word tells me He did it and I trust in His Word. There are thousands of Christians that would probably say the same. Which begs the question, why, as a Christian, are you still wanting proof?
    If you are one then God made you a new creation when you accepted Him as Savior (????)…….you can’t evolve as a Christian.
    Again you are making sweeping staements that you cannot possibly verify…”most people”…maybe it is just most people that you know. But how many people do you know?
    A dozen? A hundred? A thousand?
    If something like DNA contains information which comes from an intelligence, ask yourself, where does that intelligence come from?

  51. Tripp said

    alex is a true study in contradictions

  52. Mike S. said

    It’s a good thing that you hold such a high view of what Jesus taught. Have you ever considered His teachings on Scripture (of course He was referring to the Old Testament). Have you ever considered His teachings about who He is? Who He claimed to be? If He was truly the great teacher about love as you claim, then do you think it would make sense to consider His teachings on these things as well?

    Gretaer love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

  53. zerxil said

    Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other. So is magnetism gravity?

  54. zerxil said

    “Holmes: That is a big question; but we can look at it by grouping emergent diseases. First, there are those that are “normal” new viruses. Because they are new we don’t know what they are. Over the last few years, we have had a few of these that seemed to come from nowhere—the two most famous would be HIV and SARS. Although HIV is in monkeys and the SARS relative is in various animals, this particular virus was completely new. So there are those that are completely novel; it is difficult to predict what those are going to be.”

    I thought HIV was an STD

  55. F. L. A. said

    Sometimes it is, Zerxil.
    Some Guy, people like me and John recommend going back to the original site because of 2 main reasons, which are 1.Laziness. 2.Almost everything that is needed to answer any question that you may have is already at your disposal.You don’t need to go through this with us here.Were you calling John humanistic[as in the context of him being a humanist Pagan]at the end of your post#36? Also you insist that you want evolutionists to “bring it”, but We need to know for sure, are you a Young Earth Creationist Christian? Because if in fact you ARE then there would be no point in even bothering. We would provide you with all of this valid excellent information, and, failing to recognize how beaten you are in this debate due to your unshakable faith that you are right, you would simply ignore or denounce the evidence as grounded in mere speculation and half baked theories promoted by secular atheistic/humanist systems trying to indoctrinate todays youth in the school system….blah,blah,blah,[enter conspiracy theories]etc.etc. And yet still keep asking for evidence.We’ve dealt with your kind before. Whether your name is Monkey Man, Educated Dawg, Kenneth J., Maz Herman, Brad, Some Guy or any other name, you are all so much alike…This is what John was getting at within his post #32, and why he grew bored with the prospect of playing this endless game yet again[unless you came up with any new questions, perhaps].Also, if you are in fact a Young Earth Creationist Christian, then consider this problem that you leave us with.You have adopted a theological view that promotes the idea of a universe and Earth that is sooooo young that it’s actually TOO YOUNG to have produced the very evidence that you request we evolutionists provide you with as proof that you are mistaken in your views.And with the help of your theistic-based,custom-made versions of “science”, you’ve done it so well, that you’ve created a…perfect protective bubble of ignorance for yourselves, that ONLY allows information from or related to your OWN view to enter.
    So bearing this in mind, what it it exactly that you want/expect us to bring when you tell us to “bring it!”? This is why John mused over what your motivations might be in post#32.
    I am off to hunt for some dinner now, but John will be in in a few hours, or I’ll be back by then.Either way we are most interested in you responses to our questions.Perhaps someone like YOU could actually “Bring it!” for a change, and we could work with that.We have much literature on Young Earth theory and Intelligent Design/Creationism, including works by Ken Ham, along with many versions of the Christian Bible,so it’s not as if we couldn’t use your own sources to debate you with.

  56. Maz said

    F.L.A: You said ”…you would simply ignore or denounce the evidence as grounded in mere speculaion and half baked theories promoted by secular/atheistic/humanist systems trying to indoctrinate todays youth in the school system…blah,blah,blah..”
    Because it is, and they do.
    Funny, but you and other evolutionist/atheisic/humanists say exactly the same thing about our evidence.
    So I wonder if it’s worth going over the same ground myself.
    I think the expession ”bring it” is a challenge for you to bring some REAL scientific evidence for evolution, and I for one have not seen or heard anything to convince me the theory of evolution has in fact become a fact. All evolutionists evidence is based on assumption and probabilities not proven, also to use your own words, the evidence for evolution is grounded in
    mere speculation and half baked theories.
    We Christians know the One that Created all the wonder and intricacy of this world so we have faith that what He has said in His Word is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    Can I also remind you that you invited me to feel free to bring my scientific evidences forward, #17, doesn’t this sound a polite way of saying ”bring it”?

  57. Maz said

    F.L.A: Bubbles usually pop after a while, and I don’t think it will be ours. (-:

  58. zerxil said

    Divers uncovered the Caesar bust and a collection of other artifacts near the town of Arles, which was founded by Caesar in 46 B.C. I guess the ides of march didn’t happen.

  59. Alex said

    You can be a Christian and an Atheist if you want. You can believe what you want to believe. Thats why anyone believes anything. They choose to believe. Most people aren’t going to accept my form of Christianity, and frankly I don’t care all that much. I trust my feelings and I explore the opinions of others, trying to find truth and love. I think there is a lot of love in Christianity. I can’t say that for things like Islam or Judaism.

  60. John said

    Hello Maz[toothy grin, but not in a hungry way].
    Was that an attempt at “bringing it”? You say that as if you’re actually TRYING to completely confirm our beliefs, heh,heh[grin].
    REAL scientific evidence for evolution? Oh geeze, you and that darned bubble…!
    O.K., if you won’t accept any of what we evolutionists types consider to be real science to prove things to you, then, based on what YOU consider to be real science, how would you prove to us that you are in the right?Give us some of YOUR scientific knowledge to prove your claims about how we are wrong.You can start with any type of an argument that you like, from dating techniques, to proving that carnivores with sharp teeth and claws should REALLY be herbivores by nature,to why ALL of our overwhelming evidence for evolution and an ancient world and universe is inaccurate, or….whatever you like.So please do feel free.And you can take your time.Do you have any books by Ken Ham? We can go through them together, bit by bit, if you like.Also you mentioned something about us trying to convince you…well were not, at least not me or F. L. A. that is.Not anymore.We gave up on that.This is all just for amusement now.And you are far more amusing to us as you are.If either of us wanted agreements then we would be on a Pagan site somewhere.We do not come here for agreements, we never have from the very start[but it’s great when they come.

    Also, I’m interested in character Some Guy’s answers to me and F. L. A.’s questions.

  61. John said

    Alex, we think that you are interesting.Don’t forget what I told you at the bottom of my post#32.

  62. some guy said

    guys: hate to sound childish here, but I asked first! I am still awaiting answers to the 3 questions posed @ the top. Nothing substantive has surfaced to these basic questions indeed. I realize that I may be asking alot, because it is as if I were asking a plumber to conduct neurosurgery. He most likely wouldn’t have a clue! And so far, that is my conclusion with Darwinists. So, all I can do is assume that we will agree to disagree about the claims of Darwin.

    For a laugh, I would invite you to watch any of the Jack Links beef jerky commercials via youtube; it’s called “Messin’ with Sasquatch” and it is highlarious 🙂
    *my fav-shaving cream joke.

    God bless

  63. John said

    And two of us have answered you…..in a fashion.Perhaps someone else new to this game will give it a try.It sounds to me like you’re running away from the debate.My proposition to Maz could also apply to you too, you know.Surely you have much information that could be shared. I have found and watched those….they are most amusing[smile].
    O.K. SomeGuy, I’ll try and answer[briefly, as you asked] your three seemingly simple questions that you asked in post#19. And I’ll even do it without answering WITH a question[smile].
    #1.An older, slightly less advanced ancestor that you probably don’t believe in.

    #2.This world has always been both ideal AND horrific.These are simply states of human perception based on the judgment of the individual at any given time.I don’t know what you consider to be “ideal” or “horrific”.My judgments are different than yours.An African Elephant’s or Blue Whales would be different than both of ours.Human sediments have no place within the realm of untamed nature.There isn’t very much of that left anymore[sigh…].Down here humans are still eaten by predators sometimes, but this isn’t so terrible, because the victims always seem to be asking for death in some fashion, so it’s actually JUSTICE.Which is both ideal[for the predators] and horrific[to stupid victims].[“Captain, sensors indicate rambling mode ahead.” “Shields up!”] I’d better stop myself to keep this brief, eh?

    #3.This is much like answering question #2.I can really only answer this for myself[after deliberation over my possible faults, which are undoubtedly many.] and those closest to me personally.Maybe nothing needs fixing.Making mistakes in life helps us grow as individuals[if we survive them!], and offers cheap amusements for others.
    Hope that was substantive enough for you Some Guy.

  64. Chris C. said

    All of you christians are also atheists…with respect to 99% of the gods and religions of the world. Some of us just go one god further.

    As Stephen Roberts said: “When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

    Hope you are all doing well. Im trying to resist getting involved in this again…

  65. Maz said

    F.L.A: Here’s a question on something I brought up right at the beginning. It is also one of the evidences where I listed three main reasons why I believe in Creation and therefore Design by a Designer, post #18.
    DNA. I also asked Alex to think about this in post #50, and it is:….DNA contains information, which had to come from an intelligent source; can you tell me where that intelligence comes from? To me DNA is the best testimony for an Intelligent Creator.

  66. Maz said

    Chris: From another religions point of view I can see that we would be atheistic to them, not believing in THEIR god, but as far as Christianity is conerned we are not atheists. We believe in not just a god, but the true God Yahweh, and Yeshua as His Son, our Savior.
    Alex has said some things which makes me doubt whether he in fact is a Bible believing, spirit filled, born-again Christian (there is no other form).
    And I think you have already got yourself involved.

    Alex: You spoke about ”your form of Christianity”, but it’s not yours it’s Gods form that matters. Also you said, ”I don’t care all that much”. You should.
    You said, ”I trust my feelings”. I think that is the problem. Feelings alone can be deceptive. Do they match up with scripture?

  67. F. L. A. said

    We were wondering if you were secretly reading from the sidelines, Chris C. It’s good to hear from you again.How are the studies comming along?

    Maz, that was covered within the original site too.We have never denied a belief that the begining of life involved some form of “divine tampering”, by whatever deities that may have had an interest in such things at the time.Can you bring forth anything more?

  68. Maz said

    F.L.A: I think you are dodging this with the fact we have covered it before. There are people on this site who weren’t on the original, and for the sake of the flow of questions and answers here and the fact that we do have a new site (albeit asking the same question) we should go thro these things again, and maybe clarify and add to what was said before etc. etc. etc.
    So, I shall continue with the subject and maybe someone else would like to pitch in.

    The DNA molecule has often been described as the most efficient information storage system in the entire Universe. The immensity of complex, coded and precisely sequenced information written on the DNA is absolutely staggering. The evidence speaks of intelligent, information-bearing design. Even for the hypothetical first ‘so-called’ simple cells you would have needed the complex DNA coding. So Who put it there?
    Even Crick himself, one of the discoverers of DNA, had to admit, ”An Honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a MIRACLE, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going”.
    He also reasoned that life could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. But ofcourse, Crick could not in any way accept a Creator God, being a very staunch atheist.
    The important question then is not, was there a Creator God……but Who was He? I think this is a serious question to ask if anyone is SINCERE in wanting to know the truth.

  69. ncguy said

    Maz in 38:
    “Evolutionists just will not admit that Evolution is still a theory which has not been proved by science, infact it is another faith, but built on sand not rock.”

    All of science is theoretical. All of it. An idea goes from hypothetical (which the layman confuses with the word “theoretical”) and from there either fails or becomes full fledged theory. A scientific theory means it has evidence to back it up. Every ounce of science that one calls fact is also theoretical. One generally calls it a fact as well if it has reached a point of overwhelming evidence and years and years of testing which usually involve science attempting to disprove it. The bulk of evolutionary theory is now considered fact and well proven. The disputes now lie on the edges of what this broad field encompasses, just like major well established theories. The study and expansion of knowledge never ends.

    The summary: don’t confuse the word “theory” with “hypothesis”. All of science is “just theories” once they get past the “hypothesis stage”. Evidence and tested. The non-scientific world tends to use the word “theory” when they really should be using the word “hypothesis”. The continued use of the “just a theory” attack simply drives the point home that the attacker is either uneducated or at the very least is engaging in childish word-play. It undermines any serious discussion. As my mom used to say, “if you don’t know what a word means, look it up before using it.”

    Zerxil in 53:
    “Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other. So is magnetism gravity?”

    No, magnetism is not gravity. Magnetism is an electromagnetic force that has more to do with the motion of electrons of some material, whereas gravity is also a force of nature but has more to do with mass warping time and space. Read Einstein, he worked long and hard on the theory of gravity. Not an easy topic to discuss in a comment. Gravity, ultimately, is much harder to grasp than evolution.

    Take care, y’all.

  70. Maz said

    NcGuy: Are you an evolutionist? Then your understanding of science is influenced by an evolutionistic world view. Not all science is purely theoretical. And yes, I did look up the word ‘theory’ in the dictionary. ”A system of rules, procedures and assumptions used to produce a result. Or, abstract knowledge or reasoning. Or, A speculative or conjectural view or idea, OR an ideal or hypothetical situation….etc. I don’t see the words PROVEN or FACT listed any where there.
    On the contrary we do gain facts from scientific experimentation. It’s called empirical science, which means it is derived from and related to experiment and observation rather then THEORY. (That’s what the dictionary says).
    To say we get no facts whatsoever and that all science is theoretical is to deny everything we DO know in all scientific areas of study.
    Theory means there is no real proof, and Fact means there is…..so we could conclude from what you have said that evolution has not been proven and is still theoretical in nature and therefore you cannot possibly say that there is any factual evidence to prove it.
    ”The bulk of evolutionary theory is now considered fact and well proven”.
    You have contradicted yourself.

  71. Maz said

    Here’s a nice little aside: A scientist once said, ”If I can create life in this test tube then I can prove you don’t need intelligence to create life.” Ha ha! That is the kind of thinking that comes from an evolutionist world view.

  72. Mike S. said

    Hey Chris
    I guess you’re right. And that means we deny all gods and ideas of gods except the One and Only God. 🙂

  73. Chris C. said

    Until someone can come up with a justification of inductive logic, science will remain “unproven”. Try to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. You can’t do it. You can use math proofs to prove the angles of a trianlge or the result of an equation. But you can’t prove something that relies on inductive logic.

    Play the dictionary game or mess with semantics all you want, 99% of the time, when a scientist refers to a theory they are speaking of a well-established collection of ideas that makes predictions about the observable world. They do not intend (usually) to cast doubt on whatever idea they are calling a “theory”.

    Now, to say that evolution is a theory which has no evidence to back it up is grossly mistaken. You may disagree with the evidence. And indeed, in the past some evidence that has been brought forth has been errant or outright false. But it has been the work of scientists which has uncovered these hoaxes and repaired the theory for the future. Most of the objections to scientific evidence that I see is something like this:

    “Evolution must be false because I can’t see any way in which organism X or molecule Y could have formed by chance. To think that “all this” just happened is preposterous. My religious beliefs give me a more satisying answer. Plus, my religion seems to be right about everything else, so why not this?”

    So, to direct further questioning, from which of these categories which you like evidence for evolution?
    –Population genetics
    –Gender Frequencies
    –Hominoid/Hominid transition
    –Reptile/Mammal transition
    –Evolution of flight
    –Evolution of the eye
    –Historical constraints
    –Evolutionary Developmental Biology

    Those are some of the areas in which I have a bit of knowledge. Do a quick google search on any of them and please feel free to ask questions. If you really want scientific evidence, I’ll do what I can to provide it.

    My studies are over for the summer, thankfully. But I’m always learning. That’s one of the great things about life, isn’t it? Perhaps thats why I come here…

  74. zerxil said

    –Historical constraints
    –Evolutionary Developmental Biology

    “Evolution must be false because I can’t see any way in which organism X or molecule Y could have formed by chance. To think that “all this” just happened is preposterous. My religious beliefs give me a more satisying answer. Plus, my religion seems to be right about everything else, so why not this?”

    Thats about it in a nut shell. Is this close to what you think Maz?

  75. Chris C. said

    Historical Constraints
    Historical constraints are limits on the way in which an organism can develop beause of its evolutionary history. Let’s look at the human eye. Most evolutionaists believe it evolved (like the rest of our bodies) from a flatworm population whose retina is faced “back to front”. In other words, light has to pass through a layer of tissue before reaching the front of the retina where the image is “seen”. This causes blurring and the creation of a small blind spot. As the flatworm eye is wired, however, if the retina were faced the other way it simply wouldn’t function. Evolution proceeds in small steps that have to be advantageous in the short term. Therefore, as natural selection put presure on the origincal flatworm eye, it selected for the qualities that allowed the animal to see best DESPITE its less-than-ideal retinal configuration. As generations (many many many generations) passed, the eye of the flatworm became more complex and as new species diverged off, they all started with this same backwards retina blueprint. So as animals further down the lineage, we humans share the same less-than-ideal eye because it is a historical constraint. Picture two mountains. One is taller than the other. The shorter mountain stands for the human eye. Our eye is effective and highly specialized, but still has blindspots due to the position of our retinas. Now the taller mountain stands for the squid eye, whose retina is faced the right way. To get from our shorter mountain to the tall squid-eye mountain, we would have to go from one “local optimum” to a valley, and then up to a higher local optimum. Since natural selection cannot select for less fitness in an environment, there is no way to “descend” our mountain and move through the valley to the higher (better) mountain of thr squid eye. I know that is a lot of figurative language and it’s not really an easy concept to explain. But that is the basis: we can’t become less fit for our environment, so any non-ideal charactersists of our development tend to stick around and natural selection makes of them what it can.

    If an all-knowing designer had created people, it seems he would not have purposely made some eyes better than others. Especially since humans are supposed to be his prized creation, why would he make other animals whose eyes were better developed to see than ours; whose vision wasn’t compromised (however slightly) but constraints.

    Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo)
    This is a field of biological research that basically studies the ontogeny of different plants and animals to see how they relate. Ontogeny is the study of an organism from its conception to its mature form. Scientists study the genes that control the formation of the zygote, blastocyst, and fetus. There are a number of genes which are refered to as “toolkit” genes that essentially control the turning on and off of other genes. Genes code for proteins, which are the building blocks of all organic matter. Hox genes are a spcieal type of toolkit gene which control the formation of the spine and central axis of an organism’s body. What is remarkable is that these toolkit genes are very similar in all organisms. And, to the extent that the toolkit genes vary, they usually vary in proportion to the relatedness of two given animals. In other words, a human and a chimp habe nearly identical toolkit genes. A human and a pig may also have similar toolkit genes, but with less in common than the human and chimp. The field of EvoDevo covers many more topics than this, but toolkit genes and the regulation of ontological processes is the most directly related to modern evolutionary theory.

    Sorry for the typo’s but my lunch break is over. Back to work…

  76. Fred said

    When confronted with the question of the mystery of creation (reality, whatever) there are two answers:

    Science says “I don’t know all the answers.”

    Young Earth Creation(Fundamentalism) says “I know all the answers.”

    There is humility in science’s answer. There is no humility in the YEC answer.

    About what science teaches us about the origins of species, why not be honest and let the issue stand unresolved? Why is it unacceptable (to some) to simply admit that what we learn in science class is not always reconcilable with what we learn in Sunday school?

    There is bigotry in the Young Earth Creationist position. Can that be the Christian example?

  77. F. L. A. said

    Chris C. and Ncguy, ditto on that.
    As to your offer of scientific knowledge Chris C., you do know that they would never accept[can’t accept it, because it’s not Christian[their type] based knowledge] any of your scientific information, right? That darned bubble…..But you can always try, I guess.
    This is why John asked for Maz and SomeGuy to present science from their perspective to prove their claims.That way it would be easier to debate against them.Fight fire with fire, so to speak.
    Maz,[to be really lazy about it] why don’t we all just go back and continue this silliness on the original site, so that we evolutionist can simply tell you to scroll back up to any older posts that already answer the questions that people like you keep asking again and again and..[infinity]?

  78. Maz said

    Chris: If science is just theory and we can’t prove anything then why are you so dogmatic that evolution is proven fact?
    Where’s the logic in that? If we can’t prove the future, how can you prove the past especially millions of years ago?
    NASA wouldn’t be able to function if they were merely working on theory. Their work necessitates precision. The astranauts thatgo to the moon or out into space need to be able to trust that their scientists know what they are doing. They work with mathematical facts not theories. They have to work out to the fraction of a second to get precision timing with say a moon landing. That is just one example of the necessity for scientific facts not theories.
    And nobody can predict what will happen in the future, but we do know that the sun is at the center of the solar system and we orbit around it. We also know that the moon orbits the earth and they have calculated that it is actually losing it’s orbit by about 5” a day.
    We can’t live in this world living on assumptions and theories not proven. You say evolution IS a proven fact…it seems that’s the only thing you seem to believe is fact and everything else is just theory not proven.

    ”Playing the dictionary game”. All I was doing was using the tool to find out a meaning….that’s a game?
    I don’t just ”trust my religion” I read what the Creation scientists say, just as you read your evolutionist literature or however you get your information. And infact I trust God not religion.

    I have information about the human eye but I would have to read it again. I know this much, there are parts of the eye thatjust could not in any way slowly evolve, or the eye could not be an eye and you would have millions of years of blindness……which goes for any other organ of the body evolving. The lungs, the heart, the blood vessels, the kidneys, liver, digestive system, bowels, ears, nose, mouth……I could go on infinitum, and we havn’t touched the micro level.
    It is far more rediculous to believe in chance evolution, than a Creator Who Created.

    Back to DNA….maybe you can tell me where the informatin within DNA came from?

  79. Maz said

    Fred: I do not purport to know everything and I don’t think anyone here would either. That is a false assumption which seems to be a habit of evolutionists. And I also don’t believe YEC’s would say that they know all the answers either, another false assumption.
    Back to the humility thing again. You are so humble Fred and all we are proud knowalls?
    Oh and bigots too.
    Fred, I have a faith in God that will stand the test of time and eternity, all your demeaning words will not change what I believe to be true about my God and Creator. He is as real as any being that exists, and He revealed His reality by coming down to man’s level and showing us what real love is.

  80. Jeff42 said


    I’ll have to take your work for it. But, personally I don’t know any Christians who would claim to have “all the answers,” and I certainly don’t run into very many atheistic scientists who readily admit to the fact that they “don’t know all the answers.” Most of the time evolution is presented as being a settled fact.

    In order to be absolutely certain about anything you would have to know everything there is to know about everything. That is the only way that you could be sure that you wouldn’t learn something new tomorrow that will completely overthrow what you thought you already knew for certain. The reason that Christians come off as being certain is not that they know everything, but that they are trusting in the revelation of the Creator of the universe who does have all knowledge and has revealed the fact that He created everything. And, on top of that, they see that everything that He has made testifies to His existence. It takes a lot more faith to believe that the universe simply sprang into existence through blind mechanistic forces than it does to believe that all the complexity and design we see around us is the product of an all-wise Creator. But undoubtedly there are basic presuppositions (or world views) behind the arguments on both sides.

    Could some us (on both sides) be a little more humble in the way we present our arguments? I sure hope so. Do we have lots yet to learn? You bet! Both sides could use a good dose of humility and gentleness.

  81. Maz said

    Actually F.L.A: I have been serious about debating this subject and have enjoyed it up until now but there is an insulting and demeaning tone creeping in again from the ‘other side’ and I’m getting to that place again where I feel I am ‘hitting-my-head-against-a-brick-wall’. I am beginning to wonder why I started on this site again.
    If you want to continue in the ‘silliness’ as you call it then the site is all yours.
    I’v been accused of playing the dictionary game, but I do think there are those on here who are quite happy to play games with people and what they believe.
    Well, count me out.
    Have a nice weekend y’all.

  82. Maz said

    Zerxil # 74: No.

  83. EvolvePhish said

    I’m a young earth creationist and believe the Bible, taking the first chapters literally.

    That being said, I do believe we are beating a dead horse here. The dead horse being Darwinism.

    Our foundational understanding will determine our world-view. The core of Dawinian evolution is that a Deity is not needed in order for life to exist and evolve. That goes against the very heart of Biblical Christianity.

    Bozarth was a prophet of evolution. He summed it up well – “if evolution be true, then there is no original sin. Destroy that doctrine and in the ruin you will find the sorry remains of the son of god” – loose paraphrase.
    Even though he was a self-proclaimed atheist, he understood full well the war that wages between evolution and Biblical creation.

    We, Biblical creationists, will continue to fight, yet as long as the Scientific community is controlled by staunch evolutionists creatonism will continue to be mocked and denied. – Expelled; no intellegence allowed!!!

  84. Fred said

    Charles Darwin thought humans were descended from Cro-magnons which turned out to be incorrect along with some of his other ideas. Therefore the term “Darwinism” is meaningless. Evolutionary biologists have learned a lot about how nature structures itself since Darwin and others made their simultaneous discoveries about evolution. Darwin withheld his findings our of fear of retribution from angry Christians but wrote of his findings after learning that many other scientsits had recently made the same discoveries. So again, there is no such thing as “Darwinism.” This is a bogus term desperate creationists use to make evolution seem like it is just one fellow’s ideas. As usual when it comes to the creationists and their staemnets, nothing could be further from the truth.

  85. Fred said

    Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

    One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.

    Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of “big science” to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times.)

    Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.

    Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.” This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.

    Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.

    “Expelled” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic.

  86. Fred said

    Absurd Torah “Science”

    The Torah is VERY errant and contradictive to that of scientific facts. The first book of Genesis alone should be enough to invalidate Judaism to any INTELLIGENT person. Sadly, not only is Judaism still one of the world’s leading religions, but it has spawned the most insane theism (Christianity). The goal of this page is to expose the inaccuracies of the Torah, hence shooting down its divine claim. All the verses shall appear in chronological order. Feel free to copy what ever you wish.

    1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

    2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night….’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

    3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

    4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

    5) “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created – great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.

    6) “And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.

    7) “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made…every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind…” (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian Age.

    8) “So God created man in his own image,…male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27), and “the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately 6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher’s calculations), then nobody lived before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than 9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus’ ancestors had lived to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according to creationists.

    9) “And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Genesis 1:30). Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs, nor were all animals originally herbivores. Simply consider tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, barracudas, tigers, etc.

    10) In Genesis 1, the entire creation takes 6 days (Genesis 1:31), at the end of which the earth and its living things are pretty much as they are today. But we know from modern science that the universe (including the earth and life on earth) evolved slowly over billions of years.

    11) In Genesis 2:7 humans are created instantaneously from dust and breath, whereas they actually evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. Science can in fact trace back human evolution CONCLUSIVELY 3 .2 million years.

    12) God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven’t even discovered nor named all the species. Also consider the idea of every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would have killed many animals due to climatic changes.

    13) God curses the serpent, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust (Genesis 3:14). One wonders how he got around before — by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don’t eat dust, do they?

    14) “There were giants in the earth in those days.” Genesis 6:4 But there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants. Also there is a reference to the “Nephilim” being on the earth. Which is a term used for half angel, half human. Why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of the Nephilim either?

    15) Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long (Genesis 6:14-15). The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was longer than any that has been built since?

    16) Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 7:8). Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of plant species? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn’t last long if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don’t tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.

    17) All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies could do as well!

    18) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?

    19) When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?

    20) Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God (Genesis 8:20). According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. So why is it that we still have “clean” animals?

    21) God is filled with remorse for having drowned his creatures in the flood. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever the animals see it they will remember God’s promise not to do it again (Genesis 9:13). But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed.

    22) “The whole earth was of one language” (Genesis 11:1). But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others.

    23) (Genesis. 11:4) According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God (Genesis 11:9) But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time.

    24) (Genesis 14:14) Abram goes into pursuit looking for his captive relative in the city of Dan. The problem here is that the city of Dan did not exist until over 300 years after Moses died. How is it that Abram could enter the city of Dan, when the city did not even exist?

    25) Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.

    26) Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a “camel toe” and how it used to describe a specific split.

    27) The bible says that hares and conies are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof (Leviticus 11:5-6). But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not “chew the cud.”

    28) Bats are birds to the biblical God (Leviticus 11:13-19 & Deuteronomy 14:11-18).

    29) Some birds have four feet (Leviticus 11:20-21).

    30) If there is a God, there is one thing we know for sure about him: He really likes insects (particularly beetles). There are more species of insects, by far, than all other species of life on earth. As JBS Haldane said, “he has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” Yet insects are said to have four legs in Leviticus 11:22-23.

    31) Unicorns have never existed, yet they are said to in Deuteronomy 33:17.

    32) Fiery serpents have NEVER existed yet Numbers 21:6 claims they do and TO THIS DAY STILL inhabit certain cities.

  87. Maz said

    Well said Evolvephish. To evolutionists, Creationists, especially ‘Youth Earthers’, don’t have any intelligence. That’s why I find they just don’t and won’t take anything we say seriously and that’s why I find it difficult to carry on in any serious vain in this debate.

  88. Fred said

    84,85 and 86 is not from me. I mean, it’s from another Fred.

    I’ll vacate the Fred nom d’plume for the newcomer Fred to avoid confusion. I know Maz isn’t happy to just read and contribute, she needs to make these ridiculous posts personal.

    I’ll be back under a different name.

  89. Mike S. said

    But will the real Fred, the one who claims he is a Christian evolved from pond slime, please stand up on your own two fins please? 🙂

  90. Barney said

    Mike S. here I am. I think I’ll use Barney now.

  91. EvolvePhish said

    when you cut-n-paste jargon, it sort of loses the debate type personal feel. besides, those supposed contradictions are listed on talk origins…..and are also refuted on numerous websites.

  92. Jeff42 said

    #86 was at least good entertainment! I enjoyed numerous laughs reading that one! Was that a joke or a serious attempt to discredit the Torah? It is filled with assumptions and very poor exegesis of Scripture. I especially liked the one about the unicorn! You might want to dig a little deeper than the KJV. (Boy, that might get me into trouble.) 🙂

    Original Fred,
    Good thing you changed to “Barney.” You would have really lost some credibility with that one!

  93. Fred said

    Scientists say bacteria and the Bible says man was made from dirt. I think bacteria sounds more reasonable than a man made from dirt and made alive by Yahweh’s magical breath. Then Yahweh supposedly gives man dominion over animals. God didn’t realize that bacteria would actually have dominion over man until scientists kicked the Bible thumpers out of the way and discovered evolution by natural selection. Evolutionary biologists have since doubled our lifespan through their knowledge of how nature structures itself. If anyone can save us it will be these scientists, not some misinterpreted mythical savior-king.

  94. Barney said

    Since I was addressed personally, I will respond.

    Jeff42 says:

    “I’ll have to take your wor(d) for it. But, personally I don’t know any Christians who would claim to have “all the answers,” and I certainly don’t run into very many atheistic scientists who readily admit to the fact that they “don’t know all the answers.” Most of the time evolution is presented as being a settled fact.”

    So, you run into a lot of “atheist scientists”, do you? What do you do, roam the hallways at the Universities and introduce yourself to biologists with a “hello, Jeff42 here, are you an atheist?”?

  95. Jeff42 said

    How did you guess? 🙂

    No, but I do have experience in campus ministry, so I have had my share of interesting discussions.

  96. Maz said

    Fred or Barney? So IIIII need to make these rediculous posts personal?
    No, it is you that love to make them personal. I don’t think you are happy without the remarks you put into your blogs about Christians. It really isn’t neccesary.
    And I was wondering about those ‘Fred’ posts, they just didn’t sound atall like you.

  97. Fred said

    I love how Christians claim they scoff and laugh at criticisms of the Bible and then claim these criticisms have all been reconciled. But if one asks these Christians to go ahead and reconcile these criticisms one will hear one of several excuses mostly having to do with not having the time for such trivial pursuits. Translated that means the Christian has no answers to these criticisms or we all know they would gladly spew them out.
    In an oddly distorted, negative universe Christian apologists declare that there is “no evidence” for their godman’s non-existence, as if it should be quite natural to believe in the most fantastic, illogical and unsubstantiated claims unless there was evidence to the contrary. If this stance had any viability, why stop at Jesus? Why not believe in Zeus, leprechauns and the tooth fairy?

    A favourite tack of the Saved is to affect a yawn, mutter “that old stuff again” and impatiently declare that Jesus’s non-existence is a 19th century rationalist’s heresy long since disposed of by “solid evidence”.

    The ringing claim of “more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for any other person of his day” is followed by a potpourri of ancient sources, as if a list made long enough could disguise the fact that NOT A SINGLE SOURCE EVER QUOTED IS FROM THE TIME OF THE GODMAN.

    Early non-Christian writers, including the favourite hostages – Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus – are discussed here.

    But stepping around the smokescreen thrown up by evidence that early Christians certainly existed (and had a motley assortment of beliefs!), is the evidence for many of history’s greatest heroes and villains really so tenuous?

  98. Ernest T. said

    Hey Barney, Does that mean you only got one bullet in that thar gun of yourn?

  99. Mike S. said

    Couldn’t help it. I know it is really a reference to the Flintstones. Very appropriate to your evolved status.

  100. EvolvePhish said


    You have offended every legalistic Independant Fundamental Baptist preacher in the south!!

    Do you mean to tell me that there are other translations besides the good ole KJV1611?!?!?! 😉

  101. EvolvePhish said

    Fred #2,

    Please don’t cut-n-paste any more!! It’s true, evolution is true. We’re just a bunch of liars trying to cover up the biggest hoax ever! You found us out………. 😉

    If it were so easy to disprove Jesus Christ and His claims, I’m sure the Muslims would have been able to years ago…

  102. Tripp said

    Dear non-Christian Fred, May God have mercy on your soul. Your heinously blasphemous hyper-link in your name is repugnant.

  103. zerxil said

    86 “Light cannot exist without a sun”
    um you ever see a light bug, flash light, or explosions?

    86-3) you ever heard of land?? it separates the oceans from the non-salt water.

  104. Fred said

    Blasphemy is a victimless crime until proven otherwise. I’m not afraid of any God who theatens to follow me to my grave and punish me in some hokey afterlife for not buying into a particular set of absurd superstitions. If there is a God it isn’t the Christian God, No God that ignorant could have created anything let alone an entire universe.

  105. Fred said

    It’s easy to disprove the existence of Jesus, Moses or any of the figures in the Bible. An event such as the Passover event certainly could not have gone unmentioned in the mountain of historical documents we have from ancient Egypt had it actually occurred. Not only is there absolutely not one word mentioned about this supposed event, but there isn’t one word mentioned by the Egyptians about any Israelites ever being in Egypt at all. POOF! There goes Judaism and Christianity and with it Jaysus too.

  106. EvolvePhish said

    Fred #2,

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And that is all that you have is an opinion.

    Your hatred for Jesus Christ will not allow you to see the evidence, no matter how overwhelming it is.

    Hatred and anger can only take you so far. I know, it took me down a long and hard road. One that led me to face the evidence and the reality that Jesus Christ truly IS real. Notice that I didn’t say WAS but IS. See, He is still alive and well.

    He fulfilled many prophecies of the Torah. Now, think about it. The Bible was written by over 40 different authors, 3 different languages, at least 3 continents, over a span of 1500 years. For Jesus to fulfill even one of the prophecies is almost mathematically impossible.

    I find it absurd that you are making statements that there is no evidence when even the Discovery channel and History channel are doing documentaries that are confirming the Bibles geographic and historical references.

    Last point, no other book in history makes the claims that the Bible makes about itself. No religious book compares to the Bible. Like I said previously, if it were so easy to disprove Jesus’ existence, surely Muhammad, surely the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day would have taken care of that years before you and I were born.

    Especially since they were closer to that time period that we are and surely it would have been easier for them then to squash this “myth”.

    You bring nothing new to the table. Just more anger and hostility toward the God you so badly want to wipe away from your thoughts. Yet, seemingly He continues to be there and the evidence as well.

    Yep, I know it full well. You will either become a Richard Dawkins full of anger and bitterness or a C.S. Lewis full of love and passion for Jesus Christ.

  107. Chris C. said

    I for one a not angry at God. I don’t think he exists…

    I do get angry with religion on occasion. I think Professor Dawkins would agree. I dont think any ahtiests are angry at God or Jesus, we can become angry with the perpetuation of igorance. I assume, those of you who share the exact opposite view (Biblical creationism), might feel some of this anger too at a perceived slight of creation science in the classroom.

    I wish I could tell you in detail how DNA, or more basically, RNA first formed. I’d win the nobel prize if I could explain it. Someday…

    The point is, that you or I can’t offer an explantion does not, in any way, mean your God is the answer to the “DNA” problem. I may have used the example before, but 300 years ago we didn’t know how people became ill. We blamed it on original sin or witches, or God. So, since we didn’t have a good explanation were we justified in ascribing illness to God? Were we correct?

    Maz, the difference is that something can be well established in science (yes even ‘treated’ as fact) without being technically proven in the philosophical sense. You cannot prove that the next peice of bread you eat will nourish you as opposed to kill you. But I imagine you are highly confident (maybe certain) that the next peice of bread WILL nourish you. In what do you place your confidence? Past experiences, most likely. But the past cannot prove the future, only predict.
    Often times we can’t prove events of the past. The civil war could well be treated as a scientific theory. We have photos, accounts, literature, etc. That’s pretty good evidence. But as far as science is concerned, while the civil war ay be a historical fact, it would well be treated as a scientific theory.
    You mention NASA, they can use deductive logic in predicting where a spaceship will be. This is because of the use o natural mathematical laws that can be independantly, deductively justified. Plugging numbers into an x+y=z equation is not the same as looking at a,b, and c and somehow inferring n .

  108. Chris C. said

    The only element of chance in our evolution was the event that allowed the genesis of life. I don’t claim to now how it happened or how likely it was (though I have my ideas). But once life began, the rest was the exact opposite of chance. Is it chance that you select the best fruits at the grocery store, or that you want the cleanest looking clothes, or the cutest dogs? Natural selection will always chose the animal that is most fitted to its environment. This is not “Chancy” at all. It may seem that way since no human hand is involved. But natural selection acts in a predicatble, logical way.

  109. Fred said

    Hey Evolvephish – no history book has word for word dialogue between people recorded somehow when no one was around. That in itself is the mark of fiction which is what the Bible is. There is and was no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. The fact that you claim Jesus is still alive proves that he dies for no one even if he did exist. You can’t have really died unless you are dead. Jesus went into suspended animation for you sins. LMAO!

  110. Fred said

    In Evidence That Demands a Verdict, written three decades ago, Josh McDowell lists sixty-one Old Testament prophecies that he claims precisely foretold the coming of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. For example, consider Prophecy 1 (all these are exact quotations): PROPHECY: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel (Gen 3:15, Revised Standard Version)FULFILLMENT: But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4, Revised Standard Version). I am not sure what the prediction is here; that Jesus was to be born of a woman? McDowell often repeats himself. In prophecies 14 and 32 he regards the statements in Luke 2:11, Matthew 22:43-45, Hebrews 1:3, Mark 16:19, and Acts 2:34-35 in which Jesus sits down on the right hand of God as a fulfillment of: “The Lord says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool'” (Ps. 110:1, Revised Standard Version). McDowell certainly views biblical prophecy as something different than simple scientific prediction. I would not be too far off base to note that Jesus sitting on God’s right hand has not been verified scientifically. Each of the prophecies listed by McDowell is confirmed in no other place except in the Bible. We have no independent evidence that events actually took place as described – especially the ones happening in heaven. Before making the extraordinary claim that something supernatural occurred, simple common sense tells us that we must rule out the ordinary, far more plausible account that the events are fictional, written so as to conform to biblical prophecies. For example, Prophecy 55 takes the opening words of one of David’s Psalms, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Ps. 22:1a, King James Version) and sees this precisely fulfilled with Jesus’ last words on the cross (Matt 27:46). Which is the more plausible account: an extraordinary event in which a thousand years earlier David predicted the exact words of the Messiah (although he does not identify them as such) or a perfectly ordinary one in which Matthew puts these words in Jesus’ mouth when telling the story of the crucifixion? Or, perhaps Jesus really used these words, remembered from the Psalm. Many of McDowell’s examples have appeared frequently in Christian literature. Consider the prophecy of Jesus’ coming: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel whose origin is from old, from ancient days” (Mic 5:2, Revised Standard Version). We have no reason outside the New Testament to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. History does not support Luke’s Christmas story about a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the Roman world was required to go to their place of origin to be “taxed” (King James Version) or “enrolled” (Revised Standard Version). Surely such a vast undertaking would have been recorded. History does record a census affecting only Judah and not Galilee, but this took pl;ace 6-7 CE, which conflicts with the fact that Jesus was supposedly born in the days of Herod, who died in 4 BCE. Similarly, we have no historical mention of a star lighting up the sky, although spectacular astronomical events such as comets and supernovae were frequently recorded in ancient times. And, surely there would be a record of Herod’s slaughter of innocent children – had that really happened. The Jewish scholars Philo (c. 50) and Josephus (c. 93) described Herod as murderous and killing some family members to keep them from challenging his throne. Yet neither mentions the slaughter of the innocents. Furthermore, Jesus was never the ruler of Israel. This aspect of the prophecy actually failed. And, he was never called “Immanuel” either, as the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 supposedly foretold. Perhaps one of the most important prophecies of the New Testament stands out like a sore thumb for its repeated appearance in the Gospels and a gross failure to be fulfilled. In Matthew 16:28, 23:36, 24:34; Mark 9:1,1330; and Luke 9:27, Jesus tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within a generation, before the listeners die. We are still waiting. Lack of evidence from outside of scripture surrounds the most important tale of the New Testament – Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. Christian literature is filled with claims that these events were foretold. But again we have nothing outside of the Gospels that rules out what is the more plausible account: the authors of the Gospels formulated the life and death of Jesus to conform to their conception of the Messiah of the Old testament. Many people say they believe because of the many eyewitnesses who said they saw Jesus walking after he was supposed to be dead. However, that testimony is only recorded in the Bible, second hand, and years after the supposed fact. Eyewitness testimony recorded on the spot would still be open to question two-thousand years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony recorded decades later is hardly extraordinary evidence. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony recorded on the spot today is notoriously unreliable. In a recent decade, sixty-nine convicts were released from prison, seven on death row, based on DNA evidence. In most case, these people were convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitness testimony. Now, as with the Christmas story, we might easily imagine that independent evidence could have been found. Matthew describes what happened at the death of Jesus: “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and rocks were split; the tombs were opened and many of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Matt 27:51-54, Revised Standard Version). Again, we have no record of these phenomenal events outside scripture. If they really happened as described, Philo, Josephus, or one of the many historians of the time would very likely have mentioned them. The few mentions of “Christus” in the pagan literature, decades after Jesus’ supposed death, do not provide the needed confirmation. They simply read as factual reports on a new cult that was appearing in the empire. Considerable controversy still exists on the validity of various statements taken from the writings of Josephus, which seem to support specifics of the Gospel stories. But, once again, these were written well after Jesus’ supposed death and were not firsthand observations. In short, despite the long list of Jewish and pagan scholars writing at the time, there is no record of Jesus being tried by Pontius Pilate and executed – much less rising from the dead. Christian apologist William Lane Craig cites the empty tomb as evidence for the risen Christ. However, the gospels are inconsistent in their description of this event, as the reader should check for herself. Simply compare the four accounts: Mark 16:1-8, Matthew 28:1-10, Luke 24:1-11, John 20:1-18. even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the story of the empty tomb is accurate, a much simple explanation exists. Suppose you are on a holiday in Paris and decide one morning to visit the tomb of Napoleon. You arise bright and early and find the tomb is empty. Would you conclude that the emperor had risen into heaven? Hardly. You would figure somebody took the body. Since ancient times, many authors have commented on how the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as described in the gospels are similar to those of savior-gods in various mystery cults and religions of the ancient world. True, this remains an issue much in dispute. In his exhaustive study of the background of the early Church, Everett Ferguson warns us that many of these generalizations are fraught with methodological problems and that the similarities between mystery religions and Christianity is exaggerated. He admits, however, that much of that exaggeration came from Christian writers themselves. The Jesus story sure looks just like you would expect it to look if it were patterned after other god-men. Early Christian Church fathers such as Justin Martyr (d. 165), Tertullian (d. 225), and Iranaeus (d. 202) felt compelled to answer the pagan critics of the time who claimed the Jesus story was based on earlier traditions. The fathers claimed that the similarities were the work of the devil, who copied the Jesus story ahead of time to mislead the gullible. Lacking any independent corroboration, we cannot take the New Testament as evidence for a single fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, much less sixty-one. The story of Jesus, as related in the Gospels, with all its unconfirmed miraculous happenings, is more plausibly explained as a fiction, written to not only conform to Judaic traditions but also to move Christianity beyond being a tribal religion. The story appealed to gentiles as well, with the incorporation of many of their god-man myths.

  111. Barney said

    Put down that rock, Ernest T!

  112. John said

    Alternate Fred, about your work in post#105, I wouldn’t be so sure of that.True, many specific details of ancient personalities may be lacking, however do bear in mind that the ancient Egyptians of that time were NOT in the habit of recording events that they felt made them look….incompetent….in some way.Perhaps due to pride[?].
    And, there is no need to be willfully disrespectful, simply because you disagree.It will get you nowhere but banned from this site, and wouldn’t you like to hang around and have fun playing with and debating against the opposition for as long as you can?

    And I believe in Fairies, and the possibility of Zeus[smile].

  113. John said

    “You know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.”-Will Rodgers

  114. Zerxil said

    93 Then Yahweh supposedly gives man dominion over animals. yes & than the fall happened…. The bactria evolved from helpful to harmful.

    107 if it had mold on it it could kill you….
    “looking at a,b, and c and somehow inferring n” um wouldn’t that be deductive logic

    110 “Or, perhaps Jesus really used these words, remembered from the Psalm.” uh oh you just said Jesus might have existed.

    “The only element of chance in our evolution was the event that allowed the genesis of life.” (Are you saying eveloution has no elemant of chance in it?) “I don’t claim to now how it happened or how likely it was (though I have my ideas). But once life began, the rest was the exact opposite of chance. Is it chance that you select the best fruits at the grocery store, or that you want the cleanest looking clothes, or the cutest dogs?” (nope no chance at all) “Natural selection will always chose the animal that is most fitted to its environment.” (when food gets scarce the smallest animal usally lives) “This is not “Chancy” at all. It may seem that way since no human hand is involved. But natural selection acts in a predicatble, logical way.” (almost as if someone created it…)

  115. Fred said

    Oh, I know I’ll get banned from this site. No dissenting opinions are allowed in Christian chat rooms, in Christian media, on Christian blogs or in Christian churches. This is because dissenting opinions might get some members of the flock thinking and checking things out. “It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity.” – Abraham Lincoln. “A manis accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.” – Mark Twain.

  116. Fred said

    Zerxil Says:
    May 22, 2008 at 10:51 pm
    93 Then Yahweh supposedly gives man dominion over animals. yes & than the fall happened…. The bactria evolved from helpful to harmful.

    A rib woman ate from a magical tree after being told to eat from it by a friendly talking snake and this made bacteria go from helpful to harmful? That is the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a while. And this is what you Christians want taught as science in our public schools. Zerxil please give me some more “Christian science.” It’s the dumbest thing on the planet.

  117. Maz said

    Barney: It is not your dissenting opinions that may ban you from here. Willey was banned for his obnoxious attitude. The thing is, you just cannot seriously debate this subject. All you seem capable of doing is insulting the intelligence of Christians and particularly ‘Youth Earthers’ on this site.
    I enjoy a good debate and I can agree and disagree agreeably. But you seem unable to say anything without resorting to negative jibes.
    It is truly sad to hear such hateful unbelief coming from you.
    But be assured of this Barney, you WILL meet your Creator one day, it is up to you which way you want to meet Him….as Savior or Judge. Don’t be deceived, God will not be mocked.

  118. Maz said

    Correction: It’s not ‘Youth Earthers’ but ‘Young Earthers’.

  119. Maz said

    Evolvephish: #106. Absolutely right. I for one find it unpleasant to debate with Fred’s (Barneys) kind of attitude present.

  120. Maz said

    Chris: Your reasoning seems illogical. As I said before, you cannot predict the future. With evolution, we are talking about the past. Science has to contain fact or we are all in trouble.
    Engineers in many walks of life have to know the facts of physics, not just the theories or they would be forever experimenting and never reaching a conclusion.
    Which means that your belief in evolution is still not proven…because IT too is still a theory as I said before. And as confident as evolutionists appear to be about the evidence, I can categorically say…there is none because it never happened. There is still the problem of transitional forms. They are nowhere to be found in the fossil record. The ‘links’ are atill missing.
    And I’m still waiting for an evolutionist to tell me where the information came from that is within DNA.
    Who is the Intelligence behind it?

  121. F. L. A. said

    Fred, post#115, that is not so, or both John[who is a Wiccan Witch[!]] and I[who is something worse]and a few others would have been gone loooooong ago. And there’s no point in rushing it, eh? Maz, this is not Barney, remember.

  122. Chris C. said

    “looking at a,b, and c and somehow inferring n” um wouldn’t that be deductive logic”

    –Not unless N had to be true if a,b,and c were true. The ground is wet, its is couldy, and the forecast was for rain, therefore it rained. That is an inductive argument. Because the first three premises could be true while the conclusion is false, therefore it is not deductive.

    “Are you saying eveloution has no elemant of chance in it?”

    –No, but that chance does not play a large role. Chance events happen, but natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, etc… these things work in non-random ways to control populations and drive evolution.

  123. Maz said

    Thanks for that F.L.A. Sorry Fred, I thot you were the other Fred and he forgot to put his new name.
    You have freedom to put your views even if they don’t agree with Christian beliefs. What I object to is the bad attitude on the part of a miniscule element on this site.

    Chris: This is what Dr. Werner Gitt says in his book ”In the Beginning was Information”.
    ”There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence or event which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Talking about DNA which puts the proverbial spanner in the works for evolution.
    Matter, by itself NEVER GENERATES information. So, where did DNA come from? And back to the still unanswered question, where did the information come from?
    He goes on, ”There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
    ”A code system is always the result of a MENTAL process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should also be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code”.
    ”All experiences indicate that a THINKING BEING voluntarily exercising HIS OWN FREE WILL, COGNITION and CREATIVITY is required.”
    There is no chance involved when you have a code system within DNA. All life is created by this code. Each life form has it’s own code, infact everything that lives, has it’s DNA code written in it…..BY WHOM? That is the question.

  124. Barney said

    Maz, darling, you mistake me for someone else perhaps?

  125. Moderator (not Stu) said

    Fred – the only way you’ll get banned from this site is if you take too many personal shots at someone else or their beliefs. We like to stick to the debate and topic at hand. Also, any profanity or links to obscenity and vulgarity will get you banned. We reserve the right to make such decisions, as we own the site and servers. If you dig through this forum you will see MANY intelligent, civil debates and discussion taking place between faiths, including Christian, Catholic, Wiccan, Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, etc. Also, it’s OK to agree to disagree and still love and respect your fellow human, which has happened many times on here. No personal attacks towards other folks and their beliefs/gods and nothing obscene or vulgar and debate intelligently & diplomatically. Those are the ground rules.

    Moderator (not Stu)

  126. Maz said

    Thankyou for that moderator. Fred (the original), you were always accusing me of taking things personally…..but you have now done exactly that. But I am not offended, just wonder why you have such negative feelings towards people who have faith in God. What has He done to make you so anti?

  127. Mike S. said

    Hey Chris
    I would like to point out once again how you refer to natural selection and evolution as having some sort of a brain behind it making selective choices for population control and the advancement of the evolution process. Do you recognize the oddity of that? How could a “a blind purposeless process” (as many textbooks label evolution and natural selection) make choices?

  128. Bob Griffin said

    fla 55

    Neither position can be proven with 100% certainty. That is why the debates will always rage.

  129. zerxil said

    122 looking at a,b, and c and somehow inferring n” um wouldn’t that be inductive logic. Is that better?

  130. Bob Griffin said

    65 Maz

    DNA starts with 3 billion base pairs. Still no explanation how that came about by chance. Antony Flew, the longtime atheist who just changed positions, said that DNA convinced him we must have had a designer.

  131. Bob Griffin said

    86 Fred

    No evidence we had a worldwide flood? The earth is 70% covered by water now. That may answer your question as to where the water went.

  132. Fred said

    The creationist appeal to the complexity of DNA is an empty strawman. The first cells had no DNA they reproduced by simply falling apart. Creationists look at the result of 4 billion years of evolution and then marvel at the complexity of modern life and insist such complexity couldn’t have just popped into existence. Of course such complexity couldn’t have, it took 4 billion years to get that complex. This creationist argument is a great illustration of logical fallacy also. The creationists, as usual, incorporate their conclusion into their argument by assuming modern life popped into existence all of a sudden. Therefore this creationista argument, like all their others, proves absolutely nothing. See arguments cannot prove anything. Demonstartions and experiments and fiels work are what prove science not silly biblically based arguments which all the creationists will ever have. Until they are extinct in ten years.

  133. Fred said

    Bob Griffin FYI there is no debate among scientists about evolution nor has there been for over 100 years. There also is no such thing as academic freedom in elementary and secondary schools so wake up. Teachers cannot teach their own ideas about ANYTHING they must stick to the cirriculum. So science’s and education refusal to acknowledge creationism as science has nothing to do with academic freedom. Teachers are not free to teach scientific inaccurracies which crewationism is entirely based on.

  134. Maz said

    Bob: And I find it difficult to understand how anyone isn’t convinced of a designer, when knowing about the properties of DNA. That is why I continue to put the question to our athiest/evolutionist friends. Where did this information come from?

    The two basic parts of every living system are DNA and protein. All human characteristics are ”spelled out” in about 2 meters of DNA all coiled up when life starts off as a tiny little ball the size of a fullstop. It’s like a string of pearls, whose links act like letters of the alphabet to spell out hereditary instrucions.
    Proteins are chains of amino acids. Each chain coils into a special shape that has a special function like muscle contraction, digestion etc. Several hundred DNA bases tell the cell how to make a protein called hoemoglobin, and that protein functions as the oxygen carrier in red blood cells. The start of the relationship between DNA and protein causes a major problem to evolutionists. Left to themselves the NATURAL trend of acid-based reactions is to SCRAMBLE up DNA and protein units in all sorts of deadly combinations. This is why, even under sophisticated and controlled lab conditions the famous experiments carried out by Miller, Fox and others to produce life in a lab never worked. Left to TIME AND CHANCE and their inherent chemical properies, the bases and amino acids of DNA and proteins would react in ways that would DESTROY any hope of producing life. To make a living cell alive scientists NEED CREATION.

  135. Maz said

    Fred: Where do you get your information from? It is totally ludicrous to say ”The first cells had no DNA they reproduced by simply falling apart”. That is what they would NATURALLY do, fall apart…..which is what I said would happen if you had no creator…..life could not happen.
    Even if you had forever Fred, you still wouldn’t get life from inorganic matter. It is simply impossible without Someone Outside creating it.
    Even a evolution scientist was honest enough to say, ”Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science INSPITE OF THE PATENT ABSURDITY of some of it’s constructs, inspite of it’s FAILURE to fulfil many of it’s extravagant promises of health and life, inspite of the tolerance of the scientific community forum substantiated just-so stories, because we have prior commitment to MATERIALISMS START with believing in ”matter”…..assumption is materialism”
    ”It is not that the method and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenominal world, but on the contrary, that we are FORCED by our prior adherence to MATERIAL CAUSES to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.”
    They don’t care how the evidence contradicts their theories, or the absurdities in evolution (which has no relation to science but all to do with FAITH) they will NOT believe in or accept a CREATOR.
    Which reminds me of what is written in 2 Peter 3 v 5: ”For this they are WILLINGLY IGNORANT of that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, (v6) By which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.”
    Please note, this is NOT a ”BIBLICALLY BASED argument”.

  136. zerxil said

    ‘To make a living cell alive scientists NEED CREATION’ AND OR INTELEGINCE

  137. Tripp said

    Wow….so basically, Fred doesn’t believe in anything. That sounds like a fun way to go through life. Let us know how that turns out, Fred.

  138. F. L. A. said

    Welcome back Mr. Griffin. About post#128, I know, and in a way, this is great.Liberating.We can both be right independently, wrong independently,half right, or both completely wrong or right in some strange way yet unknown to us.Of course this also goes for claims of divinity you realize.Perhaps we SHOULDN’T KNOW the absolute answers to such topics.How much peace has this struggle brought to your species as a whole? Both arguments will always be able to fuel bigotry and other things far worse by evil secular or theistic leaders. Perhaps you should all try to find some way to compromise,[Oh NO, am I trying to promote peace??? ME!?!? Now that’s just WEIRD. John has infected me with…”morals”?!] somehow.It’s so crazy it just might work[huge sharp-toothed grin]!
    As for post#131, now, you can do better than that, Mr. Griffin[tisk,tisk]

    Maz, how was Chris C.’s logic in error within post#75 in regards to the development of the human eye?

  139. Mike S. said

    But Fred
    How can you explain how it all started without a creator?
    Something can not come from nothing.
    So… Something had to eternally exist… and something had to start the process. We say it’s God. What do you say it is?

  140. Maz said

    F.L.A: The human eye is more complex than you can imagine. In fact even our finest cameras can’t come any where near to the amazing features that the eye possesses. To say that it somehow made itself the way it is, is,to say the least,absurd.
    The eye is an intricately assembled piece of machinery, to say it evolved through some naturalistic step by step selection of parts is as silly as saying that a camera can just assemble itself together to take pictures. The eye is no more intelligent than a camera…..it has no inner way of working out what it needs or doesn’t need to work, unlike a creator or inventor of a piece of technology like a camera, or a computer…which is far less superior than the human brain.
    Complexity isn’t just a progression through millions or billions of years of chemical reactions…….evolutionists still ignore the fact of the information within DNA thatmakes everything what it is and makes everything work the way it is supposed to work.
    And besides, an eagle for instance is given eyes to do what it does best, see it’s prey from a greater distance than we can. You see, we can’t fly. So why not? Why couldn’t we, as intelligent humans have been able to evolve wings? We say unintelligent animals can somehow change their colour to suit their surroundings, or change their body in some other fundemental way, like the evolutionists say dinosaurs changed their scales into feathers,itjust doesn’t work that way. And we shall never be able to grow wings because we havn’t the DNA coding for wings.
    I have more info on the eye but I havn’t read it yet.

  141. Maz said

    To reiterate my question (yet again), which for some strange reason doesn’t seem to have been answered by any of our evolutionist friends……..Where did the information in DNA come from?
    I will have to construe that the evolutionists here have no answer if one is not forth coming.

  142. F. L. A. said

    Some dinosaurs Did have feathers Maz.
    I’ll get back to you about the human eyeballs thing a little later.
    I am hungry and off to hunt.
    Good day.

  143. Maz said

    F.L.A: If some dinosaurs had feathers, they didn’t come from scales.
    And todays birds feathers couldn’t have come from scales either because they are constructed entirely different.
    Good hunting.

  144. Maz said

    I would like to answer Freds post #85 about the film ”Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”
    I have been able to get two links that will enlighten those who want to know what really happened concerning Dr. Sternberg.



  145. EvolvePhish said

    To learn more concerning the difference between birds feathers and reptiles scales you can watch the videos ‘Creatures that defy evolution’ by Dr. Jobe Martin

    Of course he is a creationist, so he will be discredited for bringing “religion” into the Scientific realm 😉

  146. Barney said

    Or, what really, really happened to Dr. Sternberg:


  147. F. L. A. said

    A persons theological views or lack of should not even be relevant if the information provided by the individual is true, don’t you think? Imagine being in a collage class to learn about medical fields or astronomy, and someone points out that the Teacher is Buddhist. So???
    Also bear in mind that dinosaurs as we know them are not reptiles.They were…unique among all other animals for their time.They were like a mix between reptiles, avians, AND mammals, to some degree.How much do you know about their ancestors? They were REALLY weird. Some of them actually had hair!According to theories of evolution, todays birds came from dinosaurs. Now bearing in mind how strange they were as a whole, whose to say that the feathers didn’t come ALONG WITH the scales on the dinosaurs instead of from the scales later on towards the end of the dinosaurs rein?Remember their ancestors with hair?Hair-like coverings= feathers? Could be…..Because despite what Ken Ham says in his book, some dinosaurs[and I don’t just mean the little bird-like dinosaurs] DID actually have feathers and downy hair-like coverings.
    Gotta go make the rounds. Be back tonight.

  148. Chris C. said

    Maz, as I said, I don’t know how DNA or RNA or any other conplex information systems formed. No one does. My point was that unanswered questions have always existed, and the typical response has been to create a religious answer to all of those questions. Just because modern science is unable to explain how something ocurred does not mean that there isn’t a natural explanation. Also, the beginning of life has, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate scientific course of study from evolutionary theory. All evolutionary theory is concerned with is what happened once life arose.

    Also, there is still some chance involved despite the incredibly accuracy and complexity of the genetic code. During both mitosis and meisis, information can be duplicated or deleted from the copied portion of the genome. Also, you can have point mutations, in which the RNA miscopies the DNA and thus transcribes some different portion of new DNA. This happens very infrequently of course, but since DNA replication is happening trillions of times a second in the collective bodies of the human population all over the world, the mistakes do add up. This is part of what creates genetic variation, although most of the mutations are neutral or harmful.

    Mike, I refer to natural selection and other forces of evolution in that way because it is easier to express them as active, anthropomorphic beings. We might as easily say “gravity always pulls objects toward the center of mass at the same rate” or “this seive always separates the chooses the biggest granules of flour and only lets small ones through.” Many modern biology text books also reference the forces of evolution in this same manner and thats probably how I picked up the habit.

    Re: Bob 128. Hey Bob, welcome back. You’re right that no position can be proven wit 100% certainty. That is because science doesn’t “prove” anything. But given many data and many experiments and findings, incremental confirmation of certain hypotheses and theories can be measured. The hypothesis that the world is 6,000 years old has no evidence to confirm it. The hypothesis that the earth is old (on the order of 4.5 Billion years) has lots of confirming evidence, and thus scientists are justified in using the “Old Earth” paradigm.

    Re: Bob 131. I’m convinced it was Mithras who used his own saliva to fill the oceans with water. There’s about equal evidence for that as for the Yahweh worldwide flood story.

    EvolvePhish, religion doesn’t belong in the scientific realm. If “creationsts” have any valid evidence it will be scientific, and not religious.

    For those who keep insisting on equal time. I’ve been thinking we need to give equal time to the Stork Theory of where babies come from. After all, we can just teach them both and let the children decide!

    Finally, I know I can be wordy, so as simply as I can say it: Just because evolution or science or mankind cannot answer a question or explain some phenomenon (i.e. abiogenesis, DNA) DOES NOT mean that question/phenomenon has no answer, or that the answer is divine. Example: 3000 years ago, we couldn’t explain the rising sun scientifically. People invented religious answers. They were wrong. We now have a corrent, natural explanation.

  149. Bob Griffin said

    Fred 132

    You believe that natural selection – a MINDLESS process – put 3 billion base pairs together. I think the only thing that makes sense is an intelligent designer.

  150. Bob Griffin said

    fla 138

    Good to be back. This is fun. After all our disagreements, we will one day know the truth, at death. Even though I believe in God for other reasons, that makes the 50/50 argument about the existence of God a sobering thought.

  151. Bob Griffin said

    147 Chris C

    Having fun back in the discussion. Heard a great line about water. Scientists will see what looks like a dry riverbed on Mars and swear it had water, but will look at our earth thats 70% covered with water and tell you there is no evidence for a flood.

  152. EvolvePhish said

    Seems like there is a lot of guessing in your post. Since everyone here loves Ken Ham, let me quote him as saying “Where you there?”

    Of course you weren’t and neither were the Scientists. But the Author of the Bible was there in the beginning and He created everything according to His own counsel.

  153. Maz said

    Chris: Most of my answers are not religious but based on science, but as someone else has pointed out, because it comes from a Bible believing Young Earther Creationist Christian it isn’t science.

    Well said F.L.A. at the beginning of your post #146. I was going to say the very same thing myself. If the scientific information is true does it matter who it comes from? It sounds like prejudice to refuse evidence from someone just because of their faith in God, and in fact that is what Dr.Sterberg met. See #144.
    Many scientists who are also creationists have met with this kind of prejudice, simply because of their beliefs, not because they don’t know their science.

    Here’s another little thot. Scientists are so interested in trying to find life in outer space, they receive some bleeps and think it could be intelligent life. Yet on earth, you find a code within the makeup of the human body and it can’t possibly be from an intelligent source. That’s unthinkable.

  154. Maz said

    My question about where DNA information comes from has a simple answer if you are a Christian who believes in God who created all things, but being an evolutionist, he can’t answer, not because he doesn’t know, but because he cannot admit that there is an intelligent Being out there who must be God. And as someone else touched on I think, it is not possible for all that exists just to come into being from nothing. Some uncoursed cosmic Big Bang. (And by the way scientists are even changing their mind about that now).
    There had to be a Cause outside of Creation, there had to be a Intelligent Being outside of time and space to actually create time and space.

  155. John said

    Time and space as WE only know it, that is….[grin].
    So this is what F. L. A. does all darn day while I’m busting my hump to live in the shadow of my greedy Uncle Sam….[green with envy]…

    EvolvePhish, of course there was speculation, for it is a great thing to ponder over, don’t you think? But besides this, does that make F. L. A.’s ideas invalid? It holds more water than the belief that the first woman, which looked perfectly modern, came from a mans rib bone.Perhaps Chris C. has a theory to add?.We love Ken Hams work too, you know, but for different reasons[snicker].Do you have his latest Answers book? Perhaps you would like to accept the offer of debate from F. L. A. from the end of post#55 or myself from post#60? It could be big fun.What do you say?????

  156. Chris C. said

    Maz, I agree that you haven’t been using Bible verses as your scientific evidence and I appreciate that. But much of what you have stated, specifically involving the complexity of DNA, as been an argument from ignorance, and not any positive evidence for a designer. I might look at a mountain and say, “This mountain is so huge and impressive looking, I just don’t see how it could have come about by natural processes. It must have been created by God.” That’s not really an argument based on any evidence, it’s a conclusion based on your lack of knowledge or evidence.

    The same applies to DNA. No scientist has the knowledge of how DNA came together. There are ideas, though no one can say for sure. To say for anything to be “impossible” as you do about DNA happening by natural processes — well that is a dangerous statement. Many things we once thought were inpossible we now know are possible. Flight, curing disease, the internet. The idea that something would be impossible without God is known as the God of the Gaps argument — and it’s widely considered an invalid argument. The thing is, as the gaps in our knowledge get smaller – God must as well.

  157. John said

    Do you think that humanity will exist so long as to have the alleged knowledge of “GOD”? Why I’d be surprised if humanity makes it past another one thousand years.

    As long as there are ignorant, stupid, artistic, crazy, dreamer/romantic types,……as long as there is good food, drink, and sex,……as long as there is untamed nature, limitless horizons, cosmic mysteries,…..as long as there is horrible pain and suffering, vengeful feelings, mercy, charity, and things to wish and hope for, there will always be “GOD”.

  158. Zerxil said

    Do scientists know how RNA got started?

    “As long as there are ignorant, stupid, artistic, crazy, dreamer/romantic types”
    Are you talking about me or new fred or dawg??

    That was very poetic. I’m surprised we lasted this long.

  159. Chris C. said

    Zerxil, in short, no they do not. There are theories that the original replications molecule was in fact RNA, not DNA. Nevertheless this is only educated speculation, not fact. There’s lots of information out there on the so-called “RNA-World”. A quick google search would be productive I feel sure, but I am not too knowledgable on the subject.

  160. Fred said

    Creationist appeals to the complexity of life are empty strawmen. The first life was simple celles that had no DNA or complexity but reprodeced by simply falling apart.The Eye Creationists often cite the human eye as evidence of God’s design. We are told (quite accurately) that the human eye is more complex and advanced than the most modern digital camera. Rhetorically we are asked, “If the camera requires a designer, then how could the human eye, which is far more sophisticated, arise by random accident?” The answer is that the human eye did not “arise by random accident.” Nor did any evolutionary biologist ever make such a claim. Creationism thrives by setting up and knocking down evolutionary straw-men – i.e., self-evidently ridiculous assertions about evolution that no scientist proposed in the first place. It’s easy to topple an argument erected specifically for demolition. producing an eye by “random accident” is even less likely than winning the lottery jackpot. But is this an accurate analogy? Does evolution more closely resemble a simultaneous matching of lottery numbers, or an accumulation of them over an extended period? Evolution, by definition, is a gradual accumulation of functional adaptations. Evolution has only three essentials for success: (1) time, (2) genetic variety among offspring and (3) a mechanism for preserving only beneficial variation. Such a mechanism is called natural, or cumulative selection, and was first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859. The Evolution of the Eye. Let us look at the frequent example used by creationists since Paley: the human eye. In The Blind Watchmaker, which was primarily a contemporary evolution scientist’s response to William Paley, zoologist Richard Dawkins pointed out that the eye in all vertebrates is wired backward, with the wires from each light-gathering unit sticking out on the side nearest the light and traveling over the surface of the retina where it passes through a hole, the “blind spot,” to join the optic nerve. other animals, such as the octopodes and squids, have their eyes wired more rationally. This is often presented as an example of apparent “poor design.” However, biologist (and devout Catholic) Kenneth Miller does not think this is a fair designation, since the arrangement still works pretty well. He has shown how the wiring of the vertebrate is nicely described by evolution. The retina of the eye evolved as a modification of the outer layer of the brain that gradually developed light sensitivity. The eye is neither poorly nor well designed. It is simply not designed. Eyes provide such obvious survival value that they developed at least forty times independently in the course of evolution. Neuroscience has identified eight different optical solutions for collecting and focusing light, although all share similarities at the molecular and genetic levels. The physics and chemistry are the same; few ways exist for detecting photons. But, because of the important role of chance and local environment in the evolution of complex systems, different solutions to the problem were uncovered by random sampling of the varied paths allowed by evolution. In short, the structures of eyes look as they might be expected to look if they developed from purely material and mindless processes – chance plus natural selection – as these processes explore the space of possible survival solutions.

  161. Maz said

    Chris: I’v never heard of the ‘God of the gaps’, but I have heard of Evolutions ‘missing links’.
    Sound familiar?
    You say ”Much of what you have stated, specifically involving the complexity of DNA, has been an argument from ignorance and not positive evidence of a designer”. Again I see a familiar thread in Darwinism too. Much of the arguments for evolution are built on ignorance and speculation. I cannot understand how finding a CODE, a form of LANGUAGE, or INFORMATION within something does not prove some form of intelligence. SETI would cetainly come to the conclusion that a coded bleep from outer space would prove there is some form of intelligent life out on some planet orbiting another star. Why can’t evolutionistic scientists come to the same conclusion about the code in DNA? They accept and believe selectively, what they want to believe. This is not honest science.

    Fred: You seem to know more about how life started than the scientists or even Darwin himself!
    Maybe you should write a book ”The Origin of life”. But then Darwin wrote ”The Origin of the Species” which supposedly was about that…..but he never actually said what the ORIGIN of life was. Because no one does.
    Where DO you get your info from?
    You said, ”The human eye did not ‘arise by random accident’…” That’s exactly right!…..it came by design. If something isn’t an accident, then there must have been some Intent behind it’s creation, some Cause. What or Who do you think caused it to happen?

    How can you say that eyes ”developed atleast 40 times independently in the course of evolution”.? Where did you get this speculative info from?
    And we aren’t considering just the ability of the eye to possess perfect vision here, we are speaking of a complexity which also involves the brains ability to process what the eye sees.
    There is a relationship between the eye and the brain. To say this all just came by natural selection without any outside cause is highly ignorant of the fantastic properties of the whole human system of sight and understanding.
    This just creates in me more awe in the wonder of Gods Creation.

  162. Maz said

    Sorry….I shouldn’t have said no one knows the origin of life…….Christians do. (Ofcourse I know that the evolutionist believers will not accept that statement).

  163. F. L. A. said

    Zerxil post#158, We are too.John included himself within that list of personallity types too, you realize[but not the first half].

  164. Chris C. said

    Re: Fred 160. A good excerpt despite the cut and paste job. Maz, the reason scientists say the eye has evolved differently over 40 times in nature is based on the differences between the eyes of different species. The squid eye could not have evolved from the human eye because of the historical constraints I mentioned in post 75. These differences between the eyes of other species (spiders, flys, annelids, etc.) provide the conclusion that eyes must have evolved differently. This is called convergent evolution — two animals who are not closely related develop the same/similar adaptations to an environment. Whale fins and fish fins are also a good example of convergent evolution: similar in function but evolved differently.

    The eye is often referred to as irreducibly complex. The term was coined by the ID proponent Michael Behe. The problem for him and others who use the argument is that there have not yet been found any irreducibly complex structures. First it was the eye, then the wing, then the type 3 secretory system in bacteria…what will they come up with next? Of course, there are reasonable explanations as to how all of these structures evolved but for those who don’t want to accept natural causes, God will always be a more comforting answer.

  165. Maz said

    Chris: You are presuming that all species are related because of your evolutionary ideas. All animals were created independently by a Creator Who made them in a variety of ways. Squid eyes have nothing to do with human eyes, any more than a human mouth has anything to do with a fish mouth.
    It is all based on assumption again.

    ”…there have not yet been found any irreducibly complex structures.” I question that, as the very living cells within your body are IR. And ofcourse so is DNA among many others.

    And for those who don’t want to accept a Creator God will always cling to their theories and assumptions and call them fact.

  166. Barney said

    Why is there no “Creation Science” taught in the Universities?

    Is it because Creationism is not good science?

    Is it because there is a vast conspiracy to keep the “real scientists” out of the ivy halls?

    When reading these (often absurd) posts, we must remember that these ideas come from somewhere, and that the real purpose of the creationist organizations (besides making money) is political in nature: they want their religion taught in public schools.

  167. F. L. A. said

    They are trying to get around some of the secular unacceptance by reintroducing the concept as “intelligent design”.The successful results of this action is hopefully minimal.Many just home school.

  168. Maz said

    Barney: Why is there no ”Creation Science” taught in the Universities? Simply because they won’t accept that God created the Universe. It is called prejudice. The science is good, the evolutionists attitude is bad.

    Your last line is absolute nonsense. I personally have no interest in politics except to try and vote the right person into governement. The Creationists, the ones I know like Ken Ham and John McKay and those who work with them are in no way doing it for any political reasons but because they believe in God and the Genesis account of Creation in the Bible and they want people to know the truth.
    You really do need to get your ideas and your absurd assumptions straight.
    And yes, to be fair, creation science should be taught in school along side other views of our origins. Why are evolutionists so afraid to have creation science taught atall? Because people may see and realise that evolution is not the fact they make it out to be.

  169. Chris C. said

    All species are interrelated. No doubt about it. Just like 5 is closer to 2 than 8 is, some species are more closely related than others. The phylogentic tree is an attempt to put the relationships between species and genera into perspective.

    It is not assumption to form a hypothesis about WHY species appear related and then test that hypothesis against observations. Evolution, despite what some say, is testable — it is testable in light of new information and discoveries. If you find a layer of rock dating to 65 million years ago, I should be able to tell you exactly what types of fossils should be in that rock stratum, and what things should not be there. The modern theory of evolution perfectly predicts what we find in the geologic column with zero obsolute contradictions. That doesn’t mean that we cant be off by a few years (after all, when you deal in millions you have to have some margin for error). But there has never been a dinosaur and a man found together, or a vertebrate found in 1 billion year old rock. Those are the facts and yet, your Bible claims all life was created at the same time…

    Its not just assumptions. We do have two different, opposed hypotheses. One stands up to scrutiny and the other, if it is even “scientific”, is demonstrably wrong.

  170. Chris C. said

    Maz 168. I never got an answer to this: should the stork theory of human birth be taught as well? After all, equal time is equal time. Let the children decide.

  171. Maz said

    F.L.A: Ken Ham, John McKay and other creation scientists like them would not agree with you.
    They are not reintroducing Creation as ID. They believe God created the Universe and that’s what they bring forth with their science.
    There are actually evolutionist scientists that are beginning to believe in ID but still refuse to admit that the Intelligence is from an Almighty Creator God.

  172. F. L. A. said

    I know Maz.
    I was referring to people who were smarter and sneakier than Ken Ham and John McKay.

  173. Maz said

    F.L.A: Who’s that?

  174. some guy said

    with names like Barney and Fred, I really do think that I am watching a cartoon. Why do we like cartoons? Because they somehow allow a break from reality into a realm of make believe and fantasy. That is precisely what Darwinism is! And yes, Barney, religion is in fact funded and taught in schools all under the guise of science–a true conspiracy–Oliver Stone.

    F.L.A.t–How do you think homo sapiens discovered the earth’s actual shape? was it deductive reasoning? hubble photographs? no, ancient inspired writings from people who had a direct connection with a divine Creator, who has given much to reveal himself.

  175. Maz said

    In the Bible you will read:-

    The earth is spherical in nature: ”It is He who sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are like grasshoppers;” Isa: 40 v 22(a)

    Before Hubble discovered that the Universe was expanding: ”..who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” v22(b)
    ”Thus says God, the Lord, He who created the heavens, and stretched them out;” Isa: 42 v 5(a).

    The earth hangs in space: ”He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.” Job 26 7. This was written way before even Galileo let alone Hubble and his famous telescope.

  176. John said

    Welcome back, Some Guy.We thought you had run away.
    F. L. A. is out hunting rats, so I’ll just jump right in and do it. Pagan Greeks first realized that the Earth was rounded in shape way back in 330B.C. by simply looking at the shape of the earth’s shadow on the moon during any lunar eclipse, and by simply looking at the sea as sailors ships left and arrived, for the fact that the tippy top of the ships mast was always the last or first thing to be seen PROVED that the ship was traveling over a curve.In 240 B.C. the Pagan Greeks estimated the circumference of the planet, and they came very very close to the actual measurement.
    That’s according to real history, that is.Now, aren’t you happy that you brought it up[smile]? Would you like to ask another question?

    “The church says the earth is flat, but I know it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.”- Ferdinand Magellan 1480?-1521 A.D. Portuguese explorer.

    “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.”-Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta[The Buddha] 563-483 B.C.

  177. John said

    Maz, do you remember waaay back when I used your own Bible verses against you to prove that the Bible did not describe a spherical world? Would you like me to give you the site and posts numbers to refresh your memory? I recall that you had nothing to say about it during that time.

  178. Chris C. said

    John, great post (176). I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. Thanks.

    I find it so odd how some of you refer to “evolutionist scientists”. Its like calling someone a “gravitationist scientist”.

    Maz, how come the phrase “circle of the earth” is supposed to be great evidence that the Bible-writers were inspired by God to know the earth was round? The bible also uses the phrase “four corners of the earth” so shouldn’t it be considered square by these standards?

    Isn’t it interesting the the level of acceptance of evolutionary science correlates positively with higher education? I wan’t to be clear that I know many of you who do not accept evolution are intelligent, kind, and mostly reasonable folks. But really, if creation is so obvious or if evolution is so wrong, why haven’t any of our best and brightest figured out the mistake? Also, I find it interesting that evolution has as much scientific support as the theory of relativity, gravity, germ theory, and more scientific credibility than many other commonly accepted paradigms such as string theory, man-caused global warming, and quantumn gravity. But evolution alone (with global warming a close second) is feircely resisted because it alone really threatens one of evangelical religion’s last great strongholds: the question of how we got here and where we came from. This question was basically solved 150 years ago, but religious lies, deciet, obfuscation and ignorance threaten to keep some in the dark ages for decades to come.

  179. F. L. A. said

    Some of us are just happier in the Dark Ages.
    As for John’s post#177, I’ll do it, and take heed SomeGuy.
    The site is named “Can you be Gay and Christian?”, February11th 2008 listed under Apologetics,Faith,Marriage,Christianity, and Christian Living. Posts #95-#112, with a special emphasis on post#107.
    If it’s creation science that you’d like to discuss, then why not take me or John up on our offers to go through Ken Hams work together? It seems odd that the two of you and EvolvePhish would like to keep advocating his brand of sciences, and yet refuse to join us in a two way examination of it.Are you not confident?

  180. Fred said

    Creationists like to use Henry Morris’ example. He imagined a junkyard with automobile parts of all kinds strewn around. What is the probability that they could, by natural means (perhaps by being hit by a tornado), reassemble themselves into a complete automobile, which sheds its rust and emerges “showroom clean” ready to drive away? Creationists liken the improbability of such a thing to that of a human being arising from natural evolution. It’s an inappropriate comparison, and nothing more than a caricature of the processes of evolution. Creationist’s probability calculations are fraudulent, for they consider only the probability of diverse parts getting together. In physics and chemistry, things are different. There are forces that act between particles and structures, and laws of interaction that must be taken into account, as well as energy considerations. These greatly increase the likelihood of parts getting togther and forming stable structures of greater complexity.
    Creationists ays that design requires a designer. This is not a new assertion, but has been around in many religions from their earliest history, and has been thoroughly refuted in a variety of ways. Permeating religious apologetics are similar examples of extrapolating from the universe to something “beyond” the universe. Setting science aside temporarily, look at it from pure logic. It is saying something like “When we look at all of the things designed by intelligent human beings, machines, chemical synthesis, great works of literature, art, music, etc., we cannot imagine any of them coming into being by natural processes. Therefore those other things in the universe that show similar design and complexity must also have had an intelligent designer.”

    But on an even more basic level, the argument is a deceptive use of words. It equates two meanings of “design”, (1) a pattern or structure that is stable, functional or perceived to be beautiful, and (2) the act of deliberately producing such a pattern or structure. Accidental combinations of parts can, without intent, purpose or intelligence, result in patterns qualifying as a “design”.

  181. John said

    Thank you Chris C.

  182. Fred said

    The Christian attitude toward science can be summed up by the father of Protestantism Martin Luther:

    “Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads….”

    [Martin Luther]

    Nothing has changed since then. Christians don’t trust scientists even though every last one of them trusts a doctor, who without any doubts whatsoever, believes in evolution by natural selection. This is one of the many great hypocritical things creationists do: go to a doctor who uses his knowledge of evolution to cure them. Doctors should be able to deny creationists medical attention on the grounds that it goes against their religious beliefs because ALL medicine goes against creationist beliefs. Creationists should just go see Benny Hinn when they get sick but this proves where the creationist faith REALLY lies: with conventional evolutionary biology and not creationist fantasies. What could doctors learn from creationism anyway? How to make a woman from a rib? LMAO!

  183. Maz said

    John: I’v forgotten, (#177) so you can remind me.

    Chris: We refer to ”evolutionistic scientists” just as you would refer to creation scientists, it simply means scientists that believe in evolution.

    So the ‘circle of the earth’ doesn’t prove it was a globe? But we know it is now, and we know it deffinitely isn’t a square! There are literal truths in the Bible aswell as symbolism, you have to know which is which. Maybe John will sort me out with that one.

    Some of the ‘best and brightest’ in the scientific world HAS figured out that evolution isn’t true. Some of the Creation scientists were once believers in evolution.

    There maybe ”religious lies and deceit”, just as their is lies and deceit in the Evolution camp, do you want me to point out a few? But I know that people like Ken Ham, John McKay and their associate scientists are honest God fearing people who simply want to tell people the truth from a scientific viewpoint.
    And I would ask the question: Why are evolutionists, particularly people like Richard Dawkins SO vehemently against Creation? Why do they go to such lengths to try and disprove something that to them is rubbish? Are they afraid the truth will come out?

  184. Maz said

    Fred: Can you give me an example of an accident that resulted in design and patern?

    #182. Your quote could as easily be directed to evolutionists, but unlike you I would never have volunteered such abusive remarks.

    ”Christians don’t trust scientists”.?
    This is another example of your completely irrational and totally false idea of people.
    There are scientists who are Christians and many Christians trust them.
    What you really mean is that Chistians who believe in Creation don’t trust secular and evolutionistic scientists. I guess not seeing as they oppose Creation.

    Does all medicine go against creationist beliefs? Another irrational and totally false statement. In this world today we need doctors. And there are many doctors that are also believers AND creationists. Infact many of our medical discoveries came from believers like Louis Pasteur, who was not only famous for pasteurisation, but also brought vaccinations and immunisation onto the medical scene.

  185. Barney said

    The idea that Ken Ham and his Creation Museum is an example of good science is so absurd that hardly merits commenting upon.

    In Ken Ham’s fantasy land of a museum we see exhibits showing dinosaurs coexisting with humans.

    This is from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s website:

    “Professional paleontologists from around the world are concerned about the misrepresentation of science at the newly opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum has been marketed to the public as a “reasoned, logical defence” for young-earth creationism by Ken Ham, the President and CEO of Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a world-wide scientific and educational organization concerned with vertebrate paleontology, contends that the museum presents visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century. Unlike typical museums and science centers, the Creation Museum leaves out data that are critical to a modern perspective on the history of the earth and its inhabitants.” SVP July, 2007

  186. Barney said

    Here’s the link to that Society of Vertebrate Paleontology website that I referred to in #185:


  187. Maz said

    Barney: Either you are ignoring the fact or perhaps just unaware of the misrepresentation of science in museums that teach millions of years of evolution. One example, namely, the statue of Lucy in one U.S. museum that is grossly inaccurate to say the least to the fossil findings. They have her looking almost like some model on a cat walk with human looking hands and feet and a cute expression on her face. When questined about it all they could say was ”Wer’e just trying to make a point”. Yes! Their biased point.

    So if Ken Ham’s museum is so unscientific, why are’nt the real scientists revealing all these misrepresentations. And creationists do indeed believe that dinosaurs lived alongside men.
    It is the evolutionists belief that they lived hundreds of millions of years ago that is in question. I actual fact dinosaur fossil remains have been found with, I beleive, tissue or cells still intact, tissue which would have disintegrated millions of years ago if that age was true. Sorry I can’t remember any details, just remember hearing about it. Maybe someone else can remember this.

    And anyone with an evolutionist world view will not agree with the Creation evidence whoever they are, anymore than Creationists would agree with theres. It’s a lot to do with interpretation. If you start off with a certain world view and try and fit the evidence to agree with it you’ll end up with a biased interpretation. Your quote calls it ”a modern perspective”. Ofcourse evolutionists will say that that is what we do. And so the debate goes on….

  188. Maz said

    Barney: Another gross misrepresentation……or actually downright deceit, was Haeckel’s evolution of the embryo, to try and show that man evolved from a lower form of life. His photos of embryonic developement was a fraudulent attempt to uphold his evolutionist beliefs and it still exists in some school textbooks to this day. No correction or admission on his or anyones part has been offered or seen.

  189. Barney said

    The idea that Ken Ham’s phony science hasn’t been revealed by “real scientists” is bizarre since I just gave you an example of JUST THAT VERY THING!!!

    Oh, and let’s hear from Dr Mary Schweitzer, of North Carolina State University, the scientist who actually discovered the T-Rex fossil that was referenced; this is from an question/answer interview published on the Nova/PBS website from July, 2007:

    “Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field?
    Carl Baker, Billings, Montana

    A: Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.”

  190. Barney said

    Link to the Nova/PBS website interview that I quoted earlier:


  191. Maz said

    Barney: I must have missed something.

    To add to what I said about the ‘Lucy’ statue, I found the site with the information. It is the St. Louis zoo in Missouri that has the misrepresented statue of Lucy in a $17.9 million exhibition majoring on evoluton. The Director of the museum was not willing to change the statue and so it continues to misrepresent the truth.

    As to quotes from so called scientists upholding evolution and opposed to Creation I guess there is enough quotes to bander back and forth until the sun dies. Did you read any of my quotes I posted earlier by scientists? #123 & #135.
    And have you heard of the book by the molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton ”Evolution – a theory in crisis”, who said, ”The Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century”. Nevertheless, HE REMAINS AN EVOLUTIONIST!

    Also in ”Darwinism – the refutation of a myth,” by the Swedish professor of Zoophysiology at Umea University, Soren Lovtrup has written ”…the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false…..Hence to all intents and purposes, the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned? I think that the answer to this question is that current evolutionists follow Darwin’s example, and REFUSE TO ACCEPT FALSIFYING EVIDENCE.”

  192. Barney said

    Maz, you haven’t made any points in any of your posts that haven’t been refuted,and yet you can’t muster even a simple “you have a point, but…”.

    I’m putting you back on “ignore”. Sorry.

  193. Barney said

    Just one more thing. Maz stated: “As to quotes from so called scientists upholding evolution and opposed to Creation I guess there is enough quotes to bander back and forth until the sun dies.”

    This one sentence sums up Maz’ style of ignoring the replies here. The quote she refers to here happens to be the VERY SAME SCIENTIST WHOSE WORK SHE CITES IN AN EARLIER POST!!!!


    Have fun.

  194. Maz said

    Barney: I have refuted much of what you have said too yet here again we have a double standard.
    I have the right to disagree with you as have we all. Accept it.

    ”I’m putting you back in ‘ignore’..
    Excuse me but I am certainly not ignoring the replies here. I answer the best I can, if that is not good enough for you Barney I am sorry. And…you can ignore me all you want.
    And what is the point of your statement, ”The quote she refers to here happens to be the VERY SAME SCIENTIST WHOSE WORK SHE CITES IN AN EARLIER POST!!!!” So?
    I could quote someone else if you want me to.
    But Barney, it seems you cannot take the heat. I suggest you go back into the shade.
    Have a good day! 🙂

  195. Maz said

    For Barneys sake I will quote someone else. In the ”Great Evolution Mystery”, G. Taylor wrote: ‘The theory of evolution by natural selection seems either inadequate, implausible or deffinitely wrong.’ These were strong words from a writer WHO WAS AN EVOLUTIONIST. But HE WAS NOT ALONE, for in ”The Evolution of Living Organisms”, ANOTHER EVOLUTIONIST WRITER, P P Grasse wrote, ‘The expanatory doctrines of biological evolution DO NOT STAND UP TO AN OBJECTIVE IN-DEPTH CRITICISM. They prove to be either IN CONFLICT WITH REALITY, or else INCAPABLE OF SOLVING THE MAJOR PROBLEM INVOLVED.’
    And let us not forget, even Darwin himself had trouble with his own theory.

  196. Fred said

    Maz is a typical creationist quote miner who takes scientists quotes out of context to try to discredit evolution.

    The arguments of the religious fundamentalists are not only anti-biology but also anti-physics, anti-astronomy, and anti-geology. In short, they reject all scientific knowledge that does not fit their view of the world. They do not question the methods or philosophy that yield, say, the science of flight, for who could doubt that airplanes fly? But when the same methods and philosophies are put to the study of life and human origins — a subject the Bible does address — they question the integrity of science. The religious fundamentalists fight a desperate, rear-guard action, seeking to increase their numbers while refusing to accept the obvious.

    The scientific method is the most successful approach for discovering how the natural world operates. Scientific hypotheses are continually tested and re-tested before theories are presented to explain the workings of nature. Science does not try to explain God or the supernatural. Such matters are outside the realm of science. Science’s domain is the natural world and the scientific method has been spectacularly successful at discovering knowledge about this world.

  197. Fred said

    The most absurd question creationists ask is “How can life come from non-life?” But their entire religion is based on just that: that life can come from DEATH! These people claim that some sort of never-ending life comes from dead people! Now I think most of us know there isn’t one shred of evidence that something like this, anything like this, is even possible and in fact as far as we know it is completely impossible! Yet the whole reason creationsts don’t want ANYONE to accept the facts of evolution is that once they do it is very hard to believe that a biological organism can live forever. Because we can’t. So atheists, next time one of these creationists asks how can life come from non-life just ask them to prove that life comes from death. The creationist will disappear and never bother you again because that is what they do when they are face with the truth about their very evile and poved false 2000 years ago religion.

  198. Fred said

    One of the most popular creationist lies is that Louis Pasteur was a creationist. Pasteur, like many people, was a creationists as a young man but rejected biblical creationism once he became a scientist. The quote below disproves the creationist lies about Pasteur:

    The universe is asymmetric and I am persuaded that life, as it is known to us, is a direct result of the asymmetry of the universe or of its indirect consequences. The universe is asymmetric.
    Louis Pasteur

  199. Fred said

    Here is a list of creationist misquotes, the same type of misquotes that this Maz person tries to use to defend his quicksand-like position:

    This file contains some of the more blatant instances in which creationists have misquoted their sources when writing about human evolution. In all cases where text had been made bold, the emphasis has been added by me. Jerry Bergman, in an article about Nebraska Man (The History of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii Hominoidea, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 30:27-34, 1993) makes the following statement: Nebraska man also had a great patriotic significance because it was the first evidence, according to Osborn, after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great Western territory of a [higher] primate. Evidence of this anthropoid ape-man was also proof that some primitive humans lived in America, and some speculated that it may even prove that mankind in North America predated European and African humans. We have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery (quoted in Blinderman, 1985, p.48) However, the quoted paper (Blinderman 1985: The curious case of Nebraska man. Science 85, June:47-9) makes no such statement! Blinderman said: So Nebraska Man had great patriotic significance. “This is the very first evidence,” Osborn wrote, “after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great western territory, of a [higher] Primate. … we have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery ….” (ellipses by Blinderman)
    The references to “ape-man” and “proof” were added, either by Bergman or by a source which he copied from. In fact, although Osborn did misidentify the Nebraska Man tooth as a primate, he deliberately did not make any claims to its status as an ape-man.
    Update: Bergman has published a response to this (Bergman 2004: A misrepresentation by Jim Foley: a correction. Creation Research Society Quarterly, 41:172-4.), and also placed a longer version of it on the web. I in turn have written a response to him.

    Robert Kofahl’s Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter and Wallace Johnson’s book Evolution? both use the following quote (Johnson only has the second clause): “Not many (if any) [fossil hominids] have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast.” (John Reader, Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?, New Scientist, March 26 1981, p.805) It sounds as if Reader is saying that most, if not all, fossil hominids have been discredited. But the previous sentence was: “Australopithecus afarensis is the latest fossil hominid to be thrust before the public as the oldest evidence of mankind’s existence. Not many (if any) have held the stage for long; …” With the full context, it is clear that Reader was not saying that all fossil hominids have been debunked; he is referring only to their claimed status as the oldest evidence of human evolution. In fact, Reader’s article explicitly says that H. erectus is still considered to be a human ancestor.

    Paul Taylor, in The Illustrated Origins Answer Book (Ed.4, 1992) says: “Current evidence seems to indicate Australopithecus was an extinct ape and nothing more [205].
    205: William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s limbs: skeletal allometry and locomotion in Australopithecus afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 24 pp 676-678 (analysis of “Lucy’s” anatomical structure shows she may not normally have walked upright).” Jungers does not say or even imply that Lucy did not walk upright. Quite the opposite, in fact. His paper says: “Diagnostic details of the knee joint and bony pelvis of A. afarensis are compelling indicators of a bipedal adaptation.”

    Walter Brown, in his book In the Beginning (6th ed), says: “Eugene Dubois conceded forty years after he discovered Java “man” that it was just a large gibbon.”
    In support of this statement, Brown gives the following quote: “Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons …” Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4. However Dubois’ complete sentence was as follows: “Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, however superior to the gibbons on account of its exceedingly large brain volume and distinguished at the same time by its faculty of assuming an erect attitude and gait.”
    These do not sound like the words of a man who is dismissing Java Man as a mere ape that had nothing to do with human evolution. Indeed, Dubois, an exceptionally stubborn man, never ceased to believe that Java Man was a primitive human ancestor.
    Brown also cites Stephen J. Gould’s essay Men of the Thirty-third Division in support of his claim, even though the the whole point of Gould’s essay was to refute the myth (common among evolutionists as well as creationists) that Dubois had ever called Java Man a gibbon. (This essay can be found in Gould’s book Eight Little Piggies, or in the April 1990 issue of the magazine Natural History).

    Doug LaPointe, in Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution, #6 says of Homo erectus: “In fact, its brain is said to extend “… into the middle range of Homo sapiens.” (F. Clark Howell, “Early Man”, p.42)” What Howell really said was: “The first man of our own genus, Homo erectus is modern of limb but more primitive of hand and brain, with a cranial capacity extending only into the lower range of Homo sapiens.”

    David Menton, in The Scientific Evidence For the Origin of Man, writes about the fossil WT 15000 (the Turkana Boy) and says: “He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today.” Don Patton uses a similar quote, saying that according to Richard Leakey: “….he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today.”
    What Leakey really said, in the November 1985 issue of National Geographic, was: “Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today.” Patton also says: ‘THE OLDEST MAN’, “[African Footprints] ….they belonged to the genus Homo (or true man), rather than to manapes (like Australopithecus, who was once a thought to be the forerunner of man but is now regarded as a possible evolutionary dead end). ….they were 3.35 million to 3.75 million years old. ….they would, in Mary Leakeys words, be people ‘not unlike ourselves,’….” Time, Nov. 10, 1975, p.93
    The article in Time refers to a number of fossils found at Laetoli and at first thought to belong to the genus Homo. The Laetoli footprints are not mentioned, since they were not found until the following year. The complete sentence from Time says: “If all these creatures are in fact close kin, they would, in Mary Leakey’s words, be people “not much unlike ourselves,” though not much more than 5 ft. tall and with much shorter life spans and somewhat smaller brains”. Clearly, “not much unlike ourselves” is a relative term, and no one was claiming these fossils were of modern humans. They were not, and are now considered to belong to Australopithecus. Another Patton quote: “[Adrienne] Zihlman compares the pygmy chimpanzee to “Lucy,” one of the oldest hominid fossils known and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature; and in brain size…. ” (Science News, Vol.123, Feb.5. 1983, p.89) Once again, Patton has omitted contextual information that would weaken his case. The full sentence reads: “They are almost identical in body size, in stature, and in brain size, she notes, and the major differences (the hip and the foot) represent the younger Lucy’s adaptation to bipedal walking.”
    P.S.:This page of quotes by Donald Patton asks to be notified of any misquotes, and adds: “However, we have never been shown to engage in deceptive quoting practices.” In fact, that is exactly what they had done: the three misquotes above by Patton used to be on that page exactly as I quoted them above, but have now been modified to include the full context.
    P.P.S.: The above statement has been removed, to be replaced by a much longer statement which asserts that the original quotes were appropriate as used in Patton’s lectures.
    Harun Yahya (thought to be a pseudonym for a Turkish Islamic creationist organization) writes, in Chapter 10 of the book The Evolution Deceit: Finally, in 1994, a team from Liverpool University in England launched an extensive research to reach a definite conclusion. Finally, they concluded that “the Australopithecines are quadripedal”.(4) Reference 4 is to a paper by Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld, Implications of early hominid labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature, 369:645-8 (1994). Yahya’s statement is an outright lie. Spoor et al. do not make the statement attributed to them, and actually concluded that: These observations support studies of the postcranial fossil record which have concluded that H. erectus was an obligatory biped, whereas A. africanus showed a locomotor repertoire comprising facultative bipedalism as well as arboreal climbing.

    Jan 22, 2002: An email from the webmaster of the Harun Yahya site states that this misquote “was truly a mistake, but not a deliberate misquote”, and that such errors are mainly due to translation errors, as Yahya writes in Turkish then translates to English. The misquote has been removed from the site. I am extremely skeptical that translation errors were responsible for this mistake. I think it far more likely that the quote was accurately translated from a creationist source in English, some of which make similar claims.


  200. Maz said

    Sorry Fred but it’s the evoluionist that rejects all scientific knowledge that doesn’t go along with THEIR world view.
    ”Sciences domain is the natural world”, I agree!! And the natural world is a testimony to a Creator God! But you cannot see it with a mindset that is so rigorous it only wants to see what it wants to believe.

    How can life come from non-life? Yes, How Fred? But remember I and other Christians believe in a God that gives life. And He was the one that gave us life in the beginning when He created us.
    I don’t think you understand Christianity atall, the way you write shows a fundamental ignorance of Biblical belief. Atleast that is how it comes across. ”These people claim that some sort of never-ending life comes from dead people!” If by that you mean that we receive eternal life if we believe that Jesus died and rose again (He didn’t stay dead!) that is a Biblical truth that all Christians believe.
    Jesus isn’t just any man who died just any death, and I don’t think I could explain it to you so that you could say….O yes, I get it! Because I don’t think you will somehow.
    And with our God ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

    And I am not about to disappear either Fred! I’d like to explain what we believe about life and death but, you see, I don’t think for a moment you would accept and want to believe it, so what is the point?
    Your attitude is becoming more agressive as the debate goes on. Would I hazard a guess that it’s because I won’t lie down and accept what you say?
    If Creationists have deliberately lied, which I cannot accept, then it only goes to prove that there are liars on BOTH sides of the argument. But I would be interested in any reply to this if I send it to the relevent people.
    The last sentence goes to show though, that even if someone admits to making an honest mistake, it would not be accepted as such anyway.

  201. Fred said

    How to Debate a Creationist
    General Tips
    Contrary to popular belief, debating is much trickier than simply knowing the subject matter, and there is no substitute for experience and preparation. Debating with creationists is a specific subset of debating, and it has its own rules. First and foremost, keep a few things in mind:
    If you were on your high school or university debate team, you might have become accustomed to your opponent following certain rules. Do not expect that against a creationist; many of them do not respect the idea of debating at all; they are trying to convert you, not debate with you.
    There are generally three types of creationist: the garden-variety scientifically ignorant religious fanatic, the religious moderate who has been swayed by religious propaganda, and (most rarely) the religious fanatic who has actually put serious effort into studying the issue. Of those, there is no point debating the first type; fanatics do not recognize the validity of science or logic at all, and an argument will probably devolve into him reciting the Bible and trying to convert you. The second is the easiest to debate; if you can show how the arguments he’s heard are logically flawed, there is a fair chance of actually changing his mind. The third type is the trickiest to debate because they are usually quite experienced, and they tend to have a large “bag of tricks” which they can use against you (expect philosophical attacks against the scientific method, heavy reliance upon the “complexity = design” fallacy, arguments copied from ICR and other creationist websites, and liberal use of specific names, dates, and places in order to lend more rhetorical credibility to their arguments).
    Having said that, there are a few things you can do to prepare yourself for debating against a creationist:
    Know your Enemy. Learn about the Bible (at the very least, read the Book of Genesis; it’s fairly short and it won’t take you very long to read). Follow this up with research of creationist websites and the arguments they use. This website has some resources intended to help in that endeavour. It is far easier to come up with a quick response to an argument when you’ve seen that argument before, and many creationist arguments are very cleverly constructed so that you need to think about it for a little while to see the logical flaw. Know the argument in advance, and you will have the rebuttal on the tip of your tongue.
    Understand Evolution. You need to have a good grasp of how evolution works. Even if you think you have a reasonable grasp, be sure. Study the principles. Read some books if you have to. The majority of creationist arguments rely on distorting the way evolution actually works, and some of these distortions can be quite subtle to the uninitiated, so it is of paramount importance that you understand how it really works, so that you can point out immediately when someone is misrepresenting the process. You don’t need to get a doctorate in the field, but you need to have a good grasp of how an animal population evolves over time.
    Learn the Surrounding Science: Evolution debates have a habit of swinging onto other unrelated subjects such as cosmology, geology, and the validity of radiometric dating techniques (and in turn, nuclear physics). While these subjects are not strictly related to evolution theory, it is exceedingly difficult to conduct an evolution debate without being drawn into a debate about these subjects eventually. As with evolution, you don’t need to become a qualified expert (although it would certainly be nice), but you should endeavour to know as much or more about these subjects than your opponent does (which is often a surprisingly easy task, since most creationists learn only the barest superficialities of any given scientific principle before feeling confident enough to pontificate on it).
    Learn the Philosophy. Science is more than a collection of facts and figures and theories; it is also a philosophy. It is a way of looking at the world which has proven its worth over centuries of use, and has survived countless philosophical challenges. But as with evolution itself, one needs to be familiar with these challenges in order to refute them anew, because even though philosophers have identified their flaws a long time ago, religionists continue to use them (for example, even though Pascal’s Wager is considered a textbook example of the false dilemma fallacy, it is still in wide use by religionists today). Of course, the most common philosophical argument is the “it’s just a theory” argument.
    Know your Logical Fallacies. Contrary to popular belief, logic is not the same as “common sense”, and contrary to what many Star Trek fans believe, it is not an emotionally detached comportment either. It is a branch of philosophy which deals with the validity of inferences. In other words, given a premise A and a conclusion B, logic tells you whether A really does lead to B. It does not tell you whether A is true. A could be false even though the connection between A and B is valid, or A could be true even though the connection between A and B is invalid. The argument fails in both cases, but logic deals only with the connection between A and B. There are a vast number of arguments in common use which are logical fallacies, such as the Slippery Slope and the Appeal to Motive, and it is important that you know how to identify them. But curb your enthusiasm; one of the most common mistakes people make when they first learn about logical fallacies is to see them everywhere, often incorrectly.
    Remember to Stay on Topic. It is all too easy to let a creationist bait you into discussion of other subjects such as morality or cosmology, but even if you let this happen, remember to keep reminding him (and the audience, if one is present) that the subject of the debate is evolution theory. Even if he refuses to go back to the subject, these constant reminders will still be beneficial in the sense that they make it clear how difficult it is for your oppponent to attack evolution theory directly.
    Do the Research. You can’t do this in a face-to-face debate (which is one of the reasons why written debates are preferable, in addition to permitting far less in the way of theatrics), but you would be amazed how many creationist arguments are simply based on false claims that fall apart once you look them up. For example, one of the infamous “Chick tracks” claims that “Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years”. You might be tempted to assume that this is true and argue that it doesn’t disprove your case, but it turns out that the Leakey claim doesn’t hold water. Even ICR admits that Leakey’s “normal human skull” had a cranial capacity only half that of a normal human, and that Richard Leakey is not even qualified to do this kind of work at all! In fact, they admit that he has no degree of any kind, has never even been to college, and his claims have “not yet been required to stand the scrutiny of critics”! It is often tempting to try and think of a clever off-the-cuff response when confronted with a creationist claim, but more often than not, you are best served by doing a bit of research.
    Logical Fallacies
    There are many logical fallacies in common use among creationists, but here are the most common:The “Strawman” Fallacy: this is where you build up a distorted “strawman” version of your opponent’s argument in order to knock it down more easily. Virtually all creationist representations of evolutionary mechanisms distort the principle somehow, thus falling into this category.The “Ad-Hominem” Fallacy: this is also known as “attacking the messenger, not the message”. One of the most common forms of the ad-hominem fallacy in online debates is to poke fun at someone’s spelling errors and then conclude that the person’s points are wrong. In religious debates, the most common form of ad-hominem fallacy by far is to attack the morality of an irreligious opponent.The “Appeal to Motive” Fallacy: this is where you attack the authors of an idea on a personal level by questioning the “hidden motives” behind their arguments, rather than addressing their arguments directly. For example, “you’re just saying that vegetables are good for you because you’re a vegetarian”. Naturally, the most common religious implementation of this fallacy is to say that scientists have some evil hidden motive for supporting evolution theory.The “Red-Herring” Fallacy: this is where you introduce an irrelevant tangent to the debate. Most people aren’t clumsy enough to completely change the subject, so they will pick something which is somewhat related to the general subject but not to the actual arguments being made. For example, “the capitalist theory of supply and demand is misleading because capitalism has been responsible for the systematic degradation of the working class, which produces all of the demand” (notice how it looks like it’s related in some way, but despite its appearance it does not actually address or refute the theory of supply and demand at all). The most popular religious implementation of this fallacy is to say that evolution is false if abiogenesis cannot be proven.The “False Dilemma” Fallacy: this is where you try to force your opponent to choose between two options when in fact three or more options are possible. For example, “you should invest that inheritance money in stocks, because the bond market is not healthy right now” (notice how it assumes that there are only two possible choices). The most well-known religious implementation of this fallacy is Pascal’s Wager.The “False Cause” Fallacy: this is where you assume that A caused B even though this is not necessarily the case. There are many specific forms of the false cause fallacy such as the “post hoc” fallacy where people assume that if A comes before B then A must have caused B, or the “complex cause” fallacy where people assume that something has just one cause when it may have several. For example, “it’s too bad Lucy caught Bob watching pornography, because that led to their divorce” (marital failures are often much too complex to pin on a single cause like that) or “”the Nazis reintroduced school prayer when they gained power in pre-war Germany, and the Holocaust followed shortly afterwards, so school prayer caused the Holocaust” (as absurd as that sounds, remember that the removal of school prayer is routinely blamed for everything wrong with society, which is no less absurd).The “Circular Logic” Fallacy: this is also known as “begging the question”, and while few debaters will be clumsy enough to blatantly say something as obvious as “Marxism works because Marxism works”, they will generally do so by rewording the same idea in two different ways. For example, “property rights are just as important as human rights because when you examine the human condition and the history of ethical philosophy, you will see that the right to property is one of the fundamentals, which means that it is a self-evident and inalienable right, just as much as the right to life” (notice how it’s somewhat pompous but is nevertheless basically circular because its premise is just a reworded version of its conclusion). Of course, in religious debates the most common form of circular logic is to use Bible quotes in order to prove that the Bible is the true word of God.If you want to know more about logic fallacies (the above list being very abbreviated), then check out the following sites:http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
    A Word of Caution
    Do not be overzealous when you first learn what fallacies are. It is common for people who have newly discovered fallacies to start accusing others of fallacies at the drop of a hat. Sometimes you hear people saying something like “I know this argument is bullshit, but I’m not sure what kind of fallacy it is”. Sometimes, an argument can be false even if it is not fallacious at all (specifically, when its premises are either false or incomplete), so don’t assume that an argument which seems wrong must necessarily be fallacious.Remember: any logical proposition has a premise and a conclusion. If it does not have both premise and conclusion, it is not a logical proposition, therefore it cannot be fallacious. For example, the statement “you are an idiot therefore you are wrong” is a classic ad-hominem fallacy, but the statement “you are an idiot” on its own is not fallacious, because it makes no conclusion based on this claim. It’s certainly considered rude, but it’s not a fallacy. Remember: fallacy definitions are irrelevant when dealing with statements that do not purport to draw conclusions from premises, so don’t be too hasty in your attempt to slap a fallacy name on something your opponent has just said.Similarly, despite what you may think, a bald-faced lie is not a fallacy either. If someone says “the United States military is much less powerful than the Australian military, therefore Australia would probably defeat America in a war”, this is wrong but it is not fallacious. The premise is false, but the logic between premise and conclusion is reasonable.
    A Note on Analogies
    Analogies are one of the most widely used (and abused) tools in debating. See my Analogies essay if you want to know more about how one should use and deal with analogies.

  202. John said

    About post #195 [good job on those quotes, by the way, even if it did make you look like a “quote-miner” yourself, ha, ha] I believe that for the majority of Christians and “Christian cults”[excluding Jehovah’s Witnesses of course],I believe that what they’re referring to is an eternal SPIRITUAL life.Heaven and Hell, you know.
    I may be wrong of course.

  203. Fred said

    Philosophical Differences Separating Religion From Science:1. Any religion worthy of the name, by definition, include some form of belief in the supernatural (e.g., gods, devils, holy ghosts, angels, heaven, hell). Science, however, addresses only naturally occurring phenomena ans thus, by definition, excludes consideration of the supernatural.2. Religion derives its belief system from “Divine Revelation” and from “inner conviction.” Science, by contrast, derives its laws from real-world experimentation and through mathematical and logical reasoning.3. The religious adherent believes that “all things are possible to them that love God.” If asked whether Jesus could throw a rock faster than the speed of light, the religious believer would unhesitating say yes. Science, however, establishes laws restricting Nature’s behavior. Science says, for example, that Jesus could not throw a rock faster than light.4. Because religious doctrines are supposedly ordained of God, the religious adherent cannot easily question the teachings of his church, even when those teachings are provably false. The scientist, on the other hand, is most rewarded when he proves the conventional wisdom wrong and revolutionizes our understanding of the universe.5. The religious individual strives to behave “morally” in order to please God and to gain heavenly reward. The science-minded individual derives his ethical system from the real-world consequences of his actions upon others and upon himself.6. The religious individual tends to hold his beliefs rigidly, fanatically and with a closed mind – never seriously questioning the accuracy of his Church’s teachings. The scientist, however, is eagerly and open-mindedly searching for new theories and for evidence to topple old theories.

  204. John said

    Very informative Fred.I believe that points in#5 could be blended together though. Have you ever considered the creative powers of faith, thought, and belief in regards to the creation of personal Deities, spiritual entities, “magickal powers”, healing, miracles,etc.etc.?

  205. Fred said

    John, there is a big difference between faith and religious faith. Religious faith is believing what you know ain’t true and doing this on the faith in OTHER PEOPLE who have planted what you believe in your head. This is different than me belieivng that the Orioles might win the pennant. I know the Orioles exist because I’ve been to their games. Christians do not know that their God exists and anything they believe about this God comes totally from the minds of OTHER PEOPLE.

  206. John said

    For people who do not know, they sure seem to feel pretty strongly about him though, eh? I would say to you that Deities can be “felt”, and that sometimes, the weird, wonderful or terrible happens in such a way that it seems…beyond the rules of mere chance and coincidence.But then, that may seem to be because I am spiritual and religious myself, and I want to believe.
    What about the other things that I mentioned?
    I’m off to eat now. Bee back later tonight.

  207. Fred said

    John, one of the dunbest things people believe is that people should believe whatever they want to. Whoever says that is an idiot. Science is our best defense against believing what we want to. The fact is atheists don’t have any kind of belief system. We go through life and make our descisions based on educated guesses not walking by faith. “The only way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benajamin Franklin

  208. Fred said

    A Greek phiolosopher once said: “There are only two kinds of people in the world: Intelligent people without religion and religious people without intelligence.” This is because intelligent people are philosophical and the religious cannot possibly be philosophical because philosophy butts heads with and contradicts religion. See philosophy asks questions that may never be answered but religion gives answers that may never be questioned. This is why we must reid our planet of all religion by educated our youth to be science and philosophy minded. This way they will see through the fallacies and lies of religion all on their own.

  209. F. L. A. said

    You have many spelling errors for one of those “intelligent people without religion”, Fred.Are you getting yourself all worked up[huge sharp toothed grin]? I hope that you were not implying that John is stupid, not scientific, and philosophical.Because he is not. And nor are many, well,…over half perhaps…of the people on this site.
    Perhaps you misunderstood the context of what John meant when he wrote of belief.

    “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”-Hebrews 11:1

  210. Fred said

    FLA – “Faith is believing what you know ain’t true.” – Mark Twain.

  211. F. L. A. said

    Do you imply that you can prove such a thing? If so then prove it.

    “Don’t part with your illusions.When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.”-Mark Twain

    “The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that mine is also. I would not interfere with anyones religion, either to strengthen it or to weaken it.But it may easily be a great comfort to him in his life-hence it is a valuable possession to him.-Mark Twain

    I like how John put it within post 157.
    Also just so you know, Character Maz is a woman.

  212. Zerxil said

    “The scientist, on the other hand, is most rewarded when he proves the conventional wisdom wrong and revolutionizes our understanding of the universe.” Bull, people laugh at the scientist or inventor that comes up with crazy Ideas, most of the time they are dead before they can be used. I know some one who runs his riding lawn mower on water. He & a friend downloaded some plans off the internet. They fixed the plans up, made a few prototypes. One of the prototypes was in his trunk. Good thing too. His friend died. all of their notes, prototypes, and the whole frikkin lab disappeared.

  213. John said

    It’s easy to be spiritual when your life has so much death in it Fred.I saw an alligator crush the life out of someone this afternoon.Have you ever seen someone die? Up close? It makes one long for more than just this short, dirty, painful, tiring, expensive, etc., existence. I could tell you stories,that convinced me that there is something more after this existence, but you would not believe them, I think.
    What do you believe in aside from science and yourself? Is there anything?

  214. Zerxil said

    “There are only two kinds of people in the world: Intelligent people without religion and religious people without intelligence.” there are stupid people everywhere.

  215. Zerxil said

    “The science-minded individual derives his ethical system from the real-world consequences of his actions upon others and upon himself.”

    so basically what he can get away with and or not felt bad about?

  216. Zerxil said

    “there are generally three types of creationist: the garden-variety scientifically ignorant religious fanatic, the religious moderate who has been swayed by religious propaganda, and (most rarely) the religious fanatic who has actually put serious effort into studying the issue. Of those, there is no point debating the first type; fanatics do not recognize the validity of science or logic at all, and an argument will probably devolve into him reciting the Bible and trying to convert you. The second is the easiest to debate; if you can show how the arguments he’s heard are logically flawed, there is a fair chance of actually changing his mind. The third type is the trickiest to debate because they are usually quite experienced, and they tend to have a large “bag of tricks” which they can use against you (expect philosophical attacks against the scientific method, heavy reliance upon the “complexity = design” fallacy, arguments copied from ICR and other creationist websites, and liberal use of specific names, dates, and places in order to lend more rhetorical credibility to their arguments).”

    you said not to debate a fanatic & than how to debate them.

    “and liberal use of specific names, dates, and places in order to lend more rhetorical credibility to their arguments”

    too bad the ‘other’ side doesn’t use this.

  217. Zerxil said

    Mark Twain is a fictional name…

  218. Chris C. said

    Hah, I love how the FLA refers to “Character Maz”. At times we do seem a bit more like characters than real people around these parts…

  219. Fred said

    John, atheists don’t have belief systems. I trust myself first and foremost and everything else either to somewhat lesser degrees or not at all. I don’t believe in an afterlife therefore, and so I’m determined to get the most out of life.

    Zerxil, most science minded people aren’t looking to get away with things, get over on people or avoid guilt. This is what religious people do. An atheist’s life is nothing like the delusion filled life of the theist.

  220. Zerxil said

    For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.
    Benjamin Franklin

    I hope I & everyone else could too.

    If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.
    Benjamin Franklin

    In the affairs of this world, men are saved not by faith, but by the want of it.
    Benjamin Franklin

  221. Zerxil said

    really? than what is Scientology?

  222. F. L. A. said

    If it’s a delusion, then it’s a wonderful delusion.May it never end[eternal huge sharp-toothed grin].

  223. Fred said

    The entire case of the creationists consists of trying to disprove evolution. Their attacks against evolution are somehow supposed to prove creationism. Beginning philosophy students should immediately recogonize this exercise in anti-logic. Even if some of the public could be swayed to disbelieve evolution, that wouldn’t make even one of them creationists. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution for any educated person.

    Were Adam and Eve created with all of man’s parasites, including syphilis, herpes and aids already in place? Surely these things are much more rationally explained by evolution. Creationism has no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to advance knowledge and no way to lead to new discoveries.

    The battle between scientists and creationists is a battle between two American cultures with radically different worldviews. For many creationists, the battle symbolizes the struggle in this country between religion and godlessness. For the rest of us it represents a choice between scientific progress and ignorance.

    The Christian academic community long ago accepted evolution. Baylor, SMU, TCU, Brigham Young, Notre Dame, Stanford and EVERY other CHRISTIAN college and university that has a science department teaches evolution and common descent. This is the reason 50%-75% of Christian college students reject their faith in college. When they get there they find out that they’ve been hoodwinked by their parents and private school teachers about evolution. Once a person understand how evolution works, it is impossible not to accept it as the only explanation we will ever have for the diversity of life on Earth.

  224. John said

    Are you a Hedonist Fred?
    Satanists are Hedonistic. Not that I’m saying your a Satanist, mind you, I’m just looking for something that I’m familiar with to relate your personal views on theology to.Satanists however believe in the possibility of spirits, magick, and Deities[because they want to be one after death].

    So…I’m delusional? That would help to explain much, I guess[but why can’t my delusions be MORE FUN?!? It’s just not fair…[grin]. Maybe someone could write a self-help book “How to make the most of your Delusions!” or something.].But I’d still rather have it this way than any other. And you don’t even believe in me anyway.You’ve been debating with at least two people that, if you were told more personal information, you would probably think of as fictional characters.We get a kick out of that, you know[smile].
    Happy Memorial Day everybody.We shall go now to Party, and honor those warriors that we know and hold dear.
    Have fun if you can get away with it.
    Blessed Be.

  225. Bob Griffin said

    Many posters are sure of the fact of evolution. Why?

    The first step of the scientific method is to OBSERVE the phenomena. Darwin didnt observe evolution. Most evolutionists today tell you we CANT OBSERVE it because the process is so slow.

    Why does it take faith for me to believe in religion but none for you to believe in evolution?

  226. Barney said

    Bob, you have been answered hundreds of times by now.

    What use will it be for you to have one more answer?

  227. Bob Griffin said


    How about showing me a living transitional form. Darwin himself wondered where they were.

    You are correct, I have been answered 100s of times, but no answer proves with 100% certainty that evolution is correct.
    You still have to have faith.

  228. F. L. A. said

    A living transitional form….We have tried giving you those examples before on the original site by the same name Mr.Griffin, from Kiwi birds to whales to Glass Lizard skinks.Remember when it was explained that everything living is in a form of transition? I wonder if perhaps you may have a different idea of what a transitional form is.You believe in Micro-evolution, so you’re already 1/4th of the way there to understanding what the evolutionist means.And despite what it may seem, it does require at least a small degree of faith to hold to such beliefs, for there is much information that is yet unknown and undiscovered.

    Some Guy,[if you’re still reading] after reading the posts of Character Fred, is this what you were hoping for when you requested that evolutionists “bring it”?
    Strange that Brad, who worked so hard arguing with Amanda the Mormon about the truth of Christianity and doctrine, has not given a try to debate with Chris C. or Fred.

  229. Joe said

    I don’t understand why Fred is so mad at Christians. Believe what you want, but don’t be so egotistical as to insinuate that someone else is stupid or less than a person because they don’t believe what you do. Here in America we are free to believe whatever we want and still be productive, active members of society. Don’t belittle us because we choose to believe in God and you don’t. I believe John, F.L.A., Chris C, Amanda the Mormon, Maz and plenty of others on here are probably upstanding, respectful citizens. Fred, relax and enjoy the debate. Nobody thinks you’re stupid. Your comments are actually very interesting and intriquing. I don’t believe what you do, but I don’t think you’re an idiot.

  230. John said

    We don’t really understand his motivations.
    Perhaps he once lost someone dear to him.
    This could be like…emotional therapy, or something.
    I’d be interested in hearing his answers to F. L. A.’s questions in post#60 on the “Christian and Superstitious?” site.

  231. ADB said

    Old Fred just doesn’t realize that resorting to belittling just makes him look shallow and small minded even if he isn’t.

  232. Fred said

    For Bob Griffin and any creationist who thinks there are no transitional fossils and all plants and animals magically popped into existence all at once, transitional fossils do exist and there are extensive lists and descriptions of them in any public library and on the Internet. They are on display in museums in every major city in the world. Furthermore the creationist claim that micro evolution happens but macro evolution does not, reflects their ignorance of what macro evolution is. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution over thousands and millions of years.

    As far as transitional species, ALL species are transitional including and most recently especially humans. The Spartans bred their tallest soldiers with tall women in an attempt to have bigger and taller soldiers who could gain an edge in combat with their height. And they did; they were considerably taller than their opponants on average. The Spartans averaged a whopping 5’5 to 5’6, towering over their enemies. Their fastest runners could run a mile in five minutes. But wait, just less than a hundred years ago the fastest humans could run a mile in four minutes! That’s not really too exciting is it? Because we’ve now broken the three minute mile and we did it with humans that are considerably taller than the Spartans too haven’t we? Human beings are changing into completely different humans than our ancestors were. As this goes on we will change even more and if we survive as a species for a million years we will no longer resemble today’s humans anymore than we who live today do hominids from a million or two years ago. We will have become a different species through evolution by natural selection. The idea that we were created from mud by a deity and have always been and will always remain the same is absurd.

  233. Fred said

    Young earth creationists claim that the scientific evidence is definitely against evolution and in favor of a young Earth. I usually politely point out that the only reason they think so is that they believe the Bible [to be error free] in scientific as well as spiritual matters. I then occasionally ask why they don’t believe that the Earth stands still while the sun moves around it and that our planet is flat and has four corners, since both notions are also present in the Bible. In fact, one could argue that these two positions are much more clearly defined in the Christian scriptures than the age of Earth, which has to be calculated on the basis of assumptions concerning the life span of the lines of descent mentioned in the book. The astonishing creationist response is to deny that the Bible makes claims either about a flat Earth or in defense of geocentrism. But this goes clearly against not only the existence of creationists who see and defend both claims, but also against the historical evidence: For most of western history, Christians have espoused both views precisely on biblical grounds! It is not for nothing that both Copernicus and Galileo got in trouble with the Church of Rome and Bruno lost his life.

    Young-Earth creationists, however, seem to be able to live with this internal contradiction; For them the story in Genesis is to be taken literally: The world was created 6,000 years ago, and humans and animals died in a worldwide flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago…Several interesting fallacies underlie this position, and young Earth creationists are the epitome of what happens when science education fails completely. It simply makes no sense – given the evidence that we have today from a variety of fields, such as geology, paleontology, ecology, physics, and astronomy – to deny that Earth is billions of years old and that while mass extinctions certainly occurred, they were not due to floods and no such event happened on a worldwide basis so recently in Earth’s history.

  234. Fred said

    Millions of American Christians are holding their breath and praying tha Pioneer doesn’t find life on Mars. They know that when this rover finds life on Mars creationism will be dead forever. Count down 10 9 8 ….. get ready creationists. Jesus can’t save your cult now!

  235. Bob Griffin said

    228 F.L.A.

    Who doesnt get the concept? I have a different form I would like to see. A man turning into a whale. Where would I get the idea of such an insane form? From Darwins book. He wondered how we could go from a land animal to an aquatic one. I merely would like to see what Darwin talked about.

  236. Bob Griffin said

    232 Fred

    You give a bunch of examples of MIcro evolution. See my previous post. Where are the examples of man to fish? Thats what the theory calls for.

  237. Fred – Post #234 combined with this comment in the superstition thread leads us to give you one more warning:

    “For anyone who is REALLY interested in the truth about Jesus: Jesusneverexisted.com. You’ll have to twist your brain into a two thousand year old pretzel to believe in Jesus after you check THAT cite out. I dare you Christians to check it out.”

    “Jesus can’t save your cult now!”

    Please just stick to the debate and give us a break with the accusatory comments and cult references.


  238. Maz said

    Moderator: I think we have found it all quite…..uncomfortable….to say the least, with Fred’s continuing tone on here, freedom of speech and debate is one thing but I think Fred has gone beyond the mark more than a few times. I for one refuse to answer any of his posts directly, and aren’t we encouraging his blaspheme? How many times does one get warned? And how far does one have to go?

  239. zerxil said

    MAZ that wasn’t exactly a blasphemy. They are looking for a trace of proof that water ever existed on Mars. If and only if water was on mars for there to be carben life forms. They more than likely won’t find animal fossils since its 1, mill to one that they find them here. I would of course like to see a close up of “the face” on mars and know what its made out of.

    224) Satanists or Mormons (they were the ones that believed Satin was Jesus’ brother, Right?), I believe Oprah’s Mitchael Tole (toll maybe) has a book about that.

    ADB you might be right about Fred. But it’s new Fred old Fred is Barney…

  240. some guy said

    okay..enough primordial ooze slinging. Let’s get back to the topic; how does darwin church preach psalm 104? I came across this account today in scripture–very timely indeed. Read it first and then make comment. I promise you that it will take much less time than the majority of Fred’s essays 🙂

  241. Yes, please…the topic. All we ask for is a kind debate with diplomacy and respect towards each other, regardless of what they believe.

  242. Maz said

    Zerxil: I was talking about Fred’s general anti-God, anti-Christian, and very disrespectful tone on this site, not only towards Christians but especially towards God. I wasn’t referring to the Mars landing.
    And water is not the only thing they would have to find, because water alone cannot bring forth life. The right mixture of chemicals and the right environment must be present for life. It is not as simple as evolutionists make it.

  243. F. L. A. said

    Mr. Griffin, it would take some time…..[HAR! HAR!]. Unless it was due to genetic tinkering by scientists,of course.

    Fred, as one who acknowledges the possibility of alien life, I wonder if you have considered also the possibility of intelligent alien life…..that was religious. How would you handle THEM, hypothetically speaking? It would not have to mean the absolute end of Christianity, they[the Christians] would simply have to revise their concept of who and what God is, along with their place in the cosmos. At some point I was wondering if I might ask you to try and use your scientific knowledge to try and define the concept of love. What is it to you, as a scientific Athiest.I also would like to know your age, If I may.
    Maz, it’s not impossible either.It may not even be life as we know it[carbon based, for example.], or they could simply discover fossilized evidence of alien bacteria.It’s a very big, weird universe.The possibilities are absolutely endless.
    Some Guy, I will give it a try.

  244. zerxil said

    Dolphins could be devolved from land animals, whales too. no gills. Are seals and porpoises land or sea animals?

  245. zerxil said

    Mr Griffin I listened to this show. Are you the person on the show? yes yes I know just a little slow.

  246. zerxil said

    “They[the Christians] would simply have to revise their concept of who and what God is, along with their place in the cosmos.”

    Again? Jesus changed how some Jews & Gentiles viewed God. Some Jews already viewed God like this and others suppressed it. We changed with Galileo. At least our place in the cosmos. Comets were optical illusions. lol. We will change it with enough evidence. we have to, because truth demands belief.

  247. Bob Griffin said

    243 F.L.A.

    It has taken some time for scientists. They could only produce micro results in Darwins day, and are doing the same now. They cannot produce a transitional form.

  248. Bob Griffin said

    245 Zerxil

    Yes, I am the one who was on the show. Its fun getting to spar with everyone after the show.

  249. John said

    Some Guy, what exactly did you want to know from the evolutionist after a reading of Psalm 104? We read it, and it sounds fine, but neither of us know exactly what you want.Right now F. L. A. is living out Psalm 104:20, as for myself, Psalm 104:33 describes me rather well[smile].
    All the things that I’d like to say, and darn it all if the F. L. A. hasn’t beaten me to it, almost every day.
    Mr. Griffin, post#247, I’m not so sure about that.We’ve become so advanced manipulating genes that I wouldn’t be surprised at all if mutants like what you would call a transitional form could be produced within a few dozen generations. But would you accept it if you saw it[grin, head cocked to the side with one raised eyebrow]?

  250. Fred said

    The question “Was Darwin right or wrong?” is meaningless. The science of evolution has moved way past where it was in Darwin’s day. For instance Darwin thought modern humans descended from Cro-magnons, something we now know is not true. Creationists trying to pick apart Darwin’s work to prove it is flawed is an exercise in futility. Modern scientists don’t use Darwin’s ideas anymore because they have all either been modified or disregarded. Comparing Darwin’s work to modern day evolutionary biology is like comparing the Wright brother’s first plane to the Space Shuttle. The fact that creationists think they can disprove evolution by discrediting Charles Darwin proves how little they know about the whole subject.

    Bob Griffin: The fossil record unequivocally attests macro-evolutionary transition including the ape-human transitional form Australopithecus. The lobe-finned fish, which lived in water but had lungs and legs like fins, was an intermediate between fish and amphibians. Eusthsnpteron shows marvelous intermediate characteristics between lobed-finned fishes and amphibians. Amphibians themselves provided a macro-evolutionary transition from aquatic to land-dwelling reptilian life. Cynodonts bridged the gap between reptiles and mammals, possessing combined traits of both.

    Bob, 2500 years ago and even before that people knew man was an evolved transitional species himself: “Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely a fish, in the beginning.” – Anaximander (c. 610-546 BCE), Greek philosopher and media personality. Proto-Darwinian of the year 561 BCE.

    One thing about science is that unlike religion, it is self-correcting. If it were possible to disprove evolution someone would have done it by now and they would have won a Nobel Prize for science and become extremely rich and quite famous too. But this hasn’t happened and it isn’t going to either. What creationism really does is drive thinking people from Protestant churches at the rate of about 50,000 a week. So keep up the good work.

  251. Fred said

    FLA I don’t think that intelligent alien life would be religious. I think once aliens got off their own planet and into space they would be kind of like the first human in space. Do you know what the first words ever uttered in space by a human were? “I don’t see any god up here.” – Yuri Gagarin (1934-1968), Soviet-Russian cosmonaut; first atheist (and first human) in space (1961).

    On the concept of love question, interestingly the Greeks and the New Testament writers used two different words for love phil-o and agapa. I would direct you to a short study on the Greek definitions of those two words. I would say that it seems natural to an atheist to love their fellow man and unnatural to place a middle-man (God) in between humans. In other words atheists don’t need to be commanded by an invisible deity that can only be imagined to love their fellow humans.

    As far as the label “scientific atheist” I know a lot more about religions than I do science. I majored in Ancient Near Eastern studies in school for which classical Greek was my language. I’m a Jew and I learned to read some Hebrew as a child and so I can read the Bible in its original languages. I have a large collection of ancient inscriptions from the Near East. This literature is all very similar. Most of the inscriptions either deal with prophets blessing and cursing kings and nations or a god who is obsessed with His temple and His people and stories of kings who either plundered the temple (bad kings) or kings who restored the temple to the proper worship of the gods of their ancestors. This land was littered with prophecies and myths already by the time my superstitious ancestors wrote their own versions of these things. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.

  252. Maz said

    John: Does F.L.A. really ”creep forth” like ”every wild beast of the forest” as you suggested from your inference in your post #249? She seems a likeable person to me, intelligent too. Why do you paint her such a dark creature?

  253. some guy said

    “Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely a fish, in the beginning.

    So, help me with the grecian logic here; If man is another animal, how come we find it necessary to wear clothes? Animals have skin just like man, but I have never seen a chimp @ the GAP!

    my superstitious ancestors–please explain Fred. In your studies of eastern religion, have you ever factored the prophetic accuracy of hebrew writings in relation to Christ and his ministry?

  254. Maz said

    I have recently found a couple of verses that seem very relevant. Acts 19 v 8-9: ‘And he (Paul the Apostle) went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened, and believed not, but spoke evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one, Tyrannus.’

    And also in Luke 16 v 31, ”And he”(Abraham,in Jesus parable of the rich man and Lazarus)”said to him ‘If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
    I guess some will never believe whatever you show them. We need to recognise when to desist and depart.

  255. Maz said

    P.S: Just to make it clear, I am not alluding to everyone on here that disagrees with our beliefs.

  256. Fred said

    Some guy, the New Testament writers obviously had the Old Testament prophecies in front of them when they wrote their stories. The authors of Matthew and Luke also had Mark’s gospel in front of them because we can tell they both copied much of it word for word. No person fulfilled any of these prophecies. The gospel writers simply used these prophecies to pound their Jesus into the role of a coming Messiah. Anyone who thinks the gospels are biographies is sadly mistaken. They are religious proclations about a “new Israel” allegorically represented by a fictioanl person, Jesus Christ. Jesus represented Israel the way Uncle Sam represents the US allegorically. You will say I am wrong but the top Bible scholars in the world agree with me and I can supply a very long list of them.

  257. Fred said

    Some guy, humans where clothes because they have evolved and become intelligent enough to see the value of clothing. Some tribes of primitives do not where clothing. This is the problem with your religion: it denies man’s place among the animals. Any religion degrades the animal kingdom like that is an insult to every living creature on earth.

  258. Bob Griffin said

    249 John

    It is possible humans could make a transitional form. But if its so hard for us now with all our advanced technology, how does nature do it by itself? The intro to Darwins book talks about how ironic it is you can believe a mindless process can get better results than humans (insert a grin here).

  259. Bob Griffin said

    Fred 250

    Im not talking about fossils that are engineered by those w a darwinist bias. I keep asking for a living transitional form. I will get darwins book tonite and quote from it. You think I dont understand the theory, so I will use your mans words.

  260. Maz said

    I’v just watched a programme about a very strange animal called the Mimic Octopus.
    It not only has the ability to change colour, or change shape, but can make itself look like other creatures in the sea, like sea snakes. He digs himself into the sand and then lets his legs waver around above the sand just like the snakes do. These creatures can mimic shrimps, starfish, 3 different kinds of crab, jelly fish, lion fish and stingray. They can even swim across the bottom of the sea like a flounder. Amazing. This was found in the late 1980’s. In fact the octopus can change it’s appearence to look like up to 17 different species.
    And I would need a bottle of dye to change the colour of my hair, tanning lotion to become brown, and makeup to change the appearence of my face! 🙂

  261. some guy said

    Fred–I will not say that your wrong; how can I–a fallible, fallen, human being like yourself. You supply your list of your “scholars”; I will stand on what God says, not on your diatribe of deduction, which has no historical veracity of genuineness; it is only pompous pontification that will continue to frustrate and alienate.

    As to the clothes argument, yours is weak; it makes it sound as if we humans have the capacity to make ourselves happy. If that were the case, please travel to Beverly Hills, Palm Beach, etc. and just take note of all the smiling, happy people 😦

    As the wise Solomon stated in the book ecclesiastes, the chief end of man (including primitive tribes) is to fear god and obey him; otherwise we run the risk of assuming that we made ourselves and make our own hearts beat which is a most profound fallacy.

    Darwin’s philosophy advocates for the acquisition of knowledge, and then takes it to its next logical step–knowledge is what we need. Nope, contrary to popular university opinion, knowledge cannot formulate wisdom, unless the volition of man is employed and that knowledge is compared to divine knowledge. When these intersect and agree–wisdom is the product.

  262. zerxil said


  263. zerxil said

    “Modern scientists don’t use Darwin’s ideas anymore because they have all either been modified or disregarded.”

  264. zerxil said

    182 “Christians don’t trust scientists even though every last one of them trusts a doctor.”

    You should always get a second opinion, at least, from a different doctor(s).

  265. some guy said

    especially Dr. Luke!

    Jeremiah 17:5 🙂

  266. F. L. A. said

    Well, I’m back, and my my, what a lot bickering.Just like normal.
    Thank you for your response Fred, and although I can understand were you’re coming from thinking that advanced alien life would be Atheistic, I disagree.For starters, I didn’t only mean to include advanced[more so than us, that is] alien life within my hypothetical scenario. After all, they could be primitive superstitious people who preform sacrifice[Hee. Hee.].Or if they were indeed space-faring, then it could easily be that they were motivated by matters of theology.For example, they could be intergalactic missionaries! Wouldn’t that just be “horrible”? I know that having contempt for theology and religious people, and thinking that they are less advanced than you intellectually, that aliens that YOU think of as being EVEN MORE ADVANCED than yourself
    would just HAVE to be Atheistic[super-Atheist, perhaps?], but this may not be so at all.The universe is a very big weird place full of possibilities beyond human imagination.And people[of any kind] have a way of surprising you.
    As to your answer on LOVE, what I wanted was for you to try and give me your personal definition, if you could adequately express it in words.I already knew about the words origins.I was hoping for something less clinical and a little more…”from the heart”, so to speak.I noticed that you didn’t pass up a chance to criticize a deity in that response[chuckle].

    Maz, I am and I do, usually in an attempt to catch every wild beast of the forest.Although not entirely “evil” by every definition of the word, in my domain I am hungry death incarnate, and definitely a sinister power to be feared.My physique is more…complicated than yours, so “creep forth” is not a bad way to describe my main method of locomotion.I won’t tell you any more personal details, so don’t even bother asking.
    You actually think of me as a likable person? YOU? What in the world for, woman? Even after all of my cold criticisms on your theological views???? I liked your disclaimer in post #255.
    Some Guy, not all of humanity wears clothing, and I’m not just talking about “primitives”.John and I have discussed it, and we came to the conclusion that[at least in Florida] humans wear cloths for 4 main reasons, which are….1:Fashion/Self expression, 2:Identification[like work uniforms of various professions], 3:Because “everyone else is doing it”, and 4:For protection/concealment. Humanity is weird, and does many odd things that do not seem to make any sense at all to me.

  267. F. L. A. said

    I just remembered something Some Guy. During heavy rains AND hot sunny afternoons, Chimpanzees and Gorillas have been noticed wearing and holding large leaves as sun hats, or umbrellas.Draw your own conclusions[huge sharp-toothed grin].

  268. Maz said

    F.L.A: You still come over a lot nicer than some people on here. ”What in the world for…..?” Does one have to have a reason? The world is a better place if we can all be atleast congenial with each other.

  269. F. L. A. said

    I do?
    I thought I came off as John…but with a lot more time on my hands, so to speak.

    I guess that’s not very flattering of the others here, huh?

  270. Maz said

    Actually I was only referring to a single individual rather than any ‘others’.

  271. zerxil said

    233 hey fred.

    In astronomy, the geocentric model of the universe is the theory that the Earth is at the center of the universe and the Sun and other objects go around it. Belief in this system was common in ancient Greece. It was embraced by both Aristotle and Ptolemy, and most Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circle the Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China.[1]

  272. zerxil said

    So are you saying only Fred was worse than FLA, I’m insulted. well I’ll have to work harder at being annoying. Man, I’m not more annoying than FLA sigh. I’m pretty sure I can be more annoying. I know I can take FRED lessons. Lesson 1 whenever someone replys to your statements don’t acknowledge it and dismiss it out of hand if from an opposing view. Lesson 2 put even more inflammatory, incorrect, or great posts on instead. Lesson 3 get edited (oh wait thats a lesson you can learn from me).

  273. some guy said

    .1:Fashion/Self expression, 2:Identification[like work uniforms of various professions], 3:Because “everyone else is doing it”, and 4:For protection/concealment. Humanity is weird, and does many odd things that do not seem to make any sense at all to me.

    1. speedos–no..no. 2). hairnets–boss says so. 3). speedo–would you? 4). yes, we all have something to hide right..that’s me point. There is something in us, our “natural” selves, that seems less forthright than our opinions and tongue ramblings that can easily be cast without much examination, but au natural–things get a little dicey. Animals do not have this conflict. Do primates have preference over the shape,size,color of leaf umbrellas? are they intelligent enough to understand the inefficiency of a taco bell wrapper to shield the rain/light?

  274. zerxil said

    Hey taco bell wrappers work on rain, just use the dry side or you will get mild sauce on you… clothes cant hide my worst things to hide.

  275. Fred said

    Bob Griffin – There aren’t any fossils engineered by people with Darwinist bias. Fossils have been misrepresented by people who supposedly discovered them for financial gain and these frauds were exposed by scientists themselves. Accusing scientists of having some sort of bias is ludicrous. No avenue of human endeavor is more open to scrutiny than science. Conversely no avenue is more closed to scrutiny than religion especially Christianity. Scientists have absolutely no reason to be dishonest about their findings regarding evolution. Who should we believe? Scientists who admit that their findings are never the final word or religious zealots who claim theirs is.

    If you think using Darwin’s own words proves something, it proves that you do not understand evolutionary theory. Richard Dawkins and other modern scientists do a much better job of explaining evolution than one of the people who discovered it. You creationists think Darwin invented evolution or something. Evolution is the manner by which nature structures itself and he and other scientists simultaneously discovered the exact same things.

    Obviously you ignore the answers to your questions. You asked for a living transitional form and I clearly showed how ALL species are transitional and this is especially obvious with human beings. Creationists have had all their questions thoroughly answered and all their claims thoroughly refuted many times. They just plod on as if nothing anyone says who disagrees with their holy book matters. The fact is that nothing anyone said IN their holy book matters. None of it.

  276. Fred said

    Some Guy – You say you’re going to stand on what God says. You’re standing on what other PEOPLE have said God says and their diatribe of deception. It is the Gospels that have no historical veracity nor were they ever meant to. If you think humans don’t have the capacity to make themselves happy then you don’t know any atheists and your worldview and your life itself is pathetic. I see smiling happy people everyday. I was born in California and I saw them there too.

    You state that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. Where’d you get that idea? My end is not to fear and obey your God fella and I don’t run any risk of thinking I created myself. My parents did that. Where’d you get this “Darwin’s philosophy?” Darwin was a scientist, who gives a hoot about his philosophy. Not me. Knowledge doesn’t always lead to wisdom you say, contrary to university opinion. You fundy Christians are always disagreeing with intellectuals but have yet to prove any of them wrong. As far as divine knowledge, if it were really knowledge, why the need for faith?

  277. Maz said

    No Zertzil, I was just really trying to point out that F.L.A. isn’t as bad as she seems to portray herself. Do you want to be annoying?

  278. Maz said

    The scientific proof of Creation is out there for all to see but some just refuse to see it.
    There are many, many scientists who are well educated in their field and believe in a six day Creation. And they can show proof of what they believe, but again, there are those who will just stick blindly to their ‘faith’ in evolution and won’t accept it.

  279. Bob Griffin said

    Fred 275

    Ok, I wont use Darwins words. But the theory says we all came from 1 animal. Thus, we have to have transitional forms. You just tell me that we are ALL transitional forms. Once again, you cannot show me any living form in a state of transition. It looks more like all life forms came about at once, as the cambrian explosion shows. You can theorize all you want, but you dont find life in various states of transition. It should be very simple for you: produce a living transitional form. With the million of species and billions of years, how hard should that be?

  280. Fred said

    Bob Griffin, I gave you examples of transitional species and like a typical creationist you ignore the proof you ask for and go on like you wern’t just proved wrong. Before you prattle on with your insane ideas, you first need to show that I am wrong. It might look to you like all life just popped into existence but the fossil record gives us a different story than your religious delusions give you. All life has been proved to be in a state of transition and you ignore this proof too.

    Bob, why don’t you turn that supposedly critical mind of yours toward a story about a man spending three days in the belly of a fish, a talking donkey, a witch calling up dead people, a jar that stays full of oil no matter how much one uses or any of the other absurd tales in the Bible. Nope, you’ll swallow those stories without question and then feed them to your uneducated brainwashed progeny without any doubts whatsoever. The fact that you don’t trust modern scientists but instead put your trust in words scribbled on parchments by superstitous animal scrificing primitives illustrates that your mind has been slammed shut out of fear of an angry vengeful God. You believe what you do because you are afraid not to. That is pathetic.

  281. Bob Griffin said


    Paragraph 1 – I’ll make it a little easier. Lets say a whale transitioning to a man. Show me living beings in the early, middle and latter stages of transition. Lets assume we have no religion. If you look at the Cambrian explosion, it looks like all was created at once.

    Paragraph 2 – I assume you’re not religious. Most learned scientists agree on only 2 possibilities for our existence 1) Nothing arose from nothing 2) The universe was created.
    You believe number 1. Our world shows us that nothing from nothing leaves nothing (Billy Preston), but you accept the opposite. I believe number 2,that we were created by God. I believe that a God who created the universe could turn water into wine, and any other miracles he wanted to. I find my position much more plausible than yours. Oh, and the scribbled parchments I believe in have hundreds of prophecies that came true in the person of Jesus. Name me any other source that can have hundreds of prophecies come true hundreds of years later. Id rather rely on that than a modern, probably atheist scientist.

  282. Bob – Fred was banned because he ignored our warnings concerning the rules on this site and his use of the “f” word in a different thread.

  283. F. L. A. said

    Well, it was inevitable.Skeptical Fred DID believe in the fate of being banned from the site[post#115], so he did have a little faith in the concept of predestination after all.

    Some Guy, post#273,….I wouldn’t wear a speedo and couldn’t even if I wanted to.I never wear ANY clothing, ever. As for your question about primates, yes, some do. Humans are primates, after all.
    Personally I don’t think that there’s anything that comes wrapped up in a Taco Bell wrapper that’s worth trying to protect.That “food” is waaaay too greasy, like eating someone’s spoiled pet Pot Bellied Pig[hack!].
    Mr. Griffin, isn’t the Cambrian Explosion[which is dated at about 530 million years ago] a little old for you to believe in as a Young Earth Creationist? Type in “Cambrian Explosion” in your search engine and read the interesting info about it on Wikipedia .

  284. some guy said

    Father God, we mention Fred up to you and thank you for allowing our interaction. It is apparent that he is one of your chosen people, who has willingly decided not to agree with the oracles of God; we thank you Lord that we have been able to discuss your truth and love to him, and pray that our words, your truth and your spirit have had some impact on his impenitent and hostile heart. We pray, as a unified group, with the understanding that it is your will that Fred come to the knowledge of his desperate need for forgiveness and peace with his Creator. We acknowledge that this can only be ascertained through the ministry, death and RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ—a jew, who came to minister to jew and gentile alike to save sinners like us all. We praise and thank you for your agape [unconditional] love.

  285. Barney said

    Can I go back to being Fred, now? Somehow Barney isn’t quite right for me.

  286. zerxil said

    The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was an “explosion” of complex organisms in the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it implies about the origin and possible evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.

  287. zerxil said

    sure. I had a pithy comment on FRED & you coming back as Fred but it was edited..

  288. Zerxil said

    Than why did you change it? how about going Hollywood and calling yourself Fredric?

  289. Chris C. said

    Also, the “explosion” is a bit of a misnomer. There are still millions of years and generations between the top and bottom of the “cambrian explosion” in the geologic column.

  290. Bob Griffin said

    283 F.L.A.

    Who said I accept the dating of the Cambrian explosion? It does make me want to be an evolutionist sometimes. You can say 530 million years and I can say 430 million years. Were 100 million years apart and both thought of as geniuses.

  291. Maz said

    Zerxil: It’s called the ‘Cambrian explosion’ (a misnomer) because the fossils appear suddenly in the rock strata fully formed without any evidence for their evolutionary path before that.
    In other words, the fossils have no ancestry in the rocks below. And I do not believe that the Cambrian period was millions of years ago, but only thousands. Dating methods are not atall reliable. It could have even been the result of the world wide flood of Noahs day.
    Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, layed down by water all over the world. Many fossils do indeed seem to have been laid down rapidly as in a flood.

  292. Maz said

    P.S: If there are many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record then why do we still have the idea of ‘missing links’? Are they not missing anymore? I believe there is a chart of evolutionary progress from the beginning until now that are used in text books that show this progression with gaps in it. Has someone filled in these gaps?

  293. F. L. A. said

    Not all of the gaps Maz, but they ARE becoming fewer in number as time progresses.Maz, considering that animal life of the Cambrian period were mainly all aquatic in nature, how could something like the Biblical Flood have hypothetically killed them off? By diluting the saline content of the oceans water too much?????

  294. Maz said

    F.L.A: What gaps are still missing and which have been filled? And who said it was only aquatic life? I was trying to find a copy of Darwins ‘tree’ of evolution, havn’t found it yet but I’m still looking. Will let you know what I find. And will also research more on the Cambrian business.

  295. John said

    How come none of the Young Earth Creationists-Ken Ham fans want to debate with us using his book/work? Do you find it as silly as we do now, or something?

  296. John said

    Maz, also check out the Phyogenetic Tree Of Life based on rRNA gene data and Haeckel’s Paleontological Tree Of Vertebrates[which is outdated, but still interesting and able to give you a better understanding about this sort of thing].You can find them presented on the Wikipedia information site.

  297. Maz said

    John: If Haeckel’s Tree is anything like his embryo evolution chart then I am afraid I can’t trust anything he says. And arguing from a book is not realistic. I would rather argue with what I know personally. Yes, I read everything I know from books, but I can’t go through a book, chapter by chapter and subject by subject like that because I don’t know as much as the author.
    I did find a fossil tree on the web that seems to show far more gaps than there are fossil records for any evolution. But still looking and learning.

  298. John said

    Well I did tell you that Haeckel’s Tree is out dated.
    “And arguing from a book is not realistic”-Maz WHAT?? Almost everything that everybody on this site uses to back up their debates is from out of books.How often have yourself and others quoted Biblical scriptures to try and prove a point?How would this be any different? Concerning a book like that of Ken Ham’s, do you not think that you are “in the right” and have a better understanding of Young Earth Creationism than a Pagan evolutionist like me? I don’t even have a collage education, I’m just a country Witch with a house full of books[kinda].Now, F. L. A. has more time to surf the web for information than I do, but has no formal education AT ALL[not that we’re stupid, mind you.We are very wise and crafty.].So it seems that a well educated Young Earth Christian Creationist would have an easier time at debating with us on this matter, is all.
    We are glad to know that you are still looking and learning.
    “The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.”-Aristotle

  299. Maz said

    John: You didn’t get my point, which is that it’s not just what I read that I can debate, I have to understand what it’s saying and know more than what is stated. I have to have studied it fairly well to argue the point. Some things I know more about than others. I would rather discuss things I know most about…….Debating from ignoranc is not beneficial to anyone. And no, I don’t know everything, just like I would guess you don’t either.

  300. Zerxil said

    295 Sure I’ll debate you. Haven’t read it but hey a just glanced through books and wrote about it in school…

  301. John said

    Are you implying that you are not very knowledgeable about Ken Ham’s Young Earth Creation Science? And you seemed so much of an advocate of it,..[Hmmmmmmmm?].Well, there are others reading that can take us up on the challenge, perhaps. What do you know most about in regards to this topic?
    And no, I surely don’t know everything[couldn’t learn THAT in 100 lifetimes].

  302. F. L. A. said

    Thank you Zerxil[John has gone home for the night].You may want to arm yourself for this debate a little better however if all that you have done is glance through some of the books. Although it would be fun, we wouldn’t want you “flying blind” so to speak. Take your time, and let us know when you feel that you are ready.

  303. Maz said

    John: I am not a ”know-it’all”. I wouldn’t claim that I know all that Ken Ham knows, I havn’t read ALL his books or studied EVERYTHING about evolution/creation, but what I know proves to me without a doubt that God created the Heavens and the earth and all that is in them.
    I can still be an advocate…do we really have to have degrees in science to blog on here?
    And I have put many good arguments against evolution on here and they have been rejected due to evolutionary bias.
    I listed the 3 main proofs against evolution in my post #18. I still havn’t had a very compelling or convincing answer for any of them.

  304. Zerxil said

    No I didn’t read the book you were referancing, but I have read alot of there stuff on there website.

  305. F. L. A. said

    Actually Maz, those points have been well covered, wether you found the answers compelling and convincing or not.Of course one needs not degrees.Considering that we have none ourselves, this doesn’t seem like it should even matter for you to bring it up.

  306. Maz said

    F.L.A: It would be silly of me to bring up arguments that I don’t have enough knowledge about wouldn’t it. I would be speaking from ignorance. Ofcourse some evolutionist or athiest might say that I already am!
    So I speak on the subjects that I do know….common sense really.
    And I know certain points have been covered, but nothing really of substance seems to be in the answers. Can you prove to me that DNA is a natural occurence in nature? How can it be, it contains intelligent information. I’v yet to get an answer to how this information can come into existence from none living matter or indeed from nothing. Information has to come from an intelligence. Intelligence is not matter. There is something beyond matter…can you tell me what that is without accounting for an intelligent Being….i.e: God.

  307. Zerxil said

    Sure lets do it now. If we get into a sticky wicket someone will bound to chime in. What was the name of the book we are going to dissect. Are you going to take on the things you disagree with, or the whole thing? I think we should do the whole thing because Chris and others might disagree with the whole work.

  308. Zerxil said

    The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh (in what is now Northern Ireland). The chronology is sometimes associated with Young Earth Creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago.

    Ussher’s work, more properly known as the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti (Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world), was his contribution to the long-running theological debate on the age of the Earth. This was a major concern of many Christian scholars over the centuries.

    The chronology is sometimes called the Ussher-Lightfoot chronology because John Lightfoot published a similar chronology in 1642–1644. This, however, is a misnomer, as the chronology is based on Ussher’s work alone and not that of Lightfoot. Ussher deduced that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. Lightfoot similarly deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC.

    Ussher’s proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher’s near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC) or Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC).[1] Ussher’s specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth’s potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). This view had been almost completely abandoned by 1997,[citation needed] six thousand years after 4004 BC. Some biblical scholars, as well as a number of evangelical Christians declare their literal interpretation of the Bible and a 6000-year-old Earth.[2]

    Some modern theists[citation needed] now assert that the chronology is valid only back to the time of “a first day” when light was elaborated. They hold that an interminable amount of time may well have intervened between the instant at which the heavens and earth were originally created and the onset of this “first day”. This theory allows for the existence of previous “bio-epochs” during which now-obsolete life forms existed and were destroyed prior to the creation of those now extant and that the Genesis narrative omitted mention of this period because it was not relevant to the purpose for which the account was intended.[citation needed]

  309. Zerxil said

    Ussher’s methods

    The chronologies of Ussher and other biblical scholars corresponded so closely because they used much the same methodology to calculate key events recorded in the Bible. Their task was complicated by the fact that the Bible was compiled from different sources over several centuries with differing versions and lengthy chronological gaps, making it impossible to do a simple totaling of Biblical ages and dates. In his article on Ussher’s calendar, James Barr[3] has identified three distinct periods that Ussher had to tackle:

    * Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead.

    * Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings’ reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.

    * Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (in 2 Kings 25:27).

    their, sorry

  310. Zerxil said

    “Many in the scientific community believe that DNA is too labile to have possibly survived, even in tiny fragments, for 70 million years. It is more generally accepted that some proteins, like collagen, have a higher preservation potential than DNA. And my lab is more suited to do protein studies than to work with ancient DNA. Others are certainly welcome to try to obtain DNA from this or other dinosaurs. It probably won’t be me directly, though if we get to the point where funding and equipment allow, I will certainly do the supportive work.”

    So if there is DNA the bones aren’t 70 million years.

  311. Zerxil said

    190 Maz have you read this link I think it is more a proof for young earth than old earth

  312. John said

    As you wish Zerxil, but lets do it tomorrow, as I left the book at my house.As far as I know, it’s Ken’s most recent book.I mentioned it towards the end of the original site by this name.
    Maz, let me take a crack at answering one of your points in your post#18.
    Some people will say that evolution violates the2nd law of Thermodynamics.Not true, for the second law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, and the Earth is not a closed system.If it did apply, then babies wouldn’t grow into adults and adults wouldn’t have babies.WE are agents of entropy ourselves Maz, for we organize our bodies at the expense of the organization of our environment, which we digest and burn. Creationists often abuse/use the second law apparently not realizing that it stresses ….”in a closed system”….By definition a closed system cannot contain anything external to itself. So a Creator Deity who is entirely bounded by “his” creation seems non-sensical, and I don’t imagine that you would ever accept such a limited God. Thus, Your God and Thermodynamics are mutually exclusive, for to invoke the Second Law is to claim that God left! Remember, Earth is not a closed system, and to go back to the matter of entropy, to find a LARGE source of negative entropy all you need do is notice our Sun. It delivers roughly 1 horsepower per square meter of free energy and radiation onto us every day. Meteors also shower us with about several tonnes of extra mass per day, some of it in pre-biotic form[complex carbon molecules like formaldehyde]. Comets too, I think. Orbital perturbations and decay,friction from the moons gravity, and radioactive decay all add up.Perhaps Chris C. has something to add??? He’s the one with the good education.I just read books.
    I have noticed through my investigations within Christian book stores that some innovative Creationists have modified their argument slightly to combat this problem.The reference is now to a closed “universe”[siiiiiiigh].Oh well. I’m hungry and I have to go now for the night. Until tomorrow.

  313. Zerxil said

    Well try to get some extra sleep. That usaly helps me when I’m exhausted. lol, well their argument is evolving:)

  314. Zerxil said

    “The New ANSWERS Book…Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible”
    Is There Really a God? God—an Eternal, Uncreated Being?

    In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, such as the sun and other stars, are, in reality, running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second—since the sun cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.

    So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created all the basic entities of life and the universe, some will ask what seems to be a logical question: “Who created God?”

    The very first verse in the Bible declares: “In the beginning God … .” There is no attempt in these words to prove the existence of God or imply in any way that God had a beginning. In fact, the Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end. He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent.

    Is it logical, though, to accept the existence of such an eternal being? Can modern science, which has produced our technology of computers, space shuttles, and medical advances, even allow for such a notion?1

    well good night:)

  315. Maz said

    #311, Zerxil: I havn’t read it all, but very interesting. When I have time I will try and get through it. I do believe in a young earth. If we believe in millions of years then we deny what God has written (by Moses His prophet, who was inspired by God because he wasn’t there in the beginning but God was) in Genesis.

  316. Maz said

    John: The earth in itself may or may not be an open system, but I believe the Universe may be closed. I understand, that apart from God, there is nothing ‘outside’ this Universe. I believe time and space is limited as God made it. Time cannot be eternal for obvious reasons. one day time will be no more, as the Bible teaches. Does that mean that the Universe will be no more…in a sense…it won’t exist in the way we know it now. We will have a new heaven and a new earth, which is taught in Revelation.
    Entropy is a reality, and it goes against the idea of everything evolving into something better and more complex. Entropy is the breaking down, the decaying of everything, we are all dying, the universe is dying, all because of sin. It isn’t just the earth and man that was affected by sin it was the whole Universe. The perfection that God made was cured because of sin.
    Therefore, open or closed, evolution just doesn’t work along side entropy.
    Also when we speak of mutations, usually, it is because of a loss of information in DNA, not an increase, which you would need for evolution to work atall.

    If we had control of our bodies, how is it we have not inventd a way of living forever?

  317. Maz said

    John: As to God being limited by His creation, He works within His creation, but He is not limited by it, He is also eternal and in eternity which is not bounded in any way. We are placed in time and space, but God is not. If space and time went on forever……..how far is forever?? It is obvious that within space and time that there had to be a beginning, and there had to be a Beginner, or we are back to nothing exploding again!

  318. Maz said

    I’v just watched a Discovery documentary on TV entitled ”How did life begin?” I thot it would give me some answers from a secular/evolutionary view. But actually they gave no answer to the question, altho they inferred, the way they spoke, as if they had. Yet with all their ”could be” and ”perhaps” words and their explanation about the origin of DNA, that it came from some ”hypothetical state of RNA” (hypothetical being the operative word!), they could still only say at the end that major answers are ”just around the corner, it’s just chemistry”, in other words they still don’t know. Making sweeping statements like ”stardust made all life”, is a little premature to say the least.

  319. Bob Griffin said

    Maz 318

    Once again for all the evolutionists – DNA starts with 3 billion base pairs, with A-T-C-G all having to be in the correct order. It also has the famous shape that was only recently known to us. Any explanations of how that occurred randomly with no intelligence would be greatly appreciated.

  320. Zerxil said

    What Would We Look For?

    What evidence would we expect to find if there really is an infinite God who created all things as the Bible claims? How would we even recognize the hand of such an omnipotent (all-powerful) Creator?

    The Bible claims that God knows all things—He is omniscient! Therefore, He is infinitely intelligent. To recognize His handiwork, one would have to know how to recognize the evidence of the works of His intelligence.
    How Do We Recognize the Evidence of Intelligence?

    Why do scientists become so excited when they discover stone tools together with bones in a cave? The stone tools show signs of intelligence. The scientists recognize that these tools could not have designed themselves but that they are a product of intelligent input. Thus, the researchers rightly conclude that an intelligent creature was responsible for making these tools.
    Mt. Rushmore—formed by natural processes? Mt. Rushmore

    In a similar way, one would never look at the Great Wall of China, the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., or the Sydney Opera House in Australia and conclude that such structures were formed after explosions in a brick factory.

    Neither would anyone believe that the presidents’ heads on Mt. Rushmore were the products of millions of years of erosion. We can recognize design, the evidence of the outworkings of intelligence. We see man-made objects all around us—cars, airplanes, computers, stereos, houses, appliances, and so on. And yet, at no time would anyone ever suggest that such objects were just the products of time and chance. Design is everywhere. It would never enter our minds that metal, left to itself, would eventually form into engines, transmissions, wheels, and all the other intricate parts needed to produce an automobile.

    This “design argument” is often associated with the name of William Paley, an Anglican clergyman who wrote on this topic in the late eighteenth century. He is particularly remembered for his example of the watch and the watchmaker. In discussing a comparison between a stone and a watch, he concluded that “the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”2

    Paley thus believed that, just as the watch implied a watchmaker, so too does design in living things imply a Designer. Although he believed in a God who created all things, his God was a Master Designer who is now remote from His Creation, not the personal God of the Bible.3

    Today, however, a large proportion of the population, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and creatures, including the intelligent engineers who make watches, cars, etc., were the product of an evolutionary process— not a Creator God.4 But this is not a defensible position, as we will see.

  321. Zerxil said

    I have a question, what did plants evolve from? Because photosynthesis is such a good thing why don’t animals do it?

  322. Zerxil said

    320) The Bible claims that God knows all things—He is omniscient! Therefore, He is infinitely intelligent. To recognize His handiwork, one would have to know how to recognize the evidence of the works of His intelligence.
    How Do We Recognize the Evidence of Intelligence?

    *sigh* If God is all knowing, why did he have to look at his creation to know if it was good or not? Is it possible this universe wasn’t the first one God made?

    How does evolution explain the food chain, and the fact that it worked?

  323. Zerxil said

    Living Things Show Evidence of Design!

    The late Isaac Asimov, an ardent anti-creationist, declared, “In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.”5 It is much more complex than the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if man’s highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?

    Scientists who reject the concept of a Creator God agree that all living things exhibit evidence of design. In essence, they accept the design argument of Paley, but not Paley’s Designer. For example, Dr. Michael Denton, a non-Christian medical doctor and scientist with a doctorate in molecular biology, concludes:

    It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.6

    Dr. Richard Dawkins, holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, has become one of the world’s leading evolutionist spokespersons. His fame has come as the result of the publication of books, including The Blind Watchmaker, which defend modern evolutionary theory and claim to refute once and for all the notion of a Creator God. He said, “We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.”7

    There is no doubt that even the most ardent atheist concedes that design is evident in the animals and plants that inhabit our planet. If Dawkins rejects “chance” in design, what does he put in place of “chance” if he does not accept a Creator God?

    Well there is alot to pull apart here so I’ll let John do it.

  324. Maz said

    Great questions Zerxil, I’d be interested in any answers that come forth.

    The funny thing about the Miller experiment which they mentioned on the documentary I watched (see #318) was that they failed to explain that it didn’t prove how life as we know it came to be. It produced a brown sludge of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins but these proteins have to be left handed while the sugars have to be right handed or it just won’t work. This wasn’t mentioned atall.

  325. Maz said

    How did that smile get there?! Pressed the wrong key somewhere! It only takes one mistake to mess the whole thing up doesn’t it. How evolution ever got us this far is really amazing!
    That was meant to be (#318). 🙂

  326. Kudos to you all for this intelligent debate. You may not all agree and you obviously have different beliefs. However, you’re discussing and debating respectfully. Thank you.

  327. Barney said

    I would suggest that what you so charmingly coin “intelligent debate” is really the lack of debate at all.

    The questions posed have been addressed over and again on this and the other thread. The refusal by some here to acknowledge the true difficulties encountered when trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with what the sciences teach us is what has driven away the few capable debaters that these threads have produced.

  328. Barney (Fred) – You’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

  329. Tripp said

    You’re still here, aren’t you Barney? That leaves at least one intelligent debater…..right?

  330. Chris C. said

    Barney, what gives, I thought you were going to revert to Fred?

    Zerxil, in response to the broad focus of your questions: Chance is not the evolutionary alternative to design. Many things look designed for two reasons: One, humans tend to see “design” everywhere. Think about how you looked at clouds as a child or how you always see people and faces in shadows. The human brain always senses design where none is necessarily present. Second, sometimes a certain form or function is useful enough that nature employs it just as humans do. Think of bowls. Humans desgin bowls for cereal and water, etc. Well, plants in nature have also found bowls for collecting water or collecting prey to be effecitve and natural selection has favored the evolution of such effective “designs” Richard Dawkins in fact coined the term “Designoid” to refer to natural objects that mimic real design.

    I feel like it is beating a dead horse, but natural selection is not a random or ‘chance’ process. It is not at all like a tornado coming through a junkyard and assembling a 747 jet, as some creationists have claimed.

    I know there are lots of books out there on both sides of this issue. I don’t try to quote mine your anti-science books. You should try to do the same for Dawkins’ and other biologists books. I’ve read all his works including the Blind Watchmaker. That quote may be in there but I’m sure it is pulled out of context as it totally contradicts the entire premise of his book. You should read it sometime. The writing is very accessible. Obviously Asimov and Dawkins were not creationists. Besides, one sentence from a smart person’s writing doesn’t prove anthing one way or ther other. Quote snippits aren’t the be all and end all, facts are.

  331. Maz said

    Chris: I do apologise for bringing this up again but the fact that you are talking about design and how ”the human brain always senses design where none is necessarily present”, compels me to say that, we don’t see DNA, it is far too small, so how can we sense the design in it? What the scientists do find is intelligent information within it. If I keep mentioning it, it’s probably because no one seems to have an answer to where it came from and how it originated, or want to acknowledge that there may be an intelligent Being behind it, especially as scientists are so prone to jump at a simple patern of bleeps from outer space and think it may possibly be other intelligent beings trying to contact us or a tiny worm-looking fossil-type object on Mars and suddenly exclaim ”LIFE on Mars!”
    If there is any proof atall that there is a Creator it is in DNA.

  332. F. L. A. said

    You are welcome Truthtalklive. Is that why you think Chris C. has not yet responded to John’s post#312, Barney? We suspected that possibility. John and I are beyond trying to convince you of anything that goes against your theological views Maz, Some Guy, Mr. Griffin, and other like minded Christians[because of that darned bubble]. Now[at least for me] it’s just for amusement and to see how you respond to the information that we give you.This does not mean however that we will not try to debate intelligently and civilly[as best as the situation allows, HA! HA! HA!]. Until John comes over I’ll play. Maz, in post#316 you gave me the impression that you still didn’t fully believe that your world was a open system[somehow[?!] I mean, what else could it be?] and that this universe may be a closed system.THE WHOLE UNIVERSE? How?!
    Also, “time” as we know it on this world, is just that. Time as we know it.On this planet we judge and measure time by the movement of Earth on it’s axis and by it’s movement around other heavenly bodies within this one little galaxy. Do you think that it’s the same way for everyone everywhere within the whole universe[as Earthlings know it]? I realize that some Christians believe that the whole world revolves around them [theologically speaking, that is] but the whole universe too? Humanity has just b -a -r -e -l -y started to learn what the laws of the universe and Physics may be[as humans understand them, that is].I just surprised that some people can make such sweeping, absolute claims about time and space, while STILL somehow believing that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that men lived with dinosaurs[aside from birds].
    Why would anyone EVER want to live forever? Yes, things break down and living things eventually die, but why is this so “bad”? Without death, there can be no life.You can’t and shouldn’t have it all one way.In the natural world, the dead nourish the living, and provide a birth place for new life. Ever heard of a “nursery tree”? It’s a big old tree[of any kind] that dies, falls, and rots on the forest floor.But in time. it’s so full of new life[worms, grubs, fungi, other bugs, saplings and seedlings of other plants, mosses and ferns, etc.] that pound for pound this dead tree is actually full of MORE LIFE THAN IT HAD WHILE IT LIVED! And that’s not including all the fresh plant-life that grows up in the sunlight that the tree’s vacancy lets in onto the forest floor. This little example of the “nursery tree” can also be applied to bigger things, like your world.And it doesn’t have to stop there you know.Why would it? Because all this goes against you holy book of your Theology on your little planet in your one galaxy? Do you have any idea how many galaxies there could possibily be in this universe??? It has no known boundaries, you know.Only hypothetical ones. Forever is a concept created by people for people.This makes it a somewhat….relative term, idea…. based on the judgment of an individual at a given time and situation. “Forever” is what you think it is. I’ll go now, and give you Maz,[or someone] some time to answer any of my questions.
    Zerxil, to answer you question about the origins of plant life, we need to go back to the same kind of argumentation used to try and provide you with the origins of animal life.And we all know how unsuccessful THAT was.So I’ll just say “the SEA” and leave it at that for now.
    You know Zerxil, unless some of us give up on this debate, between the five of us[me, John, Maz, you, Bob,…and maybe some others?] going on like this, discussing that WHOLE book like you want, this blog promises to go on for a long, long,[reallyreallyreally]long, longlong time.

  333. Zerxil said

    “I feel like it is beating a dead horse, but natural selection is not a random or ‘chance’ process. It is not at all like a tornado coming through a junkyard and assembling a 747 jet, as some creationists have claimed.”

    330 What the Iders say is since natural selection is not random, We think that it couldn’t have been randomly put together. Therefore it had to be created.

    So the real question is. How was natural selection randomly put together. 327 where is that question?

    332 until the end of computers & beyond

    323,320, & 314 was from “The New AIG” book. which strangely is the title

    The universe is not a closed system because outside influences namely God will change it, unless you don’t believe in prayers & God or even gods. Scientifically why is the universe open?

    You have to admit, this is fun. about 564789[25467] give or take a gagillion. :} I’ll never give up. Hey John brought it up twice.

  334. Zerxil said

    Hey, this should have been is Dawkins wright or rong? Because we all know Darwins theories have all been changed and or proved wrong, right?

    332 funny you should mention time bending and religion. 6 day creation and all (not counting rocks and nonliving matter for my medium age earth) 😉 I still think animals should have photosynthesis.

    Who—or What—Is the Designer Then?

    Design obviously implies a designer. To a Christian, the design we see all around us is totally consistent with the Bible’s explanation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), and “For by him [Jesus Christ] all things were created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16).

    However, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, who admit the design in living things, reject the idea of any kind of a Designer/God. In reference to Paley, Dawkins states:

    Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false.8

    Why? It is because Dawkins attributes the design to what he calls “blind forces of physics” and the processes of natural selection. Dawkins writes:

    All appearance to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker [emphasis added].9

    Dawkins does, however, concede that “the more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an Intelligent Designer.”10

    Nonetheless, he rejects the idea of an “Intelligent Designer” and instead offers this “answer”:

    The answer, Darwin’s answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end product relative to the original starting point. The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally nonrandom process.11

    Basically, then, Dawkins is doing nothing more than insisting that natural selection12 and mutations13 together provide the mechanism for the evolutionary process. He believes these processes are nonrandom and directed. In reality, this is just a sophisticated way of saying that evolution is itself the designer.

  335. Zerxil said

    Um, isnt anywhere you are allowed to speak your mind a debate? Your right Chris there has been no intelligent debate done on this site. Because you, I, Fred (both), & everyone posted here. Nope no Intelligence at all here. I know, I’ll invite Mr Dawkins he will sure like to blog here…

  336. Mr Dawkins said

    Hi. All Christians are fools to believe in a creator no matter what the evidence.

  337. John said

    Yes Zerxil, this is fun[toothy grin.
    Well, I have my book now so we can begin, although I must warn you that I type VERY SLOWLY so I’ll probably only have time to debate about one of two topics from the book at a time before I have to go home and go to bed.I wake up so darned early…..
    Once again F. L. A. has beaten me with some rather good points, so I can’t address those.As F. L. A. said above, this promises to go on for a very long time.Are you up for it? It will be an adventure in psychology, if anything[grin]. So…where would you like to begin?
    Welcome back Tripp, Barny, Chris C., and Mr. Griffin.

  338. Zerxil said

    I already have i thought…

    “Does Natural Selection Produce Design?

    Life is built on information. A great amount of this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA, which makes up the genes of an organism. Therefore, to argue that natural selection and mutations are the basic mechanisms of the evolutionary process, one must show that these processes produce the information responsible for the design that is evident in living things.

    Anyone who understands basic biology recognizes, of course, as Darwin did, that natural selection is a logical process that one can observe. However, natural selection only operates on the information that is already contained in the genes—it does not produce new information.14 Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins, in that God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.
    All dogs came from one kind

    It is true that one can observe great variation in a kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information found in the genes of the wolf/dog kind. But the point is that no new information was produced—these varieties of dogs have resulted from a rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with information that previously did not exist.15 Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution.

    Denton confirms this when he states:

    It cannot be stressed enough that evolution by natural selection is analogous to problem solving without any intelligent guidance, without any intelligent input whatsoever. No activity which involves an intelligent input can possibly be analogous to evolution by natural selection.16

    Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists would agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon.
    Can Mutations Produce New Information?

    Actually, scientists now know that the answer is “no!” Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book, Not by Chance:

    In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased. … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.17

    All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.18

    The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time [emphasis added].19

    Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have now come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:

    The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume … . Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory [emphasis added].20

    This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. In answering the question, “Can new information originate through mutations?” he said:

    This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information [emphasis added].21

    So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated as mechanisms to produce the information and design of living systems, then another source must be found.

    But there are even more basic problems for those who reject the Creator God as the source of information.”

  339. Tripp said

    Oh great. Another friggin’ atheist is back (re: post #336). Can’t you people get over trying to convince us Christians that there’s no Creator? It ain’t gonna happen. Don’t insult us by calling us fools. The Moderator will getcha!!!! Haha!!!!

  340. John said

    Ah, now I know where you are..[smile].Canines were not always canines, you know, but you would have to believe in macro-evolution to see that. would you like some names of thier pre-canine ancestors anyway? I’m a little fuzzy on what is exactly meant by Ken Ham’s use of the term “kind”.
    This point your making about mutations being harmful isn’t as hard to explain away as it may seem by reading Ken’s book. Not all mutations are harmful at all. The trouble is in realizing HOW a mutation is harmful, helpful, or if it’s just neutral[as many seem to be].I will give you examples. Unfortunately this would take far more time to do than I have tonight, right now.Please be patient and bear with me[and F. L. A. is out hunting].Perhaps I will have my friend do it for you tomorrow afternoon waking up.Or I’ll get right to it after work, unless someone beats me to it.But now it’s too late. Goodnight.

  341. John said

    Tripp, I’m pretty sure that that post came from Zerxil pretending to be an Atheist. Zerxil, if I am wrong then I apologize.

  342. Zerxil said

    sorry I couldn’t help myself.

  343. Maz said

    I guessed it wasn’t Richard Dawkins, he would not bother debating with us unintelligent Young Earth Creationist believers. But what was said is true. Whatever the evidence……they won’t change their mind and believe in God, because that would cause them to have to recognise their sin and the need for a Savior. Isn’t this the real reason why Richard Dawkins is so anti? It is a humbling experience to meet our God.

    F.L.A: I believe (as I understand the term) in a closed system, because time and space is finite and limited. I believe God made it that way. God is infinite and eternal. Even from a child I wondered how far the universe went on? I tried to get my mind around space going on forever…it was awesome to think about. But now I know the Creator, I understand far more.

    ”Humanity has just b-a-r-e-l-y started to learn what the laws of the universe and Physics may be”. I agree with that….especially the ‘may be’ at the end. They talk (evolutionary worldview) as if they know exactly how the universe, the galaxy, the solar system and life came to be, but every new discovery seems to force them to think again.

    Live forever? Yes, I am looking forward to the day I meet my Savior and I can live forever, not in this limited puny dying body but in a new one in a perfect heaven with no tears, no sickness, no death and disease, and no hatred or violence. I can’t understand anyone not wanting to live like that.
    You don’t think death and disease are bad F.L.A?

    You CAN have life without death. But not here. It will be in eternity with God….if you believe in Jesus Christ ofcourse. The alternative doesn’t bare thinking about. It is OUR choice where we go after death after all.

    Nature reveals the Creators work of death and then resurrection. A picture of Christs death and resurrection. God is the only One who can bring life from the dead.

    In Genesis we read that when God made the trees and the fruit etc., He put the seed within the fruit so that it would perpetuate itself.

    Galaxies. Yes, amazing objects in space. I love Deep Field astronomy, and when I first saw the Hubble pictures of the DF I was awestruck at the emensity of Gods Creation. Millions upon millions of galaxies appear to go on forever…..’appear to’ but don’t. It just goes to show how amazing our Creator God is. He is ‘from everlasting to everlasting’, beyond our comprehension to understand.
    And to think that He is concerned with us little human beings down here on this speck of earth?
    That too is amazing…..but true!

  344. Maz said

    John: ”Canines were not always canines, you know, but you would have to believe in macro-evolution to see that.”
    This is the problem, the evolutionist believes and then sees…not the other way round. How about seeing is believing? Your belief colours what see, not what is actually there in the evidence. You start from the wrong perspective.
    I’d be interested in the ‘missing link’ that you have found between dogs and ??

  345. F. L. A. said

    Maz, you’d be such a dreadful juror.

    What a tiny little cold sad universe you exist in. No, Death and, sometimes disease, is not a bad thing.I’ll explain later after I sleep and eat.

  346. Maz said

    F.L.A: I would weigh ALL the evidence if I were a juror, I would not be partial like evolutionists seem to be, picking out what little ‘evidence’ they imagine is there for their belief.
    And sometimes our world can be cold and sad, for the neglected child, or the drug addict a the end of himself who wants to commit suicide because he can no longer face life anymore, or the prostitute, used and abused for money who feels life is hopeless, or the man dying painfully of cancer without hope of a cure, or the Christian locked up in a cell for just beleiving in God, being systematically tortured for his faith, or on a wider scale, the wars, the bombings, the violence and crime on our streets…..shall I go on? But thank God there is the other side, and I would even go as far as to say, that without Christianity, without the reality of Jesus Christ, our world would be far darker. Christianity (and not the religious-only group but those who truly follow Christ) has made a difference in this world for the better.

  347. “What a tiny little cold sad universe you exist in.”

    Come on, F.L.A. A monster with your intellect can certainly do better than that.

    (smiley face)


  348. Maz said

    Moderator: Don’t you get tempted to butt in more often? I know I would if I were you.

    F.L.A: You don’t see the ‘bigger picture’. You are missing so much. There is a truth out there that if you really knew about it you would be so overwhelmed with thankfulness to God for what He has done for you. But there is no desire in you to even want that, and that is sad indeed.

  349. Moderator (not Stu) said

    Maz – Sometimes I want to throw in my 2 cents, but then I wouldn’t be “moderating.” The F.L.A. is smart as a whip, and a shrewd competitor…and I’m sure understands that post #347 was halfway joking, halfway serious.

  350. Bob Griffin said

    332 F.L.A.

    Looks like you wont believe anything that goes against your atheistic views. Neither of us can prove our point 100%. I have a bible that backs up what I believe. You believe in that beautiful process of evolution. In the intro to Darwins book, they find it ironic that many people believe a mindless process can form us. One of the definitions of mindless is “stupid”. So you believe a stupid process got us where we are.

  351. Zerxil said


  352. Maz said

    I’m going to watch a programme on National Geographic tonight entitled…”Was Darwin wrong?”
    Should be interesting to see what they say. Will relay any interesting answers.

  353. Chris C. said

    What time does that show air, Maz? Maybe I can set it up to record.

  354. Maz said

    Chris: It’s on Sky satelite at 9 pm, but that’s in Britain, don’t know if you will get it your side of the ocean.

  355. abc's said

    I think it’s great that this topic is still being discussed.

  356. Zerxil said

    Speaking of bad jurors, guess what? I’m permanently off the juror list of 3 states. Tiny? This one galaxy is quite large, let alone “Millions upon millions of galaxies”. Maz, I belive, was the one that popped my black hole ‘bubble’. I thought stars & most planet cores were hot, and God is loving, at least the Jesus side. When did Maz say the universe is sad?

  357. Zerxil said

    344 pond scum. Anything higher can be pointed to as a ‘link’ even if it is not.

  358. Zerxil said

    Hey, if a dead person has all the ingredients for life. Why is he still dead?

  359. Barney said

    Dear moderator, we noticed a slang term used by Tripp in post #339 (“Oh great. Another friggin’ atheist is back…”- Tripp). Is this acceptable language?


  360. abc's said


    Because those ingredients are no longer working properly.

  361. Maz said

    Barney: For once I agree with you, but it wasn’t just the word, it was the way it was said about someone else on the blog. It’s not necessary.

    Our galaxy is so large it would take 100,000 years to cross it from one side to the other at the speed of light….186,000 mps (c). Astronomically amazing. Then to leave our galaxy and go to our neighbour spiral it would take about 2 million years at c. and we are still in a local group of galaxies. No galaxy crawling for the human race! And yet there is a universe so vast beyond our local group that the mind boggles to try and think about it. It is a testimony of how great our God really is, because however vast the physical universe is He is eternally beyond it all.

  362. Maz said

    #346: Didn’t anybody spot the mistake? Without Christianity and without the reality of Jesus Christ there wouldn’t be a world, a universe….nothing, because He created it all!

  363. We felt the word “friggin'” was being used mainly sarcastically. But no, it wasn’t necessary. We’ll concur in agreement and issue warning #1 to our friend, Tripp.


  364. Zerxil said

    SORRY tripp

  365. Tripp said

    That’s OK. I’ll stand correct and concede that it was not necessary. My goodness, Truth Talk Live is certainly becoming more and more PC these days. I know, I know….stick to the topic.

  366. F. L. A. said

    Be back in a little while, everybody. I’m going to John’s house to get a bunch of books to bring back HERE, and THEN we can debate.T.T.F.N.

  367. F. L. A. said

    Hello again. Yes Moderator I can do better, but it was dawn and I was tired from roaming around all night.Post#345 was like a drive by shooting. In the future I’ll try to criticize with a little more style and class. Thank you for the compliment.
    Maz, I described your theological version of the universe as tiny,cold, and sad because of all of the limitations, theological or otherwise, that Christians like you give it. You give that little bit of information in post#361 and yet still hold onto your limitations. For good measure? In post #344 and#346, your description of the evolutionist fits you to a tee. This is you as a “juror” involving a case based on evolution and the Natural Sciences:

    Defendant: “Will the witness Stuart A. Kauffman please take the stand?”

    Maz:”But is he a Christian? A true believer?”

    Defendant:”Would the jury please take note of this piece of evidence?”

    Maz: “But is the evidence biblical? Because if it’s not………”

    See what I mean. And of course I’m not interested in becoming a Christian.As they say in Human Resources…”The position’s been filled. Sorry.” You’re trying to sell rowboats to crocodiles again.

    Bob Griffin: Atheistic am I? I thought that you knew me a little better than that by now. Go to the nearby “Christian & Superstitious?” site and see how I stood up for theology against Anti-Christian Atheist Fred.

    I have to go real quick. Be back in a bit.

  368. Maz said

    F.L.A: I still can’t see how my ”limitations theological or otherwise” make my universe tiny, cold and sad. I would say that a life without God is atleast cold and sad if not tiny.
    When I was an unbeliever, living my life my way without God, doing all those things that young people do….yet…..feeling sometimes empty and sad because something was missing. I thot it was love. Love makes the world go round they say. Well, it didn’t exactly make my world go round. It wasn’t until I met Jesus Christ personally, that the world became warm, joyful and full of light. It was if someone switched a light on somewhere in my spirit and soul…I felt clean, I felt new. I felt a different person. Something wonderful happened to me and no one can take away that life I now have with God through Jesus Christ. My life was never the same again after I asked Christ into my life when I was 26. My husband that then was thot it was a five minute wonder. He was wrong. My relationship with Jesus has lasted over 30 years…..even with many a storm to rock my boat at times.
    But to convey such a truth to someone else is like trying to explain the colour red to a blind man. And why would a blind man want to remain blind? It baffles me.

  369. F. L. A. said

    And not to continue…I never described evolution as a mindless process, Mr. Griffin.Many creationist use something that we refer to as the “randomness argument”. What is “random” anyway? We are never told, and forced to draw our own conclusions.This argument says that self organization cannot occur because the process is “blind” and “random”,that is supposed to drive it.
    Never mind that the system has finite number of states that it can occupy and it’s history can constrain it’s future states.This borrows from the thermodynamic argument mentioned in above posts, the confusion over entropy and open system states. The theory of evolution doesn’t say things happened by “chance”. This argument completely ignores natural selection. It is easy to get a very complicated system containing a tremendous amount of information starting from very simple low information systems. How? Two possibilities are:
    Fractal structures- start with a very simple rule and repeat it over and over and..[infinity]. The resulting structure can be [and usually is] very complicated but the formation equations can be very very simple.And the universe[deity?] has had a VERY long time to work on this. For example, look at a snowflake.
    Chaos- One can get very, very complicated systems if one uses nonlinearities in the progression.This is why weather forecasting doesn’t work very accurately.
    Complexity[like of D.N.A. or animal cells, for example] does not have to imply design Maz and Bob, for according to books that I’ve read, recursion and nonlinearity work quit well.
    Zerxil, about your question in post #358, did you read what I said about Nursery Trees in post#332? In a way the same example can apply to a dead animal body.

    And now John has arrived.

  370. Zerxil said

    330 What the Iders say is since natural selection is not random, We think that it couldn’t have been randomly put together. Therefore it had to be created.

    So the real question is. How was natural selection randomly put together. 327 where is that question?

    TTL killed my earbuds, almost fell off my chair can only hear in one plug now. I’ll have to buy another 99c earbud sigh.

  371. F. L. A. said

    Then you shall have to be contented to remain baffled, Maz.
    I can appreciate that you’ve found something that has helped you to fulfill your spiritual needs and become a stronger, better, happier person.I commend ANY theology or personal pursuit that helps one in such ways. But if you think that your way is the only good way for EVERYONE, then you are mistaken.

  372. Zerxil said

    This doesn’t answer my question but is intriguing.

    I want to emphasize that the purpose of this lab is to investigate whether evolution could create complex structures, but not to test whether evolution actually occurred or not.

    The TA asks the class for a brief review of how natural selection works. In this review, the TA draws out from the class that mutation is an important component of evolution—without it evolution would come to a halt.

    The TA then asks the class how it could test the idea of whether mutation and selection could create adaptation. The discussion is led to the possibility of answering this question with models, and models are described as an attractive method for studying complex processes. Several examples are given: computer models for studying climate, small-scale physical models for studying engineering problems, and simple organisms with short generation times (e.g., fruit flies) for studying development and genetics.

    The TA then introduces the model organism that will be used to test whether mutation and selection can mimic design. The “straw glider” is a paper airplane made from a drinking straw and two strips of paper taped in a circle (Figure 1). The class is told that the lab will have two parts. First, the class will design paper airplanes themselves and then will test whether evolution can create similar designs.

    Um, how could a nonliving thing like paper airplanes that the students intelligently designed evolve by themselves?

    Once the TA is sure that the students understand the complexity of their task, she asks them how they are searching the multidimensional parameter space to find the best design. One way to do this is to optimize one structure on the airplane at a time. While not perfect, this strategy is likely to reach a good first approximation.

    Next, students are told to develop a model of paper airplane evolution to see if it can mimic the designs that they came up with. The class is told to work on the problem in groups. The discussion that follows is a valuable learning experience, because it forces them to apply their understanding of natural selection to paper airplane evolution. There is no single correct way to model evolution with paper airplanes, but a model will have to have reproduction, mutation, inheritance, and selection. Mutation, for example, may be incorporated by rolling dice and flipping coins. The roll of a die can be used to select which one of the six characteristics of the airplane will mutate, and a coin can then be flipped to determine whether the mutation results in an increase or decrease in the value of that trait. Students will have to decide whether mutations all have the same magnitude of effect, whether paper airplanes are sexual or asexual, whether genotypes need to be explicitly modeled, and how large a population is to be studied. Finally, students will have to decide exactly how selection will operate. For example, will only the airplane that flies the farthest each generation survive and reproduce? Or will more than one plane survive each generation? And how will flight length be measured? As the length of a single flight, the longest of several, or some other way? At each juncture, the TA can instigate a discussion of whether the feature in question makes a difference for the test being performed.

    Once each lab group has developed a model of evolution, the instructor begins a class discussion to compare models. Each group shares their model with the class, and the instructor assists the class in combining these approaches into a consensus model, which everyone in the class will use when their evolution experiments begin. We have used the following parameters with good results. The “ancestral” airplane that begins the simulation has two wings made from strips of paper 2 cm wide × 20 cm long, which were taped to the wing 3 cm from the end of the straw. All mutations change parameters by 1 cm, and this change was just as likely to decrease a parameter as to increase it. We assume that airplanes are asexual and that only the plane that flies the farthest of three throws survives to the next generation.

    The first lab session ends when the class has finished developing a consensus model of evolution. In the second lab session, the class is given 2 hr to simulate several generations of paper airplane evolution.

    When this work is done, the TA asks the groups to report to the class, “What kind of airplane did evolution come up with?” We ask each group to present a graph of how far the airplane flew in each generation of their simulation and to produce a scaled drawing of the cross section of the final plane. Groups present consistent results—a small front wing and a large back wing is the most effective design for maximizing flight distance, whether designed by students or created by evolution.

    The TA then asks the class, “How did the evolutionary process compare to your design process?” Most students will see a similarity. Their design process depended heavily on systematic trial and error—similar to evolution, except that changes were not random. The TA may ask the class if this is how airplanes are really designed. Engineers use extensive knowledge of aeronautical principles to design airplanes, but testing (and even trial and error) has played an important role in airplane design. The TA might ask the class if they are likely to end up with a substantially different airplane if they had a better understanding of aerodynamics. We argue they would not.

    The TA then asks the important questions, “What do these results show us? Have we shown that mutation and selection can create eyes and other complex traits that would have impressed Paley? And if not, what have we shown?” The answer is that random mutation, coupled with selection, can do a good job of finding a combination of sizes and shapes of body parts that maximize the performance of a relatively complex structure. This is an important component of evolution, and it suggests that mutation and selection could refine the structure of an eye from a primitive precursor. Therefore, evolution can mimic some aspects of design.

    However, the lab does not show where the airplane’s wings came from in the first place. The model airplane is an entirely hypothetical organism, but there are several possibilities. For example, the two circular wings of the airplane may have evolved from a single flat wing (Figure 2). The TA notes that each step in this process is conceptually identical to the evolution conducted in the lab (except perhaps for the wing duplication). The TA tells the class that the origins of a few real organs (eyes, wings, legs) will be discussed in class.

  373. Zerxil said

    um, please insert evolution where I said natural selection on 370, doh. Natural selection just states that the least fittest die.

  374. Zerxil said

    time to eat, ill probably be on later

    Impact of the idea

    Darwin’s ideas, along with those of Adam Smith and Karl Marx, had a profound influence on 19th century thought. Perhaps the most radical claim of the theory of evolution through natural selection is that “elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner” evolved from the simplest forms of life by a few simple principles. This claim inspired some of Darwin’s most ardent supporters—and provoked the most profound opposition. The radicalism of natural selection, according to Stephen Jay Gould,[47] lay in its power to “dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional comforts of Western thought”. In particular, it challenged long-standing beliefs in such concepts as a special and exalted place for humans in the natural world and a benevolent creator whose intentions were reflected in nature’s order and design.

    [edit] Social and psychological theory

    The social implications of the theory of evolution by natural selection also became the source of continuing controversy. Friedrich Engels, a German political philosopher and co-originator of the ideology of communism, wrote in 1872 that “Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom”.[48] Interpretation of natural selection as necessarily ‘progressive’, leading to increasing ‘advances’ in intelligence and civilisation, was used as a justification for colonialism and policies of eugenics, as well as broader sociopolitical positions now described as Social Darwinism. Konrad Lorenz won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973 for his analysis of animal behavior in terms of the role of natural selection (particularly group selection). However, in Germany in 1940, in writings that he subsequently disowned, he used the theory as a justification for policies of the Nazi state. He wrote “… selection for toughness, heroism, and social utility…must be accomplished by some human institution, if mankind, in default of selective factors, is not to be ruined by domestication-induced degeneracy. The racial idea as the basis of our state has already accomplished much in this respect.”[49] Others have developed ideas that human societies and culture evolve by mechanisms that are analogous to those that apply to evolution of species.[50]

    More recently, work among anthropologists and psychologists has led to the development of sociobiology and later evolutionary psychology, a field that attempts to explain features of human psychology in terms of adaptation to the ancestral environment. The most prominent such example, notably advanced in the early work of Noam Chomsky and later by Steven Pinker, is the hypothesis that the human brain is adapted to acquire the grammatical rules of natural language.[51] Other aspects of human behavior and social structures, from specific cultural norms such as incest avoidance to broader patterns such as gender roles, have been hypothesized to have similar origins as adaptations to the early environment in which modern humans evolved. By analogy to the action of natural selection on genes, the concept of memes – “units of cultural transmission”, or culture’s equivalents of genes undergoing selection and recombination – has arisen, first described in this form by Richard Dawkins[52] and subsequently expanded upon by philosophers such as Daniel Dennett as explanations for complex cultural activities, including human consciousness.[53] Extensions of the theory of natural selection to such a wide range of cultural phenomena have been distinctly controversial and are not widely accepted.[54]

  375. John said

    Hello everybody.Now to try and finish answering about helpful mutations…
    The most popular example for a helpful mutation in humanity that I know of is the gene for Sickle Cell disease, which has the ability to protect carriers from Malaria.This benefit existed despite the fact that children born with two copies of this gene were afflicted with Sickle Cell Anemia.
    Lactose tolerance is another good example.Did you know that this was the result of mutated genes[smile]? There is a reason why mammals get weaned off of milk.But humans are weird and continued to consume dairy products, so…presto! Mutated genes, and the trait was passed on. Enjoy that ice cream!
    there is also resistance to Atherosclerosis and immunity to H.I.V..
    I found a most informative website for you to browse through Zerxil. First type in “Helpful Mutations” and then go to the site that’s titled “”Are Mutations Harmful?”. It should give you plenty to think about.
    Maz, do you really want to know what canines evolved from?

  376. John said

    I have to go for the evening, Zerxil. I’ll get back to you tomorrow evening.Goodnight.

  377. Zerxil said

    “There are more recessive mutations than dominant ones just due to simple probabilities. Let’s
    say you have a protein made up of 1000 amino acids. Those 1000 amino acids will fold up just
    so, depending on the interactions between all 1000 of them.

    In the discussion below, keep in mind that you have two copies of each gene: one from each

    A change in the identity of almost any of those 1000 amino acids (due to a mutation at the DNA
    level) might well lead to a non-functional protein, where the protein is misfolded. In most
    cases, this will lead to a recessive mutation. Why recessive? Because you have one good gene
    that makes the normal protein, and a mutated copy of the gene that makes a defective
    (non-functional) protein. As long as you have one good copy of the gene, you are in business.

    Now what are the chances of a mutation causing a change that leads to a protein with a new and
    different function? A protein that folds up in a new way that give it a new, novel function?
    Not good. But if it does happen, this woud be a dominant mutation. Why dominant? Because even
    though you are making the normal protein from the “good” copy of the gene, the mutated version
    of the gene is making a mutated protein that is somehow over-riding the function of the normal

    Consider an analogy (albiet a poor one!): You have two radios playing the same station (the
    radios represents the two copies of the gene that encode the protein. The music represents the
    protein. You hit one of the radios with a hammer (this represents a mutation occuring in that
    copy of the gene). In 99% of the time, you will destroy one of the radios, causing the music
    to stop coming out of that radio. Do you notice it? Not really, because the other radio keeps
    playing. This is a recessive mutation. You won’t notice it in the presence of a normal copy of
    the gene.

    Now once in a great while, banging on the radio will create a “mutation” that causes it to play
    louder, or on a different station, etc. Do you notice it? Yes, it interferes with your hearing
    the “normal” radio. It is a dominant mutation.

    Which outcome is more likely? Hope this helps.”

  378. Maz said

    # 371: You’re wrong F.L.A, but I am afraid you may find that out when it’s too late.

    Well, I watched National Geographics rendition of ”Was Darwin wrong?” last night.
    Yet another biased, one sided and unbalanced documentary to try and convince us evolution is not a theory but fact. Why then call it the Theory of evolution?
    They had Ken Ham from AiG, well, a couple of sentences, neither of which contained any scientific objections to their theory. So a completely one sided programme as usual.
    They tried to give a very simplistic explanation of the evolution of the eye….one of Creationists objections. Really, if that is all they can come up with, it is at the least a very weak argument against Creation. And nowhere did they explain the evolution of the brain and it’s relationship to the eye…..far more complex than nature can come up with by natural selection. Who are they trying to kid?

    They tell us that one of our forerunners were the reptiles. I guess someone may see a similarity there!

    Then they explain away the natural selection that hinders and not helps. Peacock feathers!
    And the answer for that….sex.
    The female brain is the thing that caused the male peacock to have such brightly coloured feathers to attract her!

    And then, our hearts are somehow related to the sea squirts heart…in evolution that is…somehow!
    Genes change all by themselves, random ERRORS produced change…..and so it goes on.
    I really was not convinced one iota from this floundering attempt at proving Darwin was right all along.

    At the end they said about Creationists…”…their objections don’t stand up. One by one science has proved them wrong.”
    What a bold statement considering that Ken Ham or any other Creationist scientist was not allowed to explain their objections anywhere in the programme, just that life was so complex it had to be created and the complexity of the eye.
    If they really want to prove that evolution is no longer a theory but fact they will have to do a lot better than one single fossil proving transitional forms!! A fossil that actually looked very much like a crocodile.
    National Geographic certainly kept well to their very biased beliefs.

  379. Maz said

    F.L.A: If evolution wasn’t a result of chance or randomness (which they said it was in the doc. I watched) what actully ‘purposed’ the genes, what ‘made’ them do what they did? Are you saying they somehow ‘worked out’ or ‘found a way’ (as they again said in the doc.) to fo what they did to get where they wanted to go? Surely if it wasn’t chance, then it was purposed?
    Doesn’t this suggest intelligence?

  380. Maz said

    OOps! Correction: ‘do’ not ‘fo’!

  381. Maz said

    #375: Have you no answer about our doggie ancestors then?

  382. F. L. A. said

    Oh yes, he does. Or I could give it to you-later.I think that he just wondered because really, there’s no point as it involves animal life that you wouldn’t believe in from a time that we know you don’t believe in. Good thing we gave up on trying to convince you, eh?
    As to your question in post#379, this is the kind of thing that you should ask an Atheist instead of us. Remember, we believe in a form of “creationism” too. Theistic Evolution.

  383. Maz said

    F.L.A: I ”…there’s no point as it involves animal life that you wouldn’t believe in from a time that we know you don’t believe”. Does this animal life exist then? If the evidence is there to see then I should see it.

  384. Bob Griffin said


    Sorry about the atheist comment. You may not have referred to evolution as mindless, but Darwins book does. Does that count now, or have we redefined the term?

    Heres a mind exercise for you. My body is in a transitional state. I have one arm and one leg on my left side. How does natural selection know to give a corresponding arm and leg on the right side? Or, once again, do I not understand the theory?

  385. Maz said

    Bob: Maybe we should ask our evolution friends if we flay our arms out long enough do you think humans will be able to fly one day?

  386. Maz said

    To be serious……if we didn’t have the genes for wings, there would be no hope of us ever getting wings to fly.

  387. F. L. A. said

    Maz, to respond to your post, yes, you should see the evidence of this animal life, for it exists.
    But you won’t. You won’t accept it, just as you won’t accept all of the other evidence that has been supplied by various posters on these sites, books, websites, museums,etc.Your faith will not allow it to even exist for you. This is what makes it odd, that you still want us to keep trying to provide you with evidence that everybody already knows you will never accept.You have mentioned in the past your unwillingness to study topics that you personally disagree with.In my opinion this should be all the more reason to study said topics.To not do so is to only hurt yourself in the long run.
    Did you ever study up on the Cambrian time period, of the Paleozoic Era 540-500 m.y.a. and it’s animal life like you said you would? You had brought it up in reference to fossilized victims of the Biblical Flood story, remember? If so, then what did you deduce from that?

    No Mr. Griffin, you still do not seem to understand.In your hypothetical scenario,the question comes to my mind as to WHY you would have only one arm and leg on your left side.Why would the processes of natural selection have created such an unnatural,handicapped form for you in the first place? Did you, in this hypothetical scenario, belong to a limbless species[not even flippers or anything] and are now developing limbs, you being the first innovative mutant of your species? Is this what you are trying to present in your mind exercise?

  388. F. L. A. said

    Zerxil, in post#374, which part of the book are you at?

  389. Maz said

    F.L.A: This is a place for debate, you give me what you believe, I give you what I believe, that’s the way it goes. You don’t accept what I say any more than I believe what you say, but I thot you were on here for the fun of it?
    When have I ever said I was unwilling to discuss topics that I personally disagree with?
    I have said I wouldn’t discuss topics I don’t know much about…that is different.
    And you have ducked out of the dog ancestor again. Humour me, as I know you enjoy doing that.
    And yes, I did look up about the Cambrian Explosion and shall write about that tomorrow if you like…..but ofcourse you won’t accept what I say so shouldn’t I also duck out of that topic? Mmmmmmm.

  390. Chris C. said

    Greetins all,

    Maz, in regards to post 378, I am sorry I mised the program. For debate’s sake I would have loved to have seen it. First off, I think you know that in the realm of science and research there is no standing objection to the modern theory of evolution. Scientists see it on par with things such as gene theory or germ theory — they have that much confidence in it. That’s why they don’t waste time presenting the “other views.” It would be like an astronomy class taking a whole half of the course talking about astrology. I’m not going to say I think this is right or fair. But for better or worse, that is the perception by most “real scientists”.

    Sexual selection is a very well understood phenomenon. A man ( I believe his name was Zahari but don’t quote me on that) formed what he called the Handicap Principle. It basically said that some behaviors such as gazelles who jump high to attract the attention of predators are actually an evolutionarily stable strategy because of the risk/reward payoff. In other words, gazelles who can jump around in front of lions and get away must seem more fit to their possible mates than those gazelles whos limp away sheepishly. Sexual selection follows a similar (although biologically different) path. Males who have the brightest/biggest/loudest attributes indicates to possible mates that said male is very fit. It is just like bees being attracted to the brightest red flowers but not to certain other colors. Sexual selection and even the handicap principle are well observed evolutionary processes. They are evidentially backed up by population frequency numbers.

    I missed the program so I can’t say how convincing the arguments might have been. Suffice it to say that if there remains any single unanswered question, you will likely feel the need to hold on to your God as an answer to that question. Myself, I would love to have all the answers, but I am okay with accepting that there are some things we do not, or I do not know. Unaswered questions, to me, say “we need to study this more,” whereas I think to many religious people unanswered questions say, “God must be the answer.” I know that religion serves many good purposes in society and in lives, but to me this stifling of the pursuit of knowledge is one of its most basic and inherently counterproductive aspects.

    So, hopefully for the last time, can we discuss the use of the word “theory” in a purely scientific context? In science, a theory is a set of hypotheses which are used collectively to explain phenomena and make predictions about unobserved phenomena. To be regarded as a theory, this set of hypotheses has to be rigorously tested against available data and evidence, and must hold up to scrutiny by every member of the scientific community. NOW, in society I know we sometimes use jargon like “theory” to mean “an educated guess.” This is not at all what it means in science. That we call it “The Theory of Evolution” should not lead anyone to doubt the veracity of the theory.

    And a word on randomness, intelligence, et al… Forgive me for using this example again, but is a seive intelligent because it separates big particles from small ones? Is a round hole intelligent because it only lets round pegs through and not square ones? I would say no. Natural selection works in much the same way. There are many different sets of genes (as many different sets as there are organisms). Some may be round pegs, some square, some triangular, etc. Natural selection works in such a way that only the round pegs get through the hole. Or, if the environmental pressures change, perhaps only the square pegs get through. It is a mindless process, and it has no final endpoint in mind. Natural selection simply takes stock of all the genotypes available and allows the fittest to reproduce and pass on their fit genes to the next generation. People often say, “could the eye have evolved BY CHANCE???” And of course every creationist groans, “NO!”. Well I agree, the eye could not have evolved by chance. But chance is not the alternative to intelligent design. Evolution by natural selection is the non-random selection of random genetic mutations. Genes mix and combine randomly, sure. But natural selection favors things in a very precise and indeed predictable way.

    Finally, if anyone is interested, Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent essay on the so-called “information challenge” about the creationists’ line that “Evolution cannot create new genetic information!” I will post the link to the article in the following post.

    Sorry for the length of the post. I had been away for a bit.

  391. Chris C. said

    Well, for some reason it won’t let me post a link. For anyone interested just google: “Dawkins information challenge” and click on the first result.

  392. Zerxil said

    Chris the title of the show was “was Darwin wrong”. So why should they have chose this title if it is ‘known’. Just trying to trick the Christians into watching I’d guess… seams to have worked.

  393. Zerxil said

    chapter 1 or I think it is. lifted it from their website.

  394. Zerxil said

    “The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time – that is precisely what natural selection means)”

    I thought that genetic mutation did that?

  395. John said

    Thank you Zerxil. It must be in a part that I looked over[When I got the book I was most interested in the parts involving nature, the flood, and the dinosaurs].
    Maz, unwillingness to study, not discuss. We know how much you’re willing to discuss topics that you disagree with[smile].I would have liked to have seen the show too, but I don’t even live with a television. I can hardly wait to read your information on the Cambrian Era.
    As for the information on canine ancestors, here is what you asked for: The Canidae family evolved from the Miacids[they looked like weasels] of which there were two types based on the differences of their teeth.This was way back in the Eocene epoch about 40 million years ago[I could have gone back further but decided to keep things “mammalian”]. Then came the Hesperocyoninae about 39 m.y.a, the Borophaginae about 36 m.y.a.[now they are starting to look “dog-like”, some like raccoons and some as big as bears and lions]and the Mesocyon[looked a lot like a civet in size and shape] over 24 m.y.a.
    By now the Hesperocyoninine “dogs” had become extinct save for the two family branches, the Nothocyon and the Lepyocyon.
    It was not until the Miocene epoch about 10 m.y.a.that canines looked somewhat like canines as we would recognize them.
    Is this good enough of would you like me to go back further and get more descriptive? If so it will have to wait. I’m leaving to go camping tomorrow and you won’t hear from me until Sunday or Monday.Have a great weekend everyone!

  396. Maz said

    Chris: ”In the realm of science and research there is no standing objection to the modern theory of evolution.” (Why call it a theory if it is fact??)
    But there IS a scientific objection from Creationist scientists. People who believe in evolution seem to think and they have said it on here, that the science and evidence Creationists produce is not science. I beg to differ prefusely. These are qualified scientists in their differing fields of expertise, they are not just Christians with faith, they do have scientific evidence that can prove that not only does evolution not work but everything in life and in the Universe cries out that there is a Creator. The evolutionist just doesn’t want to acknowledge that even when there IS evidence. And evolutionists have actually admitted as much.

    Astronomy and astrology are two different things entirely. We are talking about science against science, on the same level but with apparenty different interpretations. It all depends what world view you are coming from.
    Evolutionists tend to believe in evolution, THEN they look for the evidence. This is the wrong way round.

    Explain to me how natural selection creates new species? With the DNA in place to make them.

    I don’t need to ”hold onto God” for answers to my belief in Creation, He holds me! I KNOW Him personally, can you understand that?

    ”To be regarded as a theory, this set of hypotheses has to be rigorously tested against available data and evidence and must hold up to scrutiny by every member of the scientific community”.
    Again you ignore and omit the members of the scientific community that do not believe in evolution.
    Evolution theory DOES NOT hold up to their scrutiny.

    The word THEORY in the dictionary does not in any way mean FACT. And why do we not call it the Fact of evolution as we call things in life as The Facts of Life? Facts are facts and Theory is theory.

    The sieve is a thing made by someone for a specific purpose so it will do what it is meant to do, but ask a bowl to make the holes to separate the particles and you have a problem.
    Something ”mindless” cannot create such order that we see in nature, let alone in the complexity of each cell.
    We have 100 trillion cells in our body….think about it….and each one has to do the job it was meant to do in every single part of our body….and according to evolution all randomly and mindlessly and without any outside agent whatsoever, they just go along randomly selecting what they need? This is more in the realms of science fiction than even theory.

    You speak of natural selection as if it does have a mind of it’s own, an ability to somehow make a choice of it’s non-random selection of random genetic mutations. And by mutations you mean mistakes? Because that is what they are. So evolution is built on mistakes?
    And what happens to the animal while these mutations are taking place before the non-random selection makes the right selection? We should see a lot of mistakes in the fossil record?

    ”Natural selection favours things in a very precise and indeed predictable way”.
    To predict something you have to know that it will do it before it does it…..but could
    we (if we had the power) predict what natural selection will select before it selects it? Can we predict what something random will do? Ofcourse not.

    It just doesn’t work.

  397. Maz said

    John: I am certainly not unwilling to study…I read about this and other subjects every day. If I wasn’t willing I wouldn’t bother even being on here.
    Your discription of dog ancestry sounds like is is based purely on their similarities, but I will look this up just to confirm what you have said…..I’m not very confident that I shall find the evidence for evolution in dogs but anyway…..
    And the Cambrian explosion is coming! I have to go out. Be back later.

  398. Chris C. said

    Re 392: These shows always use titles that are sure to draw viewers. Shows about asteroids are called “Doomsday?” I’m sure you know what I mean. Its about ratings. And if more people find the title interesting, more people might tune in.

  399. Maz said

    John: I’m going to copy and paste what I have filed in my Documents about the Cambrian Explosion. You can then research deeper into it if you so wish. And I shall get more info on the dog ancestry. Does that mean that there are no missing links in that family? Or is volution barking up the wrong tree? Sorry, I couldn’t resist it! 🙂

    Cambrian Explosion.
    The ‘Cambrian Explosion’ is so-called because it represents a sudden appearance (from the evolutionist’s perspective) of every major body plan that exists in the natural world today. By ‘body plan’ I mean that just about all the major groups (called Phyla; singular Phylum) are already represented in the “earliest” fossil bearing rocks. This does not represent a problem for the Bible believing scientist because we believe that the fossil record is largely the evidence of the world-wide catastrophe of Noah’s Flood and that the ‘Cambrian explosion’ represents the burial of numerous creatures of various sorts early in the year of the Flood. In this part of the fossil record, it is primarily aquatic animals that are found so it probably represents the burial of deep water ecosystem creatures that existed prior to the violent onset of the Flood. Of course, this is just a very sketchy outline. There is much more that you could read.

    A couple of articles that deal with this are as follows:
    Exploding evolution
    The only multicellular animal fossils found beneath ‘Cambrian’ rocks are the so-called Ediacaran group, a peculiar group which is regarded as an …
    creationontheweb.com/content/view/930 – 38k –

    Ediacaran ‘explosion’
    However, paleontologists have recently identified another ‘explosion’ in the fossil record in the Ediacaran ‘period’, which they dubbed the ‘Avalon …
    creationontheweb.com/content/view/5654/ – 35k –

  400. Bob Griffin said

    F.L.A. 387

    Good question. Natural selection is a mindless process, so how would it know? Maybe since you understand the theory you can expain to me how natural selection gets the arms, legs, ears, feet, hands, kidneys and lungs opposite of each other correctly.

    Lets let you do the mind exercise for me. Darwin assumed we started from one existing animal. Lets say it was a bear. Explain how we get from a bear to a human.

  401. Barney said

    The idea that all the scientists in the world should stop what they are doing and pay attention to Ken Ham, or to the Institute for Creation Research (or to any of the others) is so absurd that it hardly bears mentioning.

    These creationists don’t really want to be accepted by the scientific peerage, but rather by society at large and thereby getting this junk science back into the public schools.

    Their goals are political in nature.

    It is we non-fundamentalist folk who need to be vigilant in performing our civic duties.

  402. Chris C. said

    Hey Bob, it wasn’t a bear we started from. The basis of the theory is that we started as single celled life, or something even more basic. Also, evolution doesn’t necessarily have a direction in mind. Natural Sleection simply favors the fittest genes in each population and so on through each sucessive generation. As billions of years (and many billions of generations) pass by, you can imagine the many different combinations of DNA, in addition to mutation, deletion, and other means of recombination.

    Maz, I dont have time at the moment but I will respond to your points in post 396.

  403. Maz said

    Barney: It is absurd to say that their motives are political. Why does everything have to have a political motive? There is more to life than politics.

    Chris: You could sit at a computer for billions of years and type in random letters but you will never get a complex and informative language out of it yet you are asking us to believe that mindless natural selection, given a few tens of millions of years, can make all the fantastic types of animal life we have today from brown sludge. All the DNA strands we have today came from what? What was in that sludge that ‘created’ the ‘higher’ strands of DNA?
    And then higher and higher forms? You need to really think about what evolution and natural selection really means.
    And I have a question…if natural selection is as mindless as you claim, then how did it come to create, over billions of years ofcourse, our sophisticated, thinking, imaginative, creative minds? Where did our soul come from?

  404. F. L. A. said

    Maz, I already tried to explain that to you within post#369.
    But perhaps Chris C. will be more successful[but I doubt it].
    I’d deffenintly say that SOME lifeforms I know are based on mistakes.

    Bob, perhaps a better question would be, how does something like a bear [in time through evolution] become a sentient dominate life form?

  405. F. L. A. said

    Also I am curious, what do you think a soul is Maz?
    Or anyone else.

  406. Zerxil said

    Evolution is routinely trumpeted as the cornerstone of modern biology, indispensable even to modern medical research. Therefore, if someone questions Darwinian evolution and its reliance on unpredictable mutation and natural selection, you are questioning science itself. At least that’s how the gatekeepers of science explain it.

    Never mind that over seven hundred PhD trained scientists from around the world have openly signed a statement questioning the ability of Darwinism to account for the complexity of life. You’ll find my name among them (www.dissentfromdarwin.org). We are usually dismissed as being misguided, uninformed or religiously motivated. We couldn’t possibly have legitimate scientific objections to Darwinian evolution.

    Many have refrained from signing that list because of the possible repercussions to their career. But isn’t there academic freedom in this country? Doesn’t science progress by always questioning and leaving even cherished theories open to reinterpretation? Isn’t science all about following the evidence wherever it leads? Well, in theory, yes. Practically, scientists are human, too, and often don’t like it when favorite ideas are reexamined.

  407. Bob Griffin said

    Chris C.

    Darwin assumed one animal was already there and we all evolved from it. How do you know it wasnt a bear? Evolution doesnt have a direction in mind? How can a mindless process have any direction? I would really like for some of you evolutionists to complete the mind exercise for me.

    F.L.A. Its hard to imagine a transitional form, isnt it? Pick any life form you want and walk me through a transition

  408. Barney said

    Zerx, ol’ buddy, that list is a famous propaganda tool from the creationist Discovery Institute. Your referring to it only helps prove my point that you guys don’t really want to be reviewed by real scientists (who don’t have time for such nonsense anyway).

    Maz: ignore

  409. Maz said

    F.L.A: You may not say it’s mindless but someone did. If it isn’t mindless, then who’s mind created it all?

    On the programme about whether Darwin was wrong or right the other night, they showed us a neat little tree, starting at one point and then branching out nicely into many channels, which branched out into many other channels……but, they didn’t show the gaps between all the branches and channels, I wonder why?

    And I looked that up about the dog ancestry and I don’t see anything that convinces me that dogs havn’t always been dogs, whether they were wolves, jackals or foxes, they are all of the ‘dog’ family, always have been and always will be. I have asked Answers in Genesis to give me their gen on it, so may have some more to tell you later.

    And why don’t we see inbetween stages of animals today, ones with half of something developing.
    And amphibians are not a transitional form, they are jus amphibians. But for arguments sake, we have fish, we have amphibians and we have animals on land. Whatt about the transitional forms between the transitional forms….the ones between fish and amphibians or amphibians to animals? Why do we not see a slow progression of evolving animal species?

  410. Barney said

    So does Zerxil just cut and paste without citations? see posts 372,374,377, etc.

    Have the moderators asked him about it?

  411. Maz said

    I’v used copy and paste a couple of times because it’s easier than copying the whole thing laboriously by fingertips. I think we all get our info from the web or from books, some things we know off the top of our heads without consulting them, but I think the information is relevant none the less.

    P.S. F.L.A: I must say dogs have been around an awful long time havn’t they? What dating method are these scientists using for such long ages?

  412. Zerxil said

    395 which of those creatures do we have fossil evidence of?

  413. Barney said

    Once again Maz reads but doesn’t seem to comprehend.

    Oops, I forgot, I am ignoring her.

    Never mind.

  414. Maz said

    F.L.A: What is a soul? it is my emotions, my will, my desires,my thots, my heart (not the physical one) my dreams and imaginations, my ‘inner man’ as the Bible calls it. It is the heart of my being as a human. Capable of thinking and logic, working things out, creating and inventing things. It is the real me inside this physical body. I also possess a spirit which is separate yet one with my being.

  415. Zerxil said

    323,320,314,374 was from “The New AIG” book. which strangely is the title

    First type in “Helpful Mutations” 377

    372 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1667065
    he asked for it

    394 dawkins website

    406 probe

    sorry guys I just see something interesting or relevant I post it.

  416. Zerxil said

    408 which part of it is false? 406

  417. Zerxil said

    by the way, I think every theory should have an antithesis. It helps prove or disprove faster. the more that is known about both sides the faster we can change them into more correct forms. There is a major lack of fossil evidence for the forms in evolution text books which gives young earthers (and middle earthers:))more ammo. I can see where it is theoretically possible for it to have happened the evolution way. Of course the same could be said about anti-gravity, and Time travel.

  418. Chris C. said

    “There is a major lack of fossil evidence for the forms in evolution text books which gives young earthers (and middle earthers:))more ammo.”

    This is simply incorrect. What transitional forms have been mentioned have been dismissed without reason by you all. There are plenty of transitional fossils and most of the major transitions (human to ape, reptile to mammal, reptile to bird, mammals to whales) are well understood and backed up by fossil evidence. I’m sorry your religious beliefs preclude you from accepting the fossils.

  419. Zerxil said

    HEY BOB 395

    As for the information on canine ancestors, here is what you asked for: The Canidae family evolved from the Miacids[they looked like weasels] of which there were two types based on the differences of their teeth.This was way back in the Eocene epoch about 40 million years ago[I could have gone back further but decided to keep things “mammalian”]. Then came the Hesperocyoninae about 39 m.y.a, the Borophaginae about 36 m.y.a.[now they are starting to look “dog-like”, some like raccoons and some as big as bears and lions]and the Mesocyon[looked a lot like a civet in size and shape] over 24 m.y.a.
    By now the Hesperocyoninine “dogs” had become extinct save for the two family branches, the Nothocyon and the Lepyocyon.
    It was not until the Miocene epoch about 10 m.y.a.that canines looked somewhat like canines as we would recognize them.

  420. Barney said

    Re: 416

    Zerxil, have you not googled “Dissent from Darwin”?

    Check this out:


  421. Maz said

    If there was so much proof of ape to man, why put so much effort into the Piltdown man fraud? It was found to be a forgery 41 years after it’s discovery in 1912.
    And what about the Nabraska man? One single tooth was discovered in 1922 and an entire evolutionary link was built between ape and man….until…an identical tooth was found in the same area protruding from the jaw of a…..PIG!

    Or, Java man. A skull cap, 3 teeth and a femur were found for this ape to man specimen. But actually the femur was found 50 FEET away a YEAR LATER. And for almost 30 years the discoverer Eugene Dubois down played the Wadjak skulls (2 undoubtedly human skulls that were found very close to his ‘missing link’).

    Or the Neanderthal man, or the Orce man found in 1982.
    Then there is little Lucy!
    All these were misinterpreted and there is actually no fossil evidence of half ape, half man anywhere. The finds evolutionists talk about are either all ape, or all human.

    Evolutionists are so desperate to find the ‘missing link’ that they grab at anything and try and make it what it isn’t.

  422. Zerxil said

    All the world’s mammals that exist today evolved from small insectivorous rat-like animals that began to evolve during the Cretaceous period. At the end of the age of dinosaurs, some 65 million years ago, these animals now had the opportunity to evolve and become more specialized. The order Carnivora began to emerge approximately 60 million years ago, during the Paleocene period. The primitive carnivores that made up this group were called miacids. This common ancestor gave rise to all dogs, bears, seals, cats, hyenas, weasels, and civets. About 48 million years ago, the suborders of Feliforma and Caniforma arose from the miacids.

    Canids originated in the late Eocene more than 40 million years ago. They are the most ancient group of carnivores, and the first to evolve from the miacids. The family Canidae had three major co-existing radiations, represented by the subfamilies of Caninae (modern dogs), Hesperocyoninae (ancient canids), and Borophaginae (hyena-like canines).

    The subfamily Hesperocyoninae was an archaic group of canids that originated and remained in North America. They existed about 40 million years ago, and looked like a cross between a fox and a weasel. They are the most ancient group, and were the dominant carnivores of their time. They became extinct about 15 million years ago. From the Nothocyon line of the Hesperocyonids came Tomarctus, which gave rise to the Borophaginae.

    The second group, the Borophaginae, existed about 34 million years ago. Like Hesperocyoinae, they existed solely in North America. They were much larger than the Hesperocyonids, loooking like a cross between hyenas and dogs. This group contained the largest canid ever to exist, Epicyon haydeni, which was about the size of a bear. Canids in this subfamily had very large, powerful jaws. They filled a wide range of niches from raccoon-like omnivores to the top predators. They became extinct about 2.5 million years ago.

    The last group, Caninae, is the subfamily that gave rise to all the canids alive today. They existed at about the same time as the other two subfamilies, but did not flourish until about 15 million years ago, when the other two subfamilies began to wane. This group evolved solely in North America until the late Miocene (about 7 million years ago), when they crossed the land bridge into Asia. One of the earliest canids of this group, Eucyon, which existed between 11 – 4 mya, is considered to be the direct ancestor to all modern canids.

    The canids that crossed the land bridge became the direct ancestors for the canids that existed there. These animals continued to cross over the land bridge, back and forth between the two continents. This is why there are grey wolves in both Eurasia and North America.

    lioncrusher’s domain-canidae

  423. Maz said

    Zerxil: Who’s side are you on?

  424. Zerxil said

    still trying to find a fossil list…Chris is there one?

  425. Zerxil said

    Despite numerous systematic studies, the relationships among many species within the dog family, Canidae, remain unresolved. Two problems of broad evolutionary significance are the origins of the taxonomically rich canidae fauna of South America and the development in three species of the trenchant heel, a unique meat-cutting blade on the lower first molar. The first problem is of interest because the fossil record provides little evidence for the origins of divergent South American species such as the maned wolf and the bush dog. The second issue is problematic because the trenchant heel, although complex in form, may have evolved independently to assist in the processing of meat. We attempted to resolve these two issues and five other specific taxonomic controversies by phylogenetic analysis of 2,001 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence data from 23 canidae species. The mtDNA tree topology, coupled with data from the fossil record, and estimates of rates of DNA sequence divergence suggest at least three and possibly four North American invasions of South America. This result implies that an important chapter in the evolution of modern canids remains to be discovered in the fossil record and that the South American canidae endemism is as much the result of extinction outside of South America as it is due to speciation within South America. The origin of the trenchant heel is not well resolved by our data, although the maximum parsimony tree is weakly consistent with a single origin followed by multiple losses of the character in several extant species. A combined analysis of the mtDNA data and published morphological data provides unexpected support for a monophyletic South American canidae clade. However, the homogeneity partition tests indicate significant heterogeneity between the two data sets.

    pub med.

  426. Chris C. said

    Maz, scientists are often eager to make a big discovery or a scientific breakthrough. Its easy to see why they might even create fraudulent evidence to provide this breakthrough. You failed to mention that these hoaxes (nebraska man, piltdown man) were exposed by the scientific community. Yes, even those very evolutionists who you decry actually exposed the hoaxes within their own community.

    The neanderthalers are still considered to be a group of hominids that existed up untill about 40 thousand years ago. They were not direct human ancestors, but co-existed with humans for some time, perhaps evolving from local populations of homo ergaster/ homo heidelbergensis.

    To say that all of the specimins we have found are either all ape or all human is absurd. There are textbooks and many books geared for popular reading which discuss these dozens of homonid finds in detail, how the species are classified and interrelate, etc. Now, indeed there are still a couple gaps in our understanding of just which speicies led to which species, but the picture is pretty clear overall. Think of it like playing wheel-of-fortune if you are familiar with that game show. Perhaps we have the phrase : E_OLUTIO_ . Sure there are a couple gaps, but its pretty easy to see which word it is…

    I think it was post 16 in the first thread of this same title where I outlined the major hominid fossils. I’ll not copy that here, but I believe the info was correct if you want to reference it.

  427. F. L. A. said

    Post#418, Yes Chris C.
    Now you know perhaps why I only come here for amusement.
    It WAS post#16, but I’m sure that the Young-Earth Creationists have a great reason as to why this mountain of evidence is not the obvious truth that it appears to be. As mentioned before, many of these questions have been answered, and re-answered, and re-……jected only to be asked about again, perhaps in a different way.Or not.
    I am curious as to why macro-evolution seems to be such an impossible fantasy to take seriously, while believing that the first man was made of clay[literally], the woman his rib bone, and all animal and plant life popping into existence roughly as we know it today. Would you ever consider the creation myths of other older theologies, like Hinduism as having any merit too? NOOOOOOOO, of course not[for some weird reason THEY are utterly wrong, even it they do have as much evidence to support their claims].
    Thank you for your thoughts on the definition of a soul Maz.
    And now I’m off to guard John’s property.
    Good night.

  428. Chris C. said

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html << There you go Zerxil. Im sure there are many other sites, but TalkOrigins is continuously updated so it is probably the most current.

  429. Maz said

    Chris: ”…evolutionists….actually exposed the hoaxes..” I think they had to. But it still begs the question, that if we had so much proof of ape to man in the fossil record why don’t they just show the real thing? Why bother making a hoax? Especially as these people were supposed to be trusted scientists?? And it took them long enough to admit to it didn’t it?

    If there were any Neanderthals they would have been totally human as any fossil finds attributed to them would show. And isn’t ‘homo’ latin for MAN? These HOMOnid finds are truly human, the evolutionist interprets them as half ape half man because thats what they are desperate to find. There should be thousands of fossils showing this halfway state or even quarter or three quarters?? Where are they all?

    ”There are still a couple of gaps in our understanding of which species led to which species..” There are more than a couple! All the main branches of so called evolutionary growth have gaps in them, have you not seen any diagrams of these gaps…some are quite large.
    I’v seen a diagram which I have yet to find, showing the thick lines that change into grey spotted lines, where no fossils have been found between the species. Maybe someone else may know how I can find this. It is certainly not ”a clear picture”.

    The E-OLUTIO- game…..assuming you know the word in the first place, otherwise it’s anyones guess isn’t it? We could make guesses and theories, then make assumptions…..which is what evolution does. It assumed all life must have evolved, because if it didn’t there is only one other alternative, and they can’t accept that! That’s what keeps them looking and searching and grasping at straws to find these ‘missing links’, because they cannot, they won’t accept there is a Creator God who they are accountable to.

    F.L.A: (And Chris) It is not just our ‘religious beliefs’ that stop us from believing in evolution. You still don’t accept the fact that creation scientists find proof of creation in the fossil record and in all the sciences. These people are not just believing in their ‘religion’ (actually they believe in Christ not religion) they are well qualified in their scientific fields to see the truth instead of putting their belief, as evolutionists do, in an idea and a phylosophy first and then trying to manipulate their findings to fit their

    ”I am curious as to why macro-evolution seems to be such an impossible fantasy to take seriously, while believing that the first man was made of clay (literally), the woman his rib bone, and all animal and plant life popping into existence roughly as we know it today”.

    And similarly F.L.A. I am curious as to why God, a supreme and all powerful God seems to be such an impossible truth to take seriously, while believing that there was a big bang suddenly that created everything there is in the Universe, that life just popped into existence from non-living rock, and created all the beautiful diversity we have today…including a man with a mind to think for himself. What is more amazing fantasy?
    And can’t scientists take part of a cell and make clones? Isn’t man, as someone said, made of stardust? And cannot an all powerful Creator God not do these things if He so wished? You belittle Him with your words and scorn His handiwork. To really get serious, those who scorn Him now will be judged for their words one day. But…His grace is still available to those who will humbly accept His grace and His love.

    ”Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God.” Isaiah 44 v 6.
    ”Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb; I am the LORD who makes all things; who stretches forth the heavens alone; who spreads abroad the earth by myself.” Isaiah 44 v 24.
    ”For thus says the LORD who created the heavens, God Himself who formed the earth and made it; He has established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45 v 18.
    ”Look to me and be saved all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.”
    Isaiah 45 v 22.
    I have given you direct quotes from the Creator Himself about why the other religions are false and their gods are false. And there is enough evidence in this world He made to back up His claims.

  430. F. L. A. said

    Yeeeeaaaahh sure.

    Is this the same kind or evidence that you use to back up your claims of a 6,000 year old universe?
    As I said once before, you are as dense as a diamond when it comes to understanding anything that does not conform to your theological views.
    But then, I guess that’s why we like you[huge sharp-toothed grin].

  431. Tripp said

    F.L.A. – With all due respect (since you show very little), you seem equally dense since you expect Maz to conform to YOUR theological views, if you have any. Why can’t you just undertstand that Maz is NOT going to change her beliefs and just debate the issue at hand without insulting her? Where is the Moderator?

  432. Maz said

    F.L.A: I’m glad atleast that I’m a diamond, even a dense one…….they are precious. And I am precious to God. If calling me anything is all you can do now, then I guess you have run out of reasonable debate? 🙂
    Thanks Tripp. Respect is expected by others but not given.
    I accept you don’t believe what I believe F.L.A, can you not accept that I don’t believe what you believe?
    I will always believe in my Father God and Jesus His Son, nothing shall ever separate me from the love that He has graciously shown me, not only in dying for me, but helping me day by day. I would never change what I am now even if you offered me a million pounds….or dollars. That is how much I love Him….and more. He is priceless.

  433. F. L. A. said

    Good for you Maz. I was not calling you a name.I was making an observation. If calling one another things is a sign to you of a lack of ability to hold reasonable debates, then this takes you out of the game long before now woman, for how often have we read your opinions about how evolutionists are biased,liars,atheistic,etc. And that’s without a topic concerning theology.
    Tripp, the only thing that I ever expected out of Maz was basic scientific understanding of this topic of debate. Of which there has been none.
    Remember, we gave up on her, also where did you get this idea that I was interested in her conformity to any of MY theological views?
    I would never expect her to be capable of changing her beliefs, but if it’s a reasonable debate on this topic that she’s after, she needs to supply us Christian young-earth creationist skeptics with more solid evidence to back up her claims, instead of just always saying that all of our factual evidence is merely based purely on faulty dating techniques, biased speculation, and guesses.Which anyone with an education into this matter can see is not true.
    If this is the best that she or others like her can do, deny everything presented, while being unable to present evidence of equal or greater value[and you shouldn’t have to use a religious source to do this] to support their claims, then this debate shall continue to go nowhere. It’s fun…..but apparently pointless.

  434. Maz said

    F.L.A: If I had made such an observation about someone else, I would not have put it into words. I think I have given as good as I have received don’t you think? But there is a limit to how you say something.

    You have kept true to the evolutionistic attitude towards creation scientists and everything scientific that we have repesented here…. ”The only thing I expected out of Maz was basic scientific understanding of this topic of debate”. You mean, you expected me to believe your understanding of evolution and not disagree with it.
    Solid evidence? How solid does it need to be? As far as I am concerned evolutionists have fluffed there way through many decades with their theory, trying to make it look like fact when it isn’t.
    I have had no solid evidence about the missing links and transitional forms.
    No solid answer to the origin of DNA and the information it contains.
    No solid answer in fact to the origin of life itself.
    Or a solid scientific explanation of how the Universe came into existence without an Omnipotent Someone ‘outside’ creating it all.
    In fact I could go through everything we have debated here and find no solid proof of evolution whatsoever.
    Well, maybe we have thrashed the subject almost dead….just as before….but remember you said you are only here for amusement, so why should it matter that much to you?
    ”…anyone with an education into this matter can see is not true.” (evolutions speculation
    etc). Again you forget and ignore the many scientists who do believe in Creation, AND even some evolutionist scientists who find problems with the theory….is all their education nothing?
    If you can deny everything I have presented here, why can’t I deny yours F.L.A?
    And if we believe an omnipotent God created all that exists why shouldn’t we use a religious source? And by a ‘religious source’ you mean the Bible. Why not?

  435. Barney said

    The idea that creationism is somehow misunderstood, or that it is being conspired against is blatantly absurd. Few wonder that it’s curriculum is ubiquitously rejected by accredited educators.

    Some here lack the humility to even acknowledge the possibility that they have a misunderstanding of what science teaches us.

    There are close to one thousand posts(most from just a few individuals) here on this website alone that illustrate my point.

    I suspect there will be more appearing soon.

  436. Maz said

    Barney: I have the humility to accept that there is a God that created all things, that He loved me enough to send His Only Son to die for me and take the punishment for my sin. I thank God for His mercy and grace that revealed the truth to me so that I would not have to suffer that punishment myself. There is absolutely nothing that would dissuade me from living my life for Him, because He gave so much for me. THAT, Barney, is one Truth that is completely misunderstood and rejected by some on this site.

  437. F. L. A. said

    Rejected, but not misunderstood Maz.
    Yes, I AM here for amusement.That why I keep coming back! If this debate actually DID mean something serious to me then I would have left this site long ago.I never expect you to understand or accept our evidence or information, that’s why we gave up on you, remember?
    Your questions have been answered to the best of anyones abilities without taking the move of just telling you what we think you just want to hear. Would you prefer that? Shall we just humor you so you can finally be satisfied and have that warm fuzzy “Ha!I KNEW IT!” feeling? I believe that’s all you’d ever accept from us. But as for myself, I’m too ornery.
    John just comes here to study your argumentation and defense techniques used to support your claims. It’s a good thing that the “bubble” your in is poliferated to some degree, at least, or who knows where you would be? A member of the Flat Earth Society perhaps.
    Shouldn’t you be in church today? Or have you already been?

  438. Barney said

    Maz, that was the best post I’ve read from you in a long time. I assure you that I do understand your profession of faith.

    It’s safe to assume that we are not going to agree about this subject. I apologize for any bad feelings that our intercourse on this subject has produced between us.


  439. Maz said

    F.L.A: Yes. I went to Church this morning and enjoyed it as I always do.

    Barney: Thanks, I appreciate that. And you’re right, we aren’t going to agree unless ofcourse you come to see our great Creator God for Who He is. I wish you could, I wish all those who seem unaware of the wonderful Savior we have in Jesus Christ could know what I, and millions of others round this globe know. He is not just a religious figure in history, He was and still is a Real Person, a resurrected Man in heaven, and I am looking for that day when I shall see Him face to face. Apologies accepted.

  440. Maz said

    If anyone is interested, I’v been looking at the amazing work of photosynthesis. This is another problem, it seems, for evolution, because how can photosynthesis work before it is evolved? It is something that has to work at the very beginning or nothing can live on this earth atall. We need phot. for life to exist. I read (on a non-religious site) that ”Science has only recently developed the basic tools and techniques needed to investigate the intricate details of photosynthesis. It is now time to apply these tools and techniqus to the problem” (of understanding photosynthesis) ”and to reap the benfits of this research.” Devens Gust, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Arizona State University.
    Yet I read on another site of how photosynthesis ”evolved over millions of years”. How can they say that when they don’t even understand it?
    How can such a mechanism in ”nature” evolve if it doesn’t work atall until it has evolved?

  441. Chris C. said

    Maz, it is believed that photosynthetic cells came into existence when one type of bacteria absorbed another type of bacteria which was able to complete the process of basic photosynthesis. In fact, as many of the organelles in plant and animal cells bear resemblance to indepedant types of bacteria, it is widely belived that the complex eukaryotic cell is the product of many types of bacteria which combined by engulfsion and reproduced asexually. That is about all I remember from my learnings in the subject. Sorry I have no sites to recommend.

    I will be on vacation in Yellowstone National Park for a week starting today, so I wish you all happy debating.

  442. Maz said

    Chris: Your explanation is very basic, so I will post something on here about the very intricate workings of photosynthesis needed for it to work atall.

    Here is a summary:
    Biochemical sequences necessary for the evolution of photosynthesis would have required the evolution of a set of sophisticated enzymes that generated a series of useless intermediates. In the series of enzymes necessary for the manufacture of chlorophyll, these intermediates would have been lethal to the cell before the next enzyme in the series evolved to pick up and modify phototoxic material and insert it into apoproteins. Evidence is presented that: a) the appearance of ground state oxygen would have been lethal to the cell well before oxygen-disarming complexes evolved; b) probability would have eliminated any chance for the evolution of genes for complex enzymes from analogous proteins; c) any junk protein production would have been a death sentence; d) the ATP synthase motor could not possibly have evolved in a stepwise fashion, and e) the rubisco complex could not and would not have evolved.

    Like most if not all organic life in the Universe, unless it has all it’s parts for it to work, it is impossible for it to do what it is meant to do, therefore if evolution were true (?!), things that are completely useless to start with would not survive any transformation it needed to exist in the first place. Does this not sound sense? In other words evolution cannot be true because it could not even survive it’s beginnings.

    All life on this earth has to work in harmony, from plants to trees, from insects to birds, fish and mammals…..they are all dependent on other life forms in some way, with evolutions hit and miss, how can such synchronisation occur? The planet is in such finely tuned harmony (altho man’s interference has caused some problems) it had to have some intelligent design in place for it to function properly.

    If intelligence is involved then, and if it is not God….what force or what Being would that intelligence originate from?
    Have a happy vacation!

  443. Zerxil said

    here is something to muddy the waters a little more

    Theories explain facts and are tested by generating hypotheses. No matter how much information accrues, hypotheses never become theories, and theories never graduate into laws. These terms describe three distinct aspects of science.

    Lamarck’s proposed mechanism is not compatible with the modern understanding of genetics and has therefore been abandoned. However, it seems that it and the notion of striving to fulfill needs are more intuitive than Darwinian natural selection,1 which probably explains why they were proposed first and why so many students and others continue to conceive of evolution in these inaccurate terms (Bishop and Anderson 1990; Demastes et al. 1995; Alters and Nelson 2002). A similar phenomenon has been observed in physics education, in which Newtonian or Einsteinian ideas taught to students must compete with incorrect but evidently more intuitive Aristotelian preconceptions (Halloun and Hestenes 1985a,b)

    Some scientific disciplines—geology, archeology, astronomy, and evolutionary biology among them—deal not only with general processes and mechanisms, but also unique historical particulars. In addition to its incarnations as a “fact” and a “theory,” evolution also can be discussed in a third distinct capacity, namely, as a “path” (Ruse 1997). Evolution as path deals with the factual details of life’s history, such as the degree of relatedness of modern species to one another, the timing of splits among lineages, the characteristics of extinct ancestors, and the major events that have occurred over the nearly 4 billion years of life’s saga. As an example, specialists including paleontologists and molecular systematists may investigate whether birds are the descendants of a lineage of dinosaurs (and if so, which one), when flight first evolved and what changes this entailed, and what the patterns of diversification of birds have been since the evolution of flight. Similar questions can be asked about each branch of the tree of life.

    Evolution: Education and Outreach
    © Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

  444. Zerxil said

    Luckily some new well-preserved miacoid fossils have just been found in the last few years (mentioned in Szalay et al., 1993). They are still being studied and will PROBABLY clarify exactly which miacoids gave rise to which carnivores. Meanwhile, analysis of teeth has revealed at least one ancestor:

    * Viverravus sicarius (mid-Eocene) — Hunt & Tedford (in Szalay et al., 1993) THINK this viverravid MAY be the ancestral aeluroid. It has teeth & skeletal traits similar to the first known Oligocene aeluroids (undifferentiated cat/civet/hyenas).

    * Cynodictis (late Eocene) — First known arctoid (undifferentiated dog/bear).
    * Hesperocyon (early Oligocene) — A later arctoid. Compared to miacids like Paroodectes, limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. From here, the main line of canid evolution can be traced in North America, with bears branching out into a Holarctic distribution.
    * Cynodesmus (Miocene) — First true dog. The dog lineage continued through Tomarctus (Pliocene) to the modern dogs, wolves, & foxes, Canis (Pleistocene).

    Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
    Part 2A

    What fossils do we have of these? Are the cynodesmus evolved from Hesperocyon or Cynodictis?

  445. abc's said


    “Like most if not all organic life in the Universe, unless it has all it’s parts for it to work, it is impossible for it to do what it is meant to do, therefore if evolution were true (?!), things that are completely useless to start with would not survive any transformation it needed to exist in the first place. Does this not sound sense?”

    No, what you said doesn’t make sense, and it reflects a general misunderstanding about evolution that many people hold. I don’t have the time right now to explain, but I will try and post tomorrow.

  446. Zerxil said

    So evolutionists still believe in vestigial organs, There is a lot less than in Darwin’s day. In fact I think there is only 2 left unaccountable for..Appendix & Adams Apple.

  447. abc's said

    After rereading post 436, I have decided not to post a response to try and correct the misunderstandings within it. No matter what evidence I provide or how succinctly I round up the arguments against your statemtent it really won’t matter because you will choose to not accept it. I don’t have any reason to try and change your views.

  448. Maz said

    Abc’s: Altho whatever you say would not change my belief in the Creation of this Universe by a Superior Being we know as God, I say that because I do not think that you have any more ‘proof’ than anyone else with their evolutionary theories of how life began and evolved on this site. Many have brought their views on here for and against Creation and I think, altho I hope something might open someones eyes to the truth, I do not have any high expectations of it. Nonetheless, it is interesting to read both sides of the debate about our origins, and who knows…………only God perhaps!

    But I have been reading about the fine tuning of this Universe, and it amazes me even more, that there are people even with letters after their name that can still stand by their faith….theory, and close their minds to any other evidence but their own evolutionary assumptions.

    Think about it: If certain physical properties were minutely different, even by about one part in 10 to the power of 60, we would not be here. This is about the accuracy needed to hit a square inch target the other side of the observable universe, about (they say) 20 billion light years away. The physical constants and laws of nature are ‘just right’ for us. Extremely so!
    This is consisent with a Universe Created by an intelligence far beyond our own.

    I have all the fine tuning listed if anyone would like to know…but it should be obvious to anyone who has their eyes open wide enough to see the complexity of design and the harmony of all that is in nature upon this earth, let alone the evidence of design with the earth, the sun, the stars, our galaxy.

    The earths size, it’s orbit, it’s revolutions, it’s tilt…and without the moon the earth’s tilt would change drastically. The moon’s approximity and it’s size keeps the earths tilt reasonably stable. Then the earths distance from the sun is just right for life to exist. With the so-called effects of global warming we can understand that just a raise of 5 degrees in temperature can cause problems for us. The sun only has to be the minutest bit closer and we would fry, or the slightest bit further away and we would freeze. Just look at the temperature difference between the equator and the poles to realise this. And this is just the beginning.
    There is so much more. Surfice it to say, that if you believe this all came by chance then there is probably more chance of you living till you are 1000 than for evolution to be true.

  449. abc's said

    “This is consisent with a Universe Created by an intelligence far beyond our own.”

    It’s also exactly as we should expect to find a universe that evolved to support life in a few isolated and remote places. It’s no surprise that we live on a planet that is suitable for life. We must necessarily be otherwise we wouldn’t be here talking about this.

    I’m familiar with the arguments for a “fine tuned” universe. I just don’t find them compelling. How do we know that there aren’t other “tunings” that might be better for life? How do we know that there are any other “tunings” that are possible? Why is nearly 100% of the universe hostile to all of life that we know of? What is the point of all of the other mass in the universe?

    Evolution does the best possible job of explaining the natural cause for why all of life is in tune with itself. Nature slowly evolved over time. Evolution explains the interrelatedness of all of life. It explains the geographical diversity of life. It explains why we find new species all of the time. It explains why species become extinct. It explains the fossil record. It agrees with a very old Earth.

    And, Evolution is not based upon chance.

  450. Maz said

    Abc’s: The fact that we are here could also mean that a God created us to be here.

    I think ”other tunings” would still fall within the realms of Physics. I am a Trekky fan, but I know when something is fantasy and fiction.

    The fine tuning defies any other explanation than an incredibly Supernatural Force at work.
    The mathematical probabilities of any planet being where it is, and having the diverse life it has upon it (including intelligent life) is astronomical. It would take a few lines to type all the zero’s!

    The only place that is not hostile to life is where God placed us to live, here on this blue marble. Look at a shot of it from space. The atmosphere is so thin, yet it allows for life to prosper and reproduce.

    ”What is the point of all of the mass in the universe?” It is there to show us how great our Creator God is. When I look up at the stars (when it’s a clear cold night) I only see a small part of our galaxy, but when you look through a telescope or see the pictures that Hubble has taken, it is absolutely awesome….and that is how I see my God. Awesome.

    Evolution and natural selection is still a hit and miss philosophy, a series of chance (yes, chance) happenings that are supposed to have developed all life, animal, vegetable, and otherwise upon this earth. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe there was a God that created it all.
    Evolution certainly doesn’t explain the interrelatedness of all of life…because the ‘relatedness’ is not there, we call it ”missing links” or ”gaps”. I know they say they are closing these gaps, they are finding the missing links, but what I have read about these, only goes to prove that an isolated fossil in no way proves the whole of the evolution theory. There should be MILLIONS of fossils to prove how life came here, as many as the supposed years this world has been here.
    Finding new species just goes to show that we havn’t found them until now, not because they have just evolved.
    And species that become extinct also does not support evolution. Animals die out….that’s it.
    And as far as the fossil record is concerned, even Darwin had problems with that. The problem is still around today even though evolutionists don’t want to admit it. (Actually there are a few brave souls that will.)

    ”And, evolution is not based on chance”. Then what is it based on? Design? Purpose?

  451. Bob Griffin said


    You dont find evidence for a fine tuned universe compelling – but you believe in evolution, a mindless process.

    Its no surprise we live on a planet suitable for life – where are the other planets with life?

  452. abc's said

    Sure, there are lots of “gaps” in the fossil record. I agree that every single animal that has ever lived and died did not fossilize. These are the “gaps” that you’re talking about, right? Do you have fossilized remains of every one of your ancestors? You must have just been created then.
    Evolution by natural selection is not a philosophy. It doesn’t dictate how people should live their lives and treat each other. It is a scientific theory that is supported by the evidence.
    The idea that an omniscient supernatural super intelligence created everything from nothing is a neat idea. The problem is that there is no evidence to support that idea. I don’t have “faith” in evolution. I accept it as the most valid evidence based theory that describes life and can make testable predictions.
    Species do die out, but it’s not “just because.” They die out when environmental pressures change and they are unable to adapt and evolve quickly enough. This is a key prediction that we can make with the theory of evolution. If you disagree with this, then all you have to do is offer a different explanation and provide the evidence that supports your claim, while refuting evolution.
    I understand that we are going to disagree on this.
    You do not accept the theory of evolution because you subscribe to a small subset of religious ideologies, and because of that you truly do not understand the theory.

    That’s ok with me.

    However, the topic for this forum is whether Darwin was right or wrong regarding evolution. If we use evidence as our guide, then Darwin was right.

  453. abc's said


    I don’t know where those other inhabited planets are, or if there are any others at all. I just meant that we live on a planet that supports life and we are able to know this because – we live on a planet that supports life.

    Evolution is a mindless process. There is no intelligence driving the process. However, it is a real process and it does respond over time to environmental pressures.

    The idea that the universe is fine tuned is a philosophical ideal that springs forth from the presupposition that there must be a creator. There is no evidence for this.

  454. Maz said

    Abc’s: So, evolutionists insist that we are the end result of some vast inexplicable cosmological accident that ocurred over 13 million years ago?

    Listen to what the Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies said in his book ”The Cosmic Blueprint”. There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…. The impression of design is overwhelming (1988, p. 203)

    Our Universe is indeed “fine-tuned” in such a way that it is impossible to suggest logically that it simply “popped into existence out of nothing” and then went from the chaos associated with the inflationary Big Bang Model (as if the Universe were a giant firecracker!) to the sublime order that it presently exhibits. Nancey Murphy and George Ellis discussed this very point in their book, On the Moral Nature of the Universe:

    ‘The symmetries and delicate balances we observe in the universe require an extraordinary coherence of conditions and cooperation of laws and effects, suggesting that in some sense they have been purposely designed. That is, they give evidence of intention, realized both in the setting of the laws of physics and in the choice of boundary conditions for the universe.’
    (1996, p. 57)

    The suggestion that the Universe and its laws “have been purposely designed” has surfaced much more frequently in the past several years. For example, the late British cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:

    ‘A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.'(1982, 20:16).

    In his book, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Davies made this amazing statement:

    ‘If nature is so “clever” as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?'(1984, pp. 235-236)

    Eight years later, in 1992, Davies authored The Mind of God, in which he remarked:

    ‘I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama…. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.'(1992, p. 232)

    If we aren’t here by ‘chance’ ‘accident’ or some other ‘mindless’ workings, then there is only one other alternative………….isn’t there?

  455. Maz said

    Abc’s: Don’t you think it funny that it’s only the transitional fossils that somehow got lost and are missing from the rocks? And only the fully formed phyla got buried and fossilised? How come?

    Actually evolution does have a phylosophy….survival of the fittest. I don’t think that phylosophy would be acceptable to those who are less fit in this world today. Is that why Hitler not only exterminated the Jews but also murdered those that were less ‘fit’?

    ”You do not accept the theory of evolution because you subscribe to a small subset of religious ideologies…” That is where you are wrong. I look at the scientific evidence and see the truth in ‘nature’ that evolutionists refuse to see. This blog is full of scientific explanations from Christians and very few ideological ones. But ofcourse you won’t accept our science as even science because you are blinded by a worldview that rejects God out of hand.

  456. Maz said

    Abc’s: There is no evidence for a fine tuned universe? I’m speechless!

  457. abc's said

    Those are lots of well worded quotes, but that’s all that they are.

    Let me illustrate what I mean.

    If the universe could not be an accident, and it hasn’t always existed then there is only one alternative: design.

    I have seen a lot of different cars. I have never seen a car that wasn’t designed. When I think of it, I have never seen anything that didn’t have the appearance of design.
    Using this logic I will conclude that the universe must have had a designer.
    Continuing on: I know that all cars do not have one designer. I know that all cars are not made in the same place, and that the resources used to make them come from all over the world.

    So, the only option I have left is to believe that the universe must have been designed. In some other reality there must be many many designers, as well as builders, and many different places where the resources were harvested and processed that would eventually be used to construct our universe.

    I’m sure that you will not agree with this ridiculous notion. But you can’t offer any evidence that my philosophical assertion that there are many designers is any more true or false than yours is.

    Also, the whole “survival of the fittest” thing and Hitler, that’s mostly changing the subject so i’m not going to open up that box.

    “So, evolutionists insist that we are the end result of some vast inexplicable cosmological accident that ocurred over 13 million years ago?”

    I’m not suggesting that at all. I am only saying thatevolution by natural selection of living things is a fundamental truth about nature.

  458. Maz said

    Abc’s: If indeed evolution is not an inexplicable cosmological accident, are evolutionists then saying that ‘natural selection’ has some kind of intelligent or purposeful force behind it?
    It has to be one thing or the other. Accident and chance…or design and purpose?

  459. abc's said

    I feel like I already answered that question when I said
    “Evolution is a mindless process. There is no intelligence driving the process. However, it is a real process and it does respond over time to environmental pressures.”

    Were you being serious when you said
    “Don’t you think it funny that it’s only the transitional fossils that somehow got lost and are missing from the rocks? And only the fully formed phyla got buried and fossilised? How come?”
    If you were serious, what’s the explanation for these types of things?


    Our universe began with a rapid expansion of space and time. Life has evolved over time by natural selection. I know these things, because they are supported by the observable evidence.

    I can’t say that I know why the universe began, or by exactly what process or processes in which life begins, and i’m ok with that. Maybe one day we will figure it out.

    I don’t understand this idea of calling people “evolutionists” as if it were descriptive. What does that mean?
    I love to eat pizza. Why not call me a pizzaist. I accept evolution, but that fact doesn’t give you any insight into the type of person I am.

  460. abc's said

    There are many transitional fossils. How do you account for them? I posted a link, but it could take awhile to show up.

    How do you account for the fossil record over all. The older the Earth we dig in the more simplistic life forms are. We don’t find fossils of newer lifeforms in the older stratas of rocks.

    Why are there so many species of animals that are only indigenous to Australia?

    Explain endogenous retroviruses.

    Why do chickens have scales?

    Why do species become extinct?

    Why do we humans share so much genetic information with apes?

    Why do all life forms use the same genetic material?

    Why and how does selectively breeding animals to bring out desired traits work?

    Why are there no amphibians or reptiles with hair?

    Why do flu vaccinations become ineffective and have to be altered?

    Why are some plants carnivorous?

    There are many other questions I could ask.
    The theory of evolution is a unifying theory that provides the simplest explanation for all of these things.

  461. Maz said

    Abc’s: Did you know that we share 50 percent genetic information with bananas? 🙂
    There are also similar animals that have very different DNA.
    But similarities prove nothing.
    Did you know that apes don’t have fingerprints? Why do we? What use are they…except if you are a policeman and need to catch a criminal.

    All life forms use the same genetic material, because we were all created by the same Person and Designer.
    You can change traits in animals, say dogs, and get all sorts of peculiar looking things….like poodles! But genetically, they tend to lose information not gain it when they change. And poodles tend to get more wrong with them because of their breeding.
    They made a liger….a cross between a tiger and a lion, but it is still a big cat.
    You can’t cross over species. You can’t cross a bear with a horse or an ostrich with a platipus. And what is that weird creature anyway, it seems to have a bit of everything.

    God created things perfect in the beginning, and the animals were all created within their own kind or species. When sin entered the world things began to go wrong, degenerate and get disease and die. There was nothing bad in Gods original creation for He said it was very good. But Sin changed all that. Everything was cursed with disease and death, even the plants. So saying God created things like the worm that burrows into childrens eyes or any other nasty creature (or bacteria) you can think of, is not true. It wasn’t that way when God created it.

  462. Maz said

    Abc’s: What about this statement which was made on the Emmy Award winning PBS NOVA television programme THE MIRACLE OF LIFE. It is an example of the way in which one man’s dream has become the media’s dogma: ”Four and half billion years ago, the young planet earth was a mass of cosmic dust and particles. (Assumption No. 1) It was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. (Assumption No. 2) Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. (Assumption No. 3) Some were deposited in the seas. (Assumption No. 4) Tides and currents swept the molecules together. (Assumption No. 5) And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle (??) of life began. (Assumption No. 6) The first organised form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan (a one-celled animal). (Assumption No. 7) Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. (Assumption No. 8) These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea world. (Assumption No. 9) They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms (Assumption No. 10) From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth. (Assumption No. 11)

    On the programme, computer generated graphics helped to make fascinating television, but one has only to list the phenomena taken for granted to realize that the material presented does not reflect science but fantasy.
    The cosmic dust and particles, the molecule-gathering winds and tides, the protozoa, the bacteria and the other organisms were all blithely assumed and pulled together to tell a politically correct story in which speculation masqueraded as information.

    And all intelligent man can do is create a few amino acids in a test tube……nothing more. Especially not life.

  463. Maz said

    Abc’s: Just a bit of information about the apparent similarity between ape and man genome sequences.
    This is what David A DeWitt, Ph D, had to say about it in 2005:

    For many years, evolutionary scientists—and science museums and zoos—have hailed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative” and have pointed to the similarity in DNA sequences between the two as evidence. In most previous studies, they have announced 98-99% identical DNA. However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.

    Last week, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers report the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome. No doubt, this is a stunning achievement for science: deciphering the entire genetic make up of the chimpanzee in just a few years. Researchers called it “the most dramatic confirmation yet” of Darwin’s theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: “Charles Darwin was right and chimp gene map proves it.”

    So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years! The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.

    Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40–45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.

    Comparison between a base substitution and an insertion/deletion. Two DNA sequences can be compared. If there is a difference in the nucleotides (an A instead of a G) this is a substitution. In contrast, if there is a nucleotide base which is missing it is considered an insertion/deletion. It is assumed that a nucleotide has been inserted into one of the sequences or one has been deleted from the other. It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an “indel.” Indels can be of virtually any length.

    To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.

  464. Bob Griffin said

    ABC 453

    You say evolution is mindless, and no intelligence is driving it. Would it make more sense that a creator put in traits to to let animals and humans react how we do, or that a mindless process figures this out? The next operation you need, let me get a doctor who is in a coma to do the work on you. Do you think a mindless doctor could figure it out?

    A fine tuned universe does not presuppose a creator. You look at all the incredible fine tuning and you have to choose between a creator or chance. Ill go with a creator over a mindless process.

  465. abc's said

    I also saw the Nova program. Granted, it was an oversimplification of things, because it’s television, but those aren’t “assumptions” that you pointed out. We have lots and lots of evidence and rationality for those stages of the early Earth. We can look at rocks that are as old as the Earth and they tell us what the atmosphere was like. We look at other planets that are younger than the Earth, etc. I won’t get into it any further, but look and you will see that these things are based on evidence. We didn’t make it up.

    I can do the same thing that you did. These are truly made up assertions.

    Assertion 1:God created things perfect in the beginning, Assertion 2:and the animals were all created within their own kind or species. Assertion 3:When sin entered the world things began to go wrong, degenerate and get disease and die. Assertion 4:There was nothing bad in Gods original creation for He said it was very good. But Sin changed all that. Everything was cursed with disease and death, Assertion 5:even the plants. So saying God created things like the worm that burrows into childrens eyes or any other nasty creature (or bacteria) you can think of, is not true. It wasn’t that way when God created it.

    If there is a common designer, why don’t we share more genetic information with bananas? Evolution has an explanation for the similarities and differences. Fingerprints are useful to us, but if you claim that they are unnecessary, and God created us perfectly in his image, then why the dermal ridges? This is a difficult question for you, not for me.

    Gorillas do have fingerprints as well as Koalas, but chimpanzee’s don’t, even though they are more closely related to humans. It is an interesting question, and it is one that has a naturalistic explanation.

    I am familiar with the argument that genetic variation leads to a decrease in information, and all I will say is that claim doesn’t make sense. You can’t claim an increase or decrease in information without describing what constitutes “information”. This is why we call it genetic material. You don’t necessarily have to increase the total number of genes to have a substantial mutation.

    Explain to me how we can look only at the evidence and arrive at any creation story. It isn’t possible.

  466. abc's said



  467. Maz said

    Abc’s: I have God’s inspired Word to tell me how He created everything, what have you got?
    Darwins ”Origin of the species”, written by someone who wasn’t there in the beginning;
    God was, and I would put my trust in Him any day…every day…rather than in Darwin who never actually explained how life originated.
    In his day they didn’t know much about cells they thot they were simple blobs of disordered particles, but we now know a lot more and we see that cells are far from simple, and we know that there is no such thing as a primitive cell.
    Even Mycoplasma genitalium, the bacterium with the smallest known amount of genetic material, has 580,000 base pairs on it’s 482 genes. DNA houses a staggering amount of genetic information. All the data needed to specify the design of a human being, including the arrangement of over 200 bones, 600 muscles, 10,000 auditory nerve fibres, 2 million optic nerve fibres, 100 billion brain-cell nerves and 400 billion feet of blood vessels and capillaries is packed into a unit weighing less than a few thousand-millionths of a gram, and several thousand million million times smaller that the smallest piece of functional machinery used by man. It has been said that on the same scale all the information needed to specify the design of every living species that has ever existed on our planet could be put in a teaspoon, with enough room left over for all the information in every book ever written. SOME BLOB!

    Isn’t the human body brilliantly designed or not!? And we havn’t included all that is in the building and maintenance of every living animal or every type of vegetation that exists on this planet! Can you honestly say that all that amazing information and all the complexity of living organisms JUST suddenly came into being….just like that!
    Wasn’t it Louis Pasteur that proved that life cannot begin spontaneously?
    And wasn’t it Richard Dawkins that said something so scientifically succinct, ”Given enough time, anything is possible.”
    one sunny dawn and all we see came from that ”blob”?

  468. Maz said

    Abc’s: Considering that bananas don’t have a brain, don’t have eyes and ears or a nose and mouth, and considering that it has no need of blood, lungs, heart, liver, kidney, muscles, veins, bones…etc. etc. etc. I think it is true to say that there would be less similarity to us than to the apes…not because of evolution but because of the way God made us and the apes, and how he made bananas. 🙂

  469. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”Explain to me how we look at the evidence and arrive at any creation story. It isn’t possible.”
    I thot that was what we had been doing on this blog, trying to explain the evidence for creation over evolution?

  470. abc's said


    No, you are claiming that all of this complexity came into being just like that. I don’t remember if it was Pasteur, but yes, someone did prove that life does not wink into existence.
    This is evidence against creationism.

    If humans are so perfectly designed, why do we eat, breath and speak from the same orifice? This guarantees that we will choke at some point in our lives.

    468: You just made that up though. I can just as easily say that a creator could create a banana and a man to have completely identical genetic material.

  471. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”..life does not ‘wink’ into existence”?
    I’v not heard it put that way before. But however you may try and explain how life came into being, evolutionists cannot say that it was by purpose or design…therefore it must have been, chance, accident, winking, popping or whatever other verb you want to use….it has to have ‘just happened’ right? Without any cause by an outside power or being? Spontaneously?

    I am claiming that all of this complexity came into being by God, so how can I be the one claiming it came into being just like that? How else did it come? Please clarify.

    Really Abc’s, You are clutching at straws now about our mouth. God made it that way…if anyone chokes it is because they tried to do something they shouldn’t….I’v done it myself, trying to eat too fast or too much at once!

    (468) You could…..but that wouldn’t be scientific would it?

  472. Maz said

    That was (468)…don’t know where the smile came from………must have been spontaneously generated!

  473. abc's said

    I’ve said it a few times in different ways.
    I don’t know how life started. I am not claiming that there is a purpose to, or reason for life.

    I am arguing that evolution by natural selection and from a common ancestor is a fact and is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

    I don’t know how to make smileys, or I would.

  474. Mike S. said

    ABC said “If humans are so perfectly designed, why do we eat, breath and speak from the same orifice? This guarantees that we will choke at some point in our lives.” And you would design us differently? Barney aka Fred, may want to vouch for ole Ernest T. thinking that it’s a pretty ingeniuos idea as he says “I talks throughst my nose so’s I can talks whilst I eat!” 8) type numeral 8 and a ) to get the smiley with sunglasses and a colon and ) to get a smiley face. 😉

  475. Maz said

    Abc’s: If you do not know how life started, how can you believe it carried on evolving once it had? We are what we are because of our beginnings…..creatures created by God. (And by creatures I mean created beings, but not the same as animals because we possess a spirit.)

    Mike: So what happens if you really want to type 8 with a bracket…which is what I meant to do in #471?

  476. abc's said

    “If you do not know how life started, how can you believe it carried on evolving once it had?”

    Because we have evidence for evolution. That’s exactly why.

  477. Maz said

    Abc’s: I think we’ve been round this mountain. 😉

  478. Mike S. said

    I guess if you put a period instead of a space it will work. Looks like it did in your 472 response. :0

  479. Maz said

    8.) 8-0 Testing 1-2-3…:-)

  480. Maz said

    No a period doesn’t work. 8)

  481. Maz said

    Abc’s: Seems like this proves the point, that any mistakes and it just doesn’t work eh?
    Wouldn’t you say that that could also happen in genetic mistakes too? I’v just read that most 99 per cent of mutations are harmful. Not very helpful for the evolution theory.

  482. abc's said

    That’s not really true though. Can I assume that you understand that genetic mutations occur? That is all that evolution is.

    “Now let’s talk about how a gene might change, i.e., how one allele might change into another. There are a number of ways this might happen. We might get a point mutation, one nucleotide being replaced by another. A section might get swapped end for end. A section might be snipped out. A section might be inserted. Or the entire gene might be duplicated. See the next section for a fuller description of the different kinds of mutations and their effects.

    What is the consequence when one of these things happens? Most of the time the change either has no perceptible effect at all, or it is fatal. Coding genes map into proteins using the genetic code. The genetic code is redundant (the technical term is degenerate), i.e., different triplets of nucleotides will produce the same amino acid. Because of the redundancy a point mutation may have no effect at all on the protein being coded for; these are known as silent mutations. If the sequence is altered by snipping or swapping the result is likely to be fatal because the coding sequence [the readout in terms of triplets] will be messed up. However this isn’t always true because there are processes that snip and insert sections of DNA into genes in a way that doesn’t mess up the coding sequence.

    Supose we have one of these mutations that isn’t fatal but isn’t silent. What happens as a result is that we get a slightly different protein. Most of the time the new protein works very much the same as the old protein – it catalyzes the same reactions. Sometimes it’s functional capability changes; it now catalyzes a different reaction. When this happens there may be another protein which also handled the original task; in this case we’ve added a capability. If there wasn’t we lost the original capability and replaced it by a new one. Changes in enzymes (proteins that catalyze reactions) are seldom an all or nothing proposition.[3]

    Gene duplication is important because it is a way to get new genes. Once a gene has been duplicated one copy can change while the other remains the same.

    Genes vary a great deal with respect to how much they can be changed without the changes harming the organism. Some genes, such as those that encode the basic metabolism and the components of the replication, transcription, and translation machinery, are hard to change without harm. We see very little variation in them from one organism to another. Such genes are said to be conserved.

    “What is the net result,” you may ask. Some mutations are fatal or very bad. These mutations get eliminated immediately. Some are silent and don’t count. Sometimes a mutation is definitely advantageous; this is rare but it does happen. Almost all mutations which aren’t silent and which aren’t eliminated immediately are neither completely advantageous nor deleterious. The mutation produces a slightly different protein, and the cell and the living organism work slightly differently. Whether the mutation is helpful or harmful depends on the environment; it could be either.

    If you think about it, life has to work this way – mutations (changes in the genetic material) are happening all the time. The average human being has about 50-100 mutations, of which about 3 matter, i.e., they actually change a protein. If the typical mutation were deleterious life would go extinct in short order. [4]

    Although most mutations are neither uniformly helpful nor harmful they may be either helpful or harmful in a particular environment. Environments are always changing, and each member of a population lives in a slightly different environment from the other members. Some organisms live; some do not. Some reproduce; some do not. The alleles of those that live and reproduce get passed on. Any difference in the organism which is favorable with respect to the environment will prosper.

    It is important to realize that mutations do not occur in response to the environment. They simply happen. Quite often a mutation occurs within a population and then disappears because the organism had no offspring or didn’t happen to pass the mutation on to its offspring; this can happen even if the mutation is beneficial. Sometimes a mutation will get established within a population by chance even though it doesn’t offer an advantage; this is known as genetic drift. [8]

    It is also important to realize mutations do not happen just once. They happen rarely but they keep happening over and over again within a species. In effect a mutation gets more than one bite at the apple; if it doesn’t catch on the first time it appears it gets another chance.[9]”

  483. John said

    Oh the fun to be had here!But later.
    Sorry to leave you without any back up on this matter Abc’s but we’ve been having powerful thunder storms daily,and it would be unwise to use the computer for long, if at all, hence our silence.
    Maybe tomorrow, weather permitting.?
    Sorry. We’ll get back into the debate just as soon as possible[because we just KNOW how much you’ve all missed hearing from the two of us. HA! Yeah right!]. We have so much to add[for better of for worse[grin].[flash of lightning] Gotta go! Goodnight.

  484. Maz said

    Abc’s: I believe genetic mutations occur but I believe the bad ones in particular are probably the result of the curse on sin. Sin brought disease and infections into this world, before sin there was nothing but goodness in nature.

    I don’t understand all the workings of genes or mutations, I’m still reading about it, but are you saying that genes are affected by the environment? How does this information get from the environement to the gene for it to change? (See my comment below *) This would mean the information would have to change, is that right?

    If we talk about Darwins famous finches and the change in their beaks as mutating from short to long and visa versa, does the original information stay the same or change? If the environment was to revert to it’s original state, does the information in the gene revert to it’s original information and to it’s original state?

    ”It is important to realize that mutations do not occur in response to the environment. They simply happened”. Er…I’m now a little confused. *I thot the environment caused the
    mutations? You said just before that, ”Any difference in the organism which is favourable with respect to the environment will prosper.”

    Were back to the ”just happened” chance, accident thing. This doesn’t sound like good physics to me, or indeed good biology. There has to be a reason why things mutate. We call it sin and the curse.

    John: Great to have you back! Actually it’s not quite as interesting without you and F.L.A here. We may disagree but I enjoy our banter! (Most of the time). 8)

  485. Maz said

    Abc’s: As you pointed out, mutations occur extremely rarely. Actually it is something like once in every 10,000,000 duplications of a DNA molecule. After studying mutations in many generations of bacteria, Pierre Grasse a french zoologist found that no essential changes had developed. As bacteria multiply 400,000 times faster than humans, Grasse’s findings equate to millions of years within the human species. Dismissing the possibility of ‘thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events’ occurring to produce the mutational change on which neo-Darwinisn leans, Grasse wrote, ”There is no law against day-dreaming, but science must not indulge in it.”

    Would a primordial soup millions and millions of years ago produce the complexity and variety we see in nature today, including intelligent human beings? What are the chances of this happening? Assuming the existence of all the necessary components….a huge assumption….Dr. James Coppedge, an expert in the study of stastitical probability, has calculated that the likelihood of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 161!
    As there are estimated to be only 10 to the power of 80 atoms in the entire universe, one would need 10 to the power of 81 universes for this to happen. Get the picture?

    Also, far from producing strong, improved genes that would promote evolution, virtually all mutations (999 out of 1000) are harmful, weakening the organism or destroying it altogether.
    With the extreme rarity of mutations and the amount of good mutations having to take place to produce what we have today, I think we have to come to the conclusion……..it just couldn’t happen!

  486. abc's said

    Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

    Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn’t need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

    Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don’t state the “givens,” but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

    (One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn’t depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn’t affect evolution in the least.)

  487. Joe said

    Here is a good thread:


  488. Good post, Joe. Here is another one:


    Moderator (not Stu)

  489. Maz said

    Abc’s: What I can’t get my head round is that ‘natural selection’ seems to be given a mind of it’s own, that it has the power to somehow ‘choose’. Chance to me seems to play a major role in the theory of evolution.
    But natural selection CANNOT make any changes across species, and it could not have made the changes to bring about the enormous diversity we have in nature, from mammals to birds, from reptiles to insects, from fish to snales. Even with billions of years there would not even be enough time for such extremely rare changes in genetics to bring about the abundance of creatures we have on the earth today.

    ”Atoms and molecules arrange themselves….” Here again we have the thinking that somehow the molecules chose or decided to change. An arrangement of anything is a designing mechanism, where you are selecting….or choosing something and putting it somewhere else. This does not sound like a mindless, unintelligent power at work, something that ”just happens”. You seem to give natural selection an intelligence and a will it doesn’t possess.
    Do you understand what I’m saying?
    I don’t know if I said this before but while biologists accepted that natural selection could preserve life by eliminating unfit elements, they realized that nowhere in THE ORIGIN by Darwin is there a single case of it’s having produced evolutionary changes leading to the creation of a new species. And I can’t stress too strongly that these changes or mutations are SO rare that you just wouldn’t have had enough time for the abundance of different life forms on this planet not even with the millions of years they try to insist upon.

    And how does the information in the DNA change to produce a new species? That is an awful lot of information to change for a start. Wer’e not talking about a letter here or there.

    Have you been reading my earlier posts? I’v already explained why evolution can’t take place. And there are plenty of scientists hat are realising this today.
    But I don’t expect you can comprehend how huge and complex the problem is for evolutionists. It’s so simple i their eyes. But in reality it is far from simple.

  490. abc's said


    ”Atoms and molecules arrange themselves….” Here again we have the thinking that somehow the molecules chose or decided to change.”

    It’s called physics, chemistry, and biology. These are the Sciences that you ignore when you reject evolution.

    I think i’m going to step out of the debate again. I was hoping for some new insight from the creationist/id side, but it looks like the same arguments are being used. Pretty soon i’m sure we will be talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
    I enjoyed discussing evolution with you. Good luck!

  491. Maz said

    Abc’s: I’v been reading up on gene duplication. It appears to be as much a theory as evolution itself is. Genetic experimentation has not brough forth any answers for the evolution theory.
    Do you know that humans have 25,000 genes, while thye rice you have with your take-away has 50,000!
    In terms of genome size, the largest genome does not occur in man but rather in a bacterium!
    Isn’t that amazing! You would think us supposedly highly ‘evolved’ creatures would have millions compared to a bacterium you can’t even see with the naked eye!
    Epulopiscium fishelsoni carries 25 times as much DNA as a human cell and one of it’s genes has been duplicated 85,000 times, yet it is still a bacterium. Really amazing. I guess it chose not to evolve.

    There also exists an inverse relationship between the amount of DNA within the cells of creatures and the speed it is able to supposedly evolve. This is a problem for evolution in that the more DNA there is the slower it duplicates. It takes an awful lot of energy and resource to duplicate DNA. So as evolution progresses, the speed slows down…..and this actually would work against the growth of the many species that adorn the branches of the evolutionary tree.

    Another little nugget;: There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes, 3-4 times over. Amazing!

  492. Maz said

    Abc’s: The science of Physics, chemistry and biology, and all other ologies were actually created by God Himself….you think I am ignoring these sciences, I am not. But in your evolutionary zeal for science you ignore the One Who created it all in the first place. His handiwork is clearly seen in every cell and in every star and galaxy, yet evolutionists will not see it because they do not want to acknowledge Him.

    Well, things run their course, maybe John will want to take over again, but the only reason I repeat anything in this blog is because it seems no one is ‘seeing’ what I can see. It’s like I’m saying to you, ”Can’t you see it?! Can’t you see the design, the wonder of it all….can’t you see it?!” It is such a shame that those stuck in the theory of evolution don’t even want to see it. That is their choice, but it is also their loss. (In more ways than one).

  493. Bob Griffin said


    If youre still around, a comment and questions for you.

    Comment: I see all your faith in natural selection, a RANDOM, mindless process. Evolutionists talk about it glowingly and with conviction.

    Question: If you believe that, you believe that 3 billion base pairs of DNA come together by themselves. Do you think a human could put together a 3 billion piece jigsaw puzzle? 1 billion pieces? 500 million pieces? But you think a process with no intelligence can do this? How about you or Chris C toying with me and giving me an example of how just 1 million pairs of any organic matter could come together in the right order at the right time by itself.

  494. Joe said

    I agree with this article about the founding fathers. Maybe a side note to the current discussion, but interesting nonetheless.


  495. abc's said


    Physics, chemistry and biology

    (from post 486)

    Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn’t need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

    Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don’t state the “givens,” but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

    (One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn’t depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn’t affect evolution in the least.)

  496. abc's said

    “giving me an example of how just 1 million pairs of any organic matter could come together in the right order at the right time by itself.”

    It didn’t happen that way. Probably 8 or 10 molecules came together by chance, but according to the laws of physics and chemistry, in such a way that that new chemical compound was able to make copies of itself. After that, natural selection started.

  497. Zerxil said


  498. Bob Griffin said


    495 SOME molecules can come together by themselves. Lets say 10. That leaves 2,999,999,990 left to go. The molecules didnt need to be as complicated as DNA, but you eventually have to start w DNA. Do you see any oceans spitting out any evolutionary forms now? 496 after 10 natural selection started. Did you use step one of the scientific process and observe the phenomena, or do you assume this? You need alot of faith for your position.

  499. abc's said

    Zerxil 497

    refer to posts 486 and 495

    Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don’t state the “givens,” but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

  500. Zerxil said

    ” Evolution, Intelligent Design?

    Let’s make it easy for all to see the heart of the matter here by replacing the possible confusions with “Does our universe have intelligence, with “intelligence” subsuming rationality as opposed to irrationality, or not?”. If one is a scientist who finds science shows that our universe has intelligence and belies total irrationality, then such a scientist avoids the danger of justifiably (logically as well) being called “a fool” or even a “liar”. Those claiming the title of scientist and also claiming that our universe has neither rationality nor intelligence (purpose might also be denied) might be called “fools” because their “science” (and life) becomes, thereby, a search or devotion to something they are claiming does not exist. The appellation of “liar” could be valid because it seems that science clearly gives evidence of and is a search for intelligence and rationality in our universe, which “true” science is even now attempting to discover and expand.

    All the irrationality (disorder?) one sees, feels, or can expose does not have the power to destroy any scientific, observed rationality (order).

    One can easily understand the despair of those claiming it’s all irrational (or without purpose, even absurd) and their ardent hope that someone can provide them with relief, but others are not required or forced to join their state of despair or belief (religion?), even if they claim the highest scientific credentials, because “belief” is outside the usual scope of science.

    Here’s an even simpler way to make the point being attempted here. Some people believe that they exist others do not believe that they exist. There is no valid scientific evidence that can verify either claim, but most people have no doubts (majority ruling, however, has no bearing here) and it should be clear that the believers (majority) are exempt from the same despair and other tribulations of the non-believers.

    Finally, the great discoveries of science, especially astronomy and technology currently, are exponentially expanding the wonder and wealth of existence
    in our universe.

    Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Friday, February 16, 2007 7:44 AM)

  501. Zerxil said

    DOES ANYONE DISAGREE THAT CRITTERS CAN CHANGE OVER TIME? If not that is a form of evolution. Does anyone disagree that there are different diseases that have changed, that to is evolution. So different forms of evolution exists. If one particular known form of evolution is flawed what does that mean? Personally I believe evolution needs a catalyst to get started. Natural Selection is not the catalyst it is the fuel. The food chain, complexity of organisms, and the beginning of life, not to mention how the stars got started all need a catalyst to get started, and a mechinisim to keep going. In a somewhat chaotic universe everything being just right to form any life is nearly impossible, having an environment that is survivable is nearly impossible, and the fact that the two lasted long enough to somehow build a symbiotic (both giving for the survival of each other) relationship is probably impossible.

    side note, the main thing separating Darwinism from ID is time. The time thing, ID can use any amount of time, Darwinist evolution needs an inordinate amount of time unless you start with a relatively complex orginisim.

  502. Maz said

    Zerxil: Animals can change in a small degree but NEVER from one species to another which is what evolution is all about. There are many kinds of dogs, and dogs can be bred to look a certain way, but they are still and always will be dogs, whether they are tall, short, tiny huge, long eared, short eared, long haired, short haired, etc. etc. THEY ARE DOGS. Same with any other species.

    Abc’s: Evolutionists say that mutation takes place in microscopic increments, each of which achieves almost nothing in and of itself. If this is the case, how can this kind of process give us the finished product? The trial and error that would have to take place over and over and over again would be nigh impossible…..and ofcourse it is. You cannot have any organ of the body evolving and not being able to function while it is doing that, especially when the organ is vital to the creature. You cannot have any animal living without all the parts it needs to live, breathe, eat and reproduce itself.

    We are far more intelligent than any DNA strand or microbe or cell, yet we cannot begin to evolve anything even microscopically in a test tube let alone anything bigger.

  503. abc's said

    I agree with almost everything you’ve said Zerxil.

    The only difference is that I believe that life is the way we see it today because of a very long time period in which evolution occured from a very simple ancestor/ancestors. Even though it seems highly unlikely. I think this is why we don’t see life on every planet.

    If there is an intelligent creator/creators, evolution and physics are the tools that were used to create the myriad forms of life we have. I don’t believe that evolution was guided by an intelligent agent, or that anything supernatural has happened since the big bang. I don’t believe that we can make any assumptions about a creator/creators based on what we observe in nature. If there is a creator/creators they/it are completely impartial with regards to our personal lives.

    I believe these things because I think that the evidence we have makes them the most likely scenario. We don’t have a definitive naturalistic explanation for how life first evolved, or the reason the big bang happend, but we do have several plausible models that COULD be the explanation. These models are based on science and observable phenomena. Maybe one idea is right, maybe they are all correct, maybe they are all wrong.

  504. Zerxil said

    503 that is truly scary, 8)

    Where do the simple ancestors come from?

    I believe evolution & physics are the glue holding the Universe together, not the catalyst to get it started. Which I believe I have stated several times just not this well. Mostly physics for space, Evolution for this planet.

    If you want to debunk ID, going through evolution & physics is a waste of time. If you want to expand your knowledge of what and why others think the way they do than this is just the ticket.

  505. Zerxil said

    or that anything supernatural has happened since the big bang.

    Are you saying the big bang is supernatural?

    What is your meaning of supernatural? You mean like if someone gets a small glimpse into the future, can make a phone ring, unexplainable spontaneous healing. Sure NONE of that ever happens.

  506. Maz said

    The Big Bang is as implausible as evolution. How scientists can ask us to believe that, if not nothing, a singularity of some unfathomable structure suddenly exploded without anything outside it to cause it to do so, is totally unrealistic to say the least. A singularity is usually created by a collapsing star, but seeing that there were no stars until the so called Big Bang, how could this singularity have come to exist in the first place?

  507. John and Ferox said

    John- Hello everyone. To save time[it’s still raining, but no lightning….yet] we are going to try and jump on here real quick and share this computer to voice our opinions in the hopes that we can prevent falling too far behind in this debate.Maz, as to your comments regarding photosynthesis are you implying that life did not exist before the evolution of photosynthesis? Because it did. If you want to learn about the evolution of photosynthesis there are a number of good sites that I found by simply typing “evolution of photosynthesis” into the search. Also, scientists have been able to successfully replicate the process of photosynthesis.There’s a site for that too connected to the others. Also, all of that talk about nature on Earth and the universe “working in harmony” seems….strange… when one recalls all of your talk about entrophy, death, and all of life on Earth, even all of the whole universe being corrupted by sin.

    Ferox- Maz,[yes, we’re tag-teaming tonight] the evolution of photosynthesis occurred in a common ancestor of extant Cyanobacteria roughly 2450-2320 million years ago.Available evidence indicates that life existed at least 3500 million years ago.As John said, it was not necessary for life, only for the rise of life as you know it.And since this all occurred waaaaaaaay before your six thousand year time period, how have you assimilated this information on the process of photosynthesis to work out in such a way that it can successfully fit into your theological beliefs? Also, how does this discount the great mountain of physical evidence[please don’t ask “what evidence?” again as if you’ve never been offered anything yet but pipe dreams]that we have that is used to support evolution? We assume that you refer to macro evolution only.

    John- Maz, within post#450 you made a number of interesting statements, one implying that it is almost impossible for life to exist elsewere in the universe. True the chances are slim, but not non-existent at all[despite all those zeros]. Remember, the universe is a VERY BIG PLACE. Remember the post by Chris C. concerning this matter. There would still be thousands of hypothetical suitable planets to support life as we know it, and life as we don’t.
    There ARE millions of fossils that help us to understand about the origins of animal and plant life.Of course there are gaps, and there may always be, but scientists have filled in the blanks well enough to understand.And we are still filling in blanks, all the time.It’s like this[to try and use an analogy], if one were to walk into a room and see a square hole in the wall, with broken glass around it’s edge and on the rooms floor with a child’s baseball laying there in the middle of it, the evolutionary sciences would deduce that there was a broken window in the room, while the Young-Earth Creationist seems to deduce that there was ALWAYS a square hole in the wall with broken glass and a ball around and beside it.Do you see what I mean? And there are examples of a species evolving into another species.Would you like some examples that I found?

    Ferox-And how does an extinction of life disprove evolution? Lifeforms go extinct for a variety of reasons[over hunting,climate change, disease, etc.] and sometimes things just run their course and die out on their own for reasons unknown.But many of the most successful life forms continue and diversify, unless they have filled their “nich” so well that they seem frozen in time, like roaches, sharks, some bacteria, some ferns, etc.

    John- while we’re talking extinctions, one would wonder why there would be so many over so many periods of time if your deity had created everything “perfectly”.I think even deities are prone to mistakes Maz, and if not, why would your God allow the extinctions[not including those cause by humanity]?
    In regards to post#455, we have all given you evidence of transitional lifeforms, but if you look at their remains for some reason you don’t seem to recognize them for what they are. Perhaps you are expecting something more drastic like Mr. Griffin? A half -n-half creature? As for “survival of the fittest” bear in mind that this does not always mean “bigger, stronger, smarter, better” all the time, only those life forms best suited for their enviorment at a given time and place. Take humanity for example. In the past, people had to be strong and/or smart to survive and be successful. But now that life is easier and safer in so many ways, any lazy, stupid slob can breed[and stupid people breed like rabbits, like, just for fun!..while smart people are too busy working, solving problems, inventing things, waiting until they are “ready”, and then usually only have only a few children.], live off welfare, and die of old age.Stupid people out number[and out breed] smart people by roughly three dozen to one.Why? Because the enviroment has become ideal for them[like cockroaches in a kitchen], and they[sadly]are the “fittest” to survive in it, for our culture supports the weak, the sick, the stupid. Ever see the comedy movie “idiocracy”?Check it out for a better understanding.
    As for post#458, actually it could be both.If you don’t think so, why?

    Bob, were you joking with your question about planets in post#451?
    And about oceanic transitional lifeforms within post#498?
    If you believe that the views of Abc’s require much faith, then commend him on his faith, for it may be stronger than yours[grin].

    Ferox-And would you REALLY want to know Mr. Griffin? I would think not.
    Maz, and then in post#467 you made a reply that basically says “Well, because the Bible says so, so it’s true.”, which just drags this whole debate right back to the very beginning[ and really doesn’t help your credibility as much as you might like.I believe that biblical man[despite his doubted intellectual and spiritual endowments]did not base his views of the universe and it’s known laws on the use of empirical data.Rather, his thinking was imaginative and his expressions of thought were concrete, pictorial,emotional, and poetic[my aside-get thee behind me, literalists!].Hence it is a futile and naive attempt to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with with the findings of modern science. Science has nothing to do with “faith”.Science makes no real claims that the conclusions that it arrives at are “true”, NO MATTER HOW STRONG THE EVIDENCE MAY BE. On the contrary it ASSUMES that they may not be true and has invented many procedures to test these conclusions, the only possible results of which will either be to show that they are NOT true, or to determine that “further research is required”.This is not so with Creationism as you describe it.
    As for post#475 and your opinions of non-human life laking a spirit, I believe that is debatable.What about non-human intelligent life?

    John-My turn, and then I have to go for now.As to your post 467, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are much closer to mythical forms of writing.Myth in this case[ the way I usually use this word]must not be understood to mean that the events told are untrue and entirely fictional in every way.A myth is a profoundly true statement which speaks to “universal” aspects of life and reality [as we comprehend it].It is a statement whose meaning rises above time and space[as we comprehend it].Although biblical myths were influenced by other myths from the ancient world,they are used by biblical writers to help to express history’s relationship to the Christian God.They point to history’s origins at the worlds creation, of the beginnings were history touches eternity, and therefore, to moments that cannot be historically described.
    Myth is thus essential to biblical faith[or any faith of any theology].You do the Scriptures a serious injustice if you read the myths as though they are history. Such a tendency must be resisted along with the opposite tendency to read biblical history as if it were completely mythical.By reading the early chapters of Genesis with sensitivity to poetic symbol and imagery you can easily avoid such temptations.
    Also, Abc’s, what you said within posts#457 and #502 about “designers” is how we Pagan polytheists feel about DEITY. Welcome into our theological version of the universe[smile].Goodnight.

    Ferox-Ditto. It’s feeding time.

  508. Maz said

    John and Felox: (Nice to know your real name F.L.A) Welcome back! I’ll try and reply to both of you together, I hope you don’t mind.
    First point: I’m saying life COULD NOT EXIST if the evolution of photosynthesis was true. I do believe it is necessary for life to exist and I believe it is one of the spanners in the evolutionary works. Plants, trees, etc. need to photosynthesise, and we need plants and trees.
    God made it that way in the Beginning. How can you then say ”it was necessary for life, only for the rise of life as we know it”. Are you saying it wasn’t necessary for a life we don’t know? That doesn’t sound sense.
    God created the light that came from the heavenly bodies, and also in the Beginning, as you know, God said, ”Let there be light”. This was a supernatural light before the sun etc. on day 4. I don’t know what it was made of so don’t ask me.

    Entropy and death, I said, came because of sin and the curse, but there IS still harmony in the Universe or everything would be in complete chaos.

    The Bible tells us that God made the heavens and THE EARTH, and that is what I believe. That means there is no other planet out there with life on whatever scientists may speculate about the possibilities. And we havn’t found any yet, and I believe they never will.

    Where are the examples of species evolving into other species?

    No I don’t believe extinction proves or disproves evolution. The truth is, as you say, animals die out. That is also the effects of the curse on sin.

    God created everything perfect in the beginning, but they aren’t perfect now, which I think is obvious, so we can’t use that argumant against Gods creation.

    Some humans may be living an easier life today, but it all depends on where you live doesn’t it?
    They have found a primitive tribe still living in the jungles somewhere in South America I believe. There are many people on this planet that don’t have any type of welfare as we know it, they don’t live in a culture like America or the other civilizations of the world with technology.
    ”…our culture supports the weak, the sick and the stupid”. And some of those sick and weak and ‘stupid’ people you speak of did not choose to be that way, so it’s not their fault they have to depend on their culture for support. Who are the ‘stupid’ anyway? And why shouldn’t they get support? You may need it some day.

    Accident or design? No it can’t be both, it’s obvious.

    I only lose credibility with you Felox, when I say that I believe what the Bible says, because you don’t believe what it says. And the people who wrote the Bible, were inspired by God to write down what God inspired them to write…if it were by fallible man, there wouldn’t be any design in that either, or the Septenary design, or the codes embedded in it, or the prophesies that were written would never come true….how would they know what was in the future unless God told them?
    Also archaeology has proved many of the stories in the Bible to be historically correct.

    Science may not be ‘faith’, but evolution certainly is. We have said as much for creation as you have said for evolution, neither of us accepts the others interpretation, and I can’t understand why evolutionists can’t see the falacy of believing what they do when the proof is in the very cells that make up life…..we’ve said it before and no doubt we shall say it again…it is far too complex to be by any kind of chance, accident or mindless, unintelligent agency…it takes faith to believe everything came from a ‘point’ in space before even time began and somehow developed by chance mutations on the world we see today.
    I think it was Felox that said ”science makes no real claims that the conclusions that it arrives at are ”true”. REALLY???! So what are they saying about evolution then??
    ”On the contrary it ASSUMES that they may not be true…” REALLY???! Do they EVER ASSUME that evolution may not be true? I don’t think so.
    Do you ever assume that evolution may not be true?

    What do you mean by non-human intelligent life? Our intelligence and the kind the animals may possess are not the same. You don’t see any chimps with PhD’s do you ? 8)

    Genesis 1-11 is mostly historical fact. It is telling us what happened at the Beginning and afterwards. This ofcourse could only be known by God, and so He inspired Moses to write it down. And by ‘inspiration’, I mean that the Holy Spirit revealed it to his spirit so that he knew what to write.

    I think I have covered mostly everything but we can expand on any of these things no doubt.
    Have a good day! 8)

  509. Maz said

    Sorry Ferox, I got your name wrong! 🙂

  510. Maz said

    John: Are evolutionists believe that there must have been plants and trees in existence in the ‘primitive past’ that we don’t know about yet that didn’t need photosynthesis before IT evolved? In that case evolution is assuming that there were plants and trees that evolved before photosynthesis had evolved. Or did they evolve together? That sounds a very complicated, complex and impossible mechanism on the part of DNA and mutations.
    The thing you have to realise is that no plant or animal life lives long enough to allow the millions of micro-mutations that would be needed to transform it into a different, ‘improved’ species. I mean, how likely is it that random mutations will actually come together and co-ordinate to form just one new structure?
    We’ve already given you the maths on the probabilities of this occurring, it is far above astronomical. Think about it. This has to all work together, every mutation of every structure of every creature within this world has to somehow evolve together to work together to sustain AND reproduce it’s own kind to continue to sustain life. Life is complex enough but it has to been so finely interwoven with all life to work.
    Even a convinced evolutionist George Gayland Simpson, an American zoologist admitted that if there was an effective breeding population of 100 million individuals, and they could produce a new generation EVERY SINGLE DAY, the likelihood of producing good evolutionary results from mutations could be expected only about once in 247 BILLION years….fa longer than even the most extravagant estimation of the age of the earth.
    Even with the evolutionists ‘millions of year’, there is NOT ENOUGH TIME for all, they say, to happen.

  511. Maz said

    John and Ferox: (Isn’t that latin for fierce and untameable?) Here’s another little snippet of information. A co-holder of a Nobel Prize for his work in the developement and use of penincillin, Sir Ernst Chain, was cited as saying that the developement and survival of the fittest by chance mutations was a ‘hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts’.
    How is it that some scientists can see the insurmountable evidence against the theory of evolution and others insist it is absolutely proven fact beyond any doubt?

  512. abc's said


    “or that anything supernatural has happened since the big bang. ”

    What I meant by that, is that I don’t know what caused the big bang or what things might have been like before that time, or if the whole idea of “before” the big bang is really even a possible concept.
    Of course I don’t believe in anything supernatural.

  513. abc's said


    “Genesis 1-11 is mostly historical fact.”

    That is absurd.

  514. John said

    At least she thew in a “mostly”, eh?[smile].
    Maz, we couldn’t answer you yesterday due to the weather.

  515. Maz said

    John: You spotted my deliberate mistake!

    Abc’s: I should have said Genesis 1-11 is historical!
    ”In the Beginning GOD created the Heavens and the earth..”
    Right at the beginning of Genesis is a statement of truth, but you don’t accept that because of your belief in evolution, so the rest of Genesis is bound to be anything else but history isn’t it?
    We see the creation of Adam and Eve, we see Cain and Able born. Then Cain kills his brother, and Seth is born later and many sons and daughters. So Cain married a sister.
    Then, at the beginning, the gene pool was almost perfect (almost only because it had been blighted by sin and the process of dying and death) so brothers and sisters, neices and nephews could marry. But by the time the Levitical laws came in it was forbidden. Why? Because by then the gene pool was more tainted and children could be affected.
    This entropy of the genetic mechinery goes right against the theory of evolution, which teaches that we are improving genetically.

    In Genesis we have names of actual people, actual places….have we got a river Euphrates today?
    Yes. And there are rivers that exist today in the Middle East in that area where the garden of Eden was presumably placed.
    We also have a list of names in Lukes gospel, telling of the generations from Joseph the husband of Mary who was the mother of Jesus……RIGHT BACK TO ADAM. Starting from Joseph….are these people actual ancestors or not? If not the whole list is a downright lie!
    Which it isn’t.
    Has God deceived us by giving us a day by day, year by year account of what He did at the beginning and the creation of the human race, the Tower of Babel and the global flood?
    What is the point of telling us all this if it is not true. Maybe you can tell me the purpose of Genesis 1-11? Where is the poetry? Where is the myth?
    I suppose if you could ask God about it He could say, ”Well, I didn’t really mean THAT!”
    But God doesn’t say things He doesn’t mean. He says what He means and means what He says.
    Gods Word is Gods word to us and I believe what He has had written down for us.

  516. John said

    And todays no good either, it seems.
    We’ll get back into the debate a.s.a.p.

  517. Maz said

    John: You get a lot of storms up there? Wherever ‘up there’ is. Shame.

  518. F. L. A. said

    Down here, Maz. We’re on the bottom of Florida, the “Lightning Capital of America” and it’s about darn time we got some good rainstorms.Even most of the Alligator holes had dried out.
    Anyway,….yes, the first part of my name is Latin.And now to try and answer some of your questions before I have to get off due to the storm that’s growing outside.
    No, we do not assume that evolution may not be true because of the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the existence of this phenomena.But we are open to the possibility that it may not have occurred as it is commonly presented in the 19th and 20th centuries.
    As for the claims of science, this is because science doesn’t “prove”, it shows possibilities and disproves things and makes predictions.Science doesn’t deal in “proof”, it deals in evidence.
    Evolution has LOTS of evidence.This is why you will find quotes of evolutionary scientist “admitting” that they have no proof. Isn’t nice having a system that you can critique and test? The only system which has no flaws is one in which those flaws are either ignored of “explained and defined away”. Scientists call this “Dogma”. The presence of these flaws reveals the presence of active investigation into the limits.We call this “Science”.
    You see, the science must be falsifiable[there must be some way to show that the theory is incorrect]The theory must be testable.Evolution is in that there can be things specified which, if they can be verified, would disprove evolution.Creationism allows no such test[to our knowledge].
    It must also be able to make predictions[it must be able to tell you how something WILL occur, and then you must be able to verify the accuracy of the prediction].The theories that compose evolution are useful in this regard in that they have made predictions concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries,fossil find forecasts,….Creationism does none of this. At best it’s predictions are either in the past or unverifiable.
    As for quotes from some scientists who condemn and don’t agree on evolutionary sciences,…then the same argumentation could also condemn and “disprove Creationism[and theology as a whole[!]], too, since many[most all?] theologians don’t agree with it and each other.What has 100% concurrence??? Not even gravity has 100% concurrence, and that’s without getting into weird stuff like levitation.
    I have to go now, for the thunderstorm is here and calls to me[I/we get out and play in it].One of us will discuss the alleged infallibility of the Bible at another time.
    T.T.F.N.[huge sharp-toothed grin]

  519. F. L. A. said

    Oh, and life before photosynthesis and mutating species, too.

  520. Bob Griffin said

    John and Ferox 457

    I wasnt joking about the planets. Where is the other life? SETI has been looking for years and cant find any. Please inform me where it is.

    Not joking about the oceanic forms. You say everything came from the primordial soup – why did it stop? Did natural selection decide to quit? Darwin tried to justify the formation of land to aquatic animals. Im just parroting him, so why do you think its a joke? Still trying to get an answer, how about walking me through how we came up with a whale and a person but started with only one life form.

  521. Bob Griffin said

    FLA 518

    Rule #1 of the scientific method: You must observe the phenomena.

    All of the slooooooow transitions and machinations over billions of years were observed by ???????????

    Why do you think Darwin used assume, suppose etc so many times?

  522. Maz said

    Ferox: ”….science doesn’t ‘prove’, it shows possibilities and disproves things and makes predictions.” (It doesn’t prove?….but it does disprove?? And makes predictions?? Mmm.) ”Science doesn’t deal in ”proof” it deals in evidence”.
    Well why do they use evidence in court to ”prove” someone is innocent or guilty?
    You need the evidence for ”proof” or the justice system couldn’t do justice.
    So what’s the dfference between ”proof” and ”evidence”?
    If there is ”lots of evidence” then there would be lots of ”proof” that evolution is true wouldn’t there? And there simply isn’t the evidence or proof for evolution.
    If scientists have no ”proof” and they can’t ”prove” evolution then that means there’s no evidence to ”prove” it!
    I think you are playing with words….and if you come back and say I am, you are the one that started this difference between ”proof” and ”evidence” in the first place.
    I see no difference whatsoever.

    If there is any Dogma, it is in evolution. And you cannot ”test” evolution. IF it happened in the past there is no one who was there to tell us…oh yes the fossils…..but they don’t tell us about evolution either, infact, and excuse me if I repeat myself, but didn’t Charles Darwin himself say the worst thing about his theory was the fossil record. It lacked the ”proof”…..”evidence” for his theory.

    And evolutionary predictions are usually based on assumptions. Except for God, no one was there at the Beginning or in the distant past when evolutionists say we supposedly evolved. We don’t see it in the fossil record and we don’t see it today.

    And Bobs last line is so true. Whenever I listen to these evolutionists, like David Attenborough, all I hear is ”maybe” ”possibly” (which is what you said about possibilities,
    Ferox), and ”probably”…..they can’t say ”for sure” ”absolutely happened” or any other positive statement of total truth. They can’t say that because they don’t know what happened in the past. It’s all guess work.

  523. Maz said

    Abc’s: You said it was absurd to say Genesis was historical fact. #513.
    May I add that Jesus gave credibility to it in Matthew 19 v 4 when He said, ”Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning, made them male and female;” He is talking about Genesis 1 and 2. Also Luke 10 v 6.
    He also gives credance to Noah and the flood (Genesis 6-8) in Matthew 24 v 37 – 39 and Luke 17 v 26 – 27.
    ”As it was in the days of Noah”….he was a real person….and there was a real flood…..”and the flood came and destroyed them all.” And I can hear the argument about the ”all” not meaning all…I shouldn’t bother about that.
    Genesis tells us ”and the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward (about 20 feet) did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”
    20 feet was enough to make sure everything was destroyed. If there was any land left people would have easily made their escape there. But only Noah and his family were saved. The geneologies afterwards also show this.

  524. Maz said

    That should have been (Genesis 6-8 ) not the smile! I guess a bracket after 8 always makes a smile, so it needs a space to make sure it doesn’t! 8)

  525. Maz said

    Hey guys we have reached the number of blogs that were on the last ”Darwin” post!
    How long will it survive now?

  526. abc's said


    regarding post 523

    That’s why I don’t believe in Jesus either.

  527. Maz said

    Abc’s: Have you nothing more to say than that you don’t believe in the Bible or Jesus?
    Why are you so certain that it’s all a myth? Can evolution really measure up to the Bible?
    There is far more proof of the veracity of the Bible than there is for Darwins ”Origin of the Species”.

  528. abc's said

    Sure, I have a lot of other things to say, but it really won’t serve any purpose on this forum, and it would take a very long time to do that.
    I don’t base my beliefs about the world on a single book.
    The Bible tells the story of a young earth, adam and eve, a great flood, etc. All of the evidence from many different fields of science contradict that story. I choose to believe the evidence.

  529. Maz said

    Abc’s: Then you believe in something that isn’t really there. We (Christians) have posted lots of evidence on this site (Yes, real scientific evidence) that shows evolution to be a theory and always has been and always will be because there is no evidence. And any so called evidence that evolutionists come up with is so minute that it beggars belief how scientific people can make such bold claims about their beliefs about our origins as if there is tons of evidence! There SHOULD be tons of evidence if evolution was true, but there isn’t, and IT isn’t.

  530. abc's said

    “We (Christians) have posted lots of evidence on this site (Yes, real scientific evidence) that shows evolution to be a theory and always has been and always will be because there is no evidence.”

    According to the National Academy of Sciences,

    Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories ALSO allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

    Evolution is a theory because based on the evidence it is so likely to be true that new evidence is unlikely to disprove it.

  531. abc's said


    It is nice that the afternoon storms are finally back.

  532. Maz said

    Abc’s: How come the word ‘theory’ means something different when it is applied to science?
    And especially to evolution. I suppose you could make a word say anything you want it to.
    It would be a good idea if you looked the word up in the dictionary again, or I could tell you what the Collins English Dictionary says.

  533. abc's said

    lol, you are impossible Maz. hehe

  534. Bob Griffin said

    525 Maz This is fun. Maybe we can break 1000.

    528 ABC Science contradicts the biblical flood account? Then why is earth 70% covered by water?

  535. Maz, ABC’s, John, F.L.A. and Bob Griffin –

    Kudos to you all for your inciteful, civil, respectful, yet tough debate considering you all believe different things.

    Nice work.

    Moderator (not Stu)

  536. Maz said

    # 534, Bob: That is true, and even more amazing is that there IS enough water in the oceans and seas, ice and underground water, to cover the earth…mountains and all! It is not impossible.
    And as Ken Ham puts it….and I find I can’t get it out pat like he does….”There are millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, layed down by water, all over the world”.
    Sounds like a world wide flood to me.

    Moderator: Thanks for that. It’s always much nicer when people can intelligently debate.
    It helps me to get into more study about what I believe, and the more study and debate I do the more convinced I am of what I believe.
    And ofcourse it’s fun.

    There is enough left to discuss evolution and related subjects to reach 1000 but both sides have to go the distance…..I think someone is already thinking of giving up.

  537. Maz said

    Someone has sent me a beautiful picture of a bird. It has a red face, a blue crown, a thin black ring round it’s neck, a wide mauve area starting down it’s chest and then it is suddenly this bright yellow colour going down it’s front to it’s feet. And I wonder how it was supposed to have evolved such striking colours, all on one bird, as if someone had taken a paint brush and painted them on. Ofcourse there are many birds with beautiful colours, all created with such vibrrant plumage by our amazinng God.

    I often wonder too, how the butterflies get such beautiful symetrical patterns and colours on their wings all by a mindless force called ‘natural selection’….??

    Ofcourse it makes sense when you realise that our wonderful Creator God is the greatest Artist of all, and the colours you see in nature are the most exquisite there are in the world.

  538. abc's said


    “It helps me to get into more study about what I believe, and the more study and debate I do the more convinced I am of what I believe.”

    Take a look at some of the evidence for evolution that isn’t first “filtered through the lens of scripture” by another believer.

    If you would like to discuss any of the evidence on the site (see below) I would be glad to continue the conversation. I would be genuinely interested in any scientific articles that you can provide that you have studied that provide evidence and alternate explanations for these observed phenomena that both contradict the theory of evolution and provide support for design.


  539. Zerxil said

    Hey guys we have reached the number of blogs that were on the last ”Darwin” post!
    How long will it survive now?


  540. Maz said

    Zerxil: Did you read #525?

    Abc’s: You have a different kind of filter on your glasses….it’s called evolution bias.
    You look from a theoretical standpoint and I look from a Biblical standpoint.
    I’d put my trust in Gods Word any day over man’s theories and assumptions.
    I’ll have a look into the link, but I’m not promising anything. Up to now you havn’t accepted anything I have brought to this site and I guess with those biased lenses of yours you won’t on the other site. I think you said in an earlier post….”what is the point?”
    I am quite happy to carry on here with everyone else.

  541. Maz said

    Abc’s: I have had an initial look at the link you posted….and I have a few points to make.
    I shall look further but this is what I have seen so far.
    The first couple of words I found when starting to read were ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis’.
    Ofcourse your interpretation of these words are different because you believe the theory of evolution is fact.
    A point to note here….why don’t we (Christians) call our belief ‘The Theory of Creation’? Hazard a guess.

    Firstly I read ”Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool”. I have already put forward why you cannot have genetic mutations across the SPECIES boundary. Mutations across that boundary usually produces infertility if you get a viable offspring atall. You CANNOT cross one species with another…and this is proven to be true today. It must have been the same in the past.
    ”Whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open”. In other words there is still a question in existence. Do I dare say ‘doubt’? ”None of the dozens of predictions directly address HOW macroevolution has occurred”. So again, the question mark still exists. BUT…..they say, ”The scientific case for common descent stands, REGARDLESS.”
    Sounds like they are believing it whether they have the answers or not.

    ”….abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis..” HYPOTHESIS.
    ”Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations”. But have we observed evolution in progress? No. And have we had any empirical testing done that proves evolution?…I don’t think so. But maybe you can correct me if I am wrong, and let me know the results of their empirical testing to prove evolution is a fact.
    ”Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatability with the available data”. So evolution theory is not judged simply by the evidence? Explain.

    ”By ‘testable’ we mean” (WE! mean) ”that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence (??) would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis.” The HYPOTHESIS makes the predictions….about WHAT observable evidence?
    Sometimes I wonder if I am reading a foreign language here.
    Nothing I have read so far has said anything to produce evidence of the FACT of evolution.
    But I have only just started, so I will continue to look at this site and maybe things will become clearer…….or muddier!

    As Arnie would say ”I’ll be back”

  542. Maz said

    Abc’s: I went onto ”Unity of life” on your link. And here are some observations…..
    ”According to the theory of common descent modern living organisms, with all their INCREDIBLE differences, are the progeny of ONE SINGLE SPECIES in the distant past.” (My caps).
    They speak of the similarities in structure and funtion, as if this is proof of a common descent, but this could also mean a COMMON DESIGNER AND CREATOR.
    Also their predictions about DNA were right, YET, that also can mean a COMMON DESIGNER AND CREATOR, especially when intelligence is an obvious component in DNA. Doesn’t this add up?
    Did they ever suggest where or theorize where this intelligence came from?

    ”The scientists that cracked the genetic code in the 50’s and 60’s worked UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that the code was universal or nearly so……all made this ASSUMPTION and JUSTIFIED it BASED UPON EVOLUTIONARY REASONING, EVEN IN THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR A UNIVERSAL CODE.” Yes, as I said, they were right, but their conclusions about this code were wrong because they were looking from EVOLUTIONARY REASONING. (MY caps again.)

    I shall read more later because I don’t want to hog the site.
    I am finding this very interesting.
    If you wanted any scientific articles that support Creation there are many on Answers in Genesis, or CMI. Some of them would be too exstensive to post here.

  543. Zerxil said


  544. Maz said

    Zerxil: Abc’s believes in evolution, Bob and I don’t.

  545. Maz said

    Abc’s: You can find all about what creationists believe about design if you go to Creationontheweb.com/design.

  546. Maz said

    Abc’s: I think you may find this article very interesting.

  547. Zerxil said

    “Indeed, he says, ‘in many cases there does not exist in the biological literature even an attempt to explain how these things have come about’. A classic example, he says, is the lung of the bird, which is ‘unique in being a circulatory lung rather than a bellows lung [see box]. I think it doesn’t require a great deal of profound knowledge of biology to see that for an organ which is so central to the physiology of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we can’t throw under the carpet again”

    AS PER MAZ’S 546

  548. Bob Griffin said

    543 Zerxil

    What would make me believe in evolution?

    Living transitional forms all around us. Darwin himself wondered where they are. I agree w him on that one. Our inferences based on what our world shows us give us nothing like what Darwin theorizes.

  549. Zerxil said

    “Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.”

    The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It’s called “A Breed Apart.” It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There’s enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they’re witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

    TALK ORGINS-Observed Instances of Speciation

  550. Anonymous said


    540. “You have a different kind of filter on your glasses”

    Yes I do. It’s called evidence. What can I learn from only looking at the evidence.

    “A point to note here….why don’t we (Christians) call our belief ‘The Theory of Creation’? Hazard a guess.”

    I don’t know. Why don’t you call it that? I don’t call it a theory because it isn’t supported by evidence and you can’t make predictions with it.

    “You CANNOT cross one species with another…and this is proven to be true today.”

    That is true. It sounds like you are expecting a bird to mate with a lizard to produce a new species. That isn’t how it works. Over time, a single population of a species may become genetically divergent ,due to genetic mutations and natural selection, in which you will have more than one species of that animal.

    “”….abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis..” HYPOTHESIS”
    Yep, there is no “theory of abiogenesis”

    “They speak of the similarities in structure and funtion, as if this is proof of a common descent, but this could also mean a COMMON DESIGNER AND CREATOR.”

    That’s also true. Now explain how it fits the predictions made by the “theory of creation” and also falsifies the theory of evolution.
    *note: You can’t do this because there is no theory of creation.

    “”The scientists that cracked the genetic code in the 50’s and 60’s worked UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that the code was universal or nearly so……all made this ASSUMPTION and JUSTIFIED it BASED UPON EVOLUTIONARY REASONING, EVEN IN THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR A UNIVERSAL CODE.” Yes, as I said, they were right, but their conclusions about this code were wrong because they were looking from EVOLUTIONARY REASONING. (MY caps again.)”

    They made this “assumption” or “hypothesis” because Evolutionary theory predicted it. Once they conducted their experiments they found that the hypothesis was true based on the theory. Their findings supported the theory of evolution. What doesn’t make sense about this? That is the process of the scientific method.

  551. abc's said

    post 550 was mine. 🙂

  552. abc's said

    post 550 was mine. 🙂

  553. abc's said

    ref 546 and 547

    I started this post with more than 10 links to different sites with research papers that suggest plausible mechanisms for the evolution of bird lungs, but then I remembered the poor moderator. If you think the evolution of the bird lung is an interesting conundrum then do some research. There are more than enough plausible ideas to render the idea of irreducible complexity a moot point.

  554. abc's said


    You still don’t understand what it means to be in transition.

  555. Zerxil said

    550 ABC, John, MAZ, FLA, BOB do you think we or a group of scientists could write a theory OF ID AND OR CREATION? I guess creation could be a hypothesis for the theory OF ID.

  556. Zerxil said

    548 What Bob, I think, wants to see is a living transitional form that transisted from a recent animal of a differing species. So Bob what else do you need to see. Anything but Maz’s DNA startup, that is a very good argument. I still say that micro evolution within species is even provable hence 549.

  557. Maz said

    Abc’s: If we go along with your explanation of what ‘theory’ means then we could say we believe in the ‘theory’ of Creation. You say that evolution is a ‘fact-theory’…..actually that’s like saying I’m a male-female…..they are opposites as far as the dictionary is concerned. So we don’t call it the ‘theory’ of Creation because the word ‘theory’ means it is just that, a theory AND NOT FACT! And Creation is FACT, TRUTH, and if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here atall debating about it.

    Zerxil: Nothing would change my mind about evolution. It is mindless and heartless and souless and has no purpose whatsoever. Whereas my Creator God, the most intelligent of Beings in the Universe, created everything and created me for a purpose. He has a great heart of love beyond anyones imaginings. In fact I would still want to believe in God even if it was possible to show me REAL evidence of evolution because it’s a far better option. My life has been changed so dramatically by God I would not want to revert back to my former evolutionistic self.

    Anon: (Abc’s): You look THROUGH a filter, not at it. The evidence evolutionists see is filtered by the lense they wear, coloured by a theory that is more a faith than fact.

    You are assuming (again) that all species once had a common ancestor…and again I would say that this has not been proved in any way whatsoever.

  558. Maz said

    Abc’s: Here is something else to get your teeth into.


  559. Anonymous said


    You said,

    ” Nothing would change my mind about evolution. It is mindless and heartless and souless and has no purpose whatsoever. ”

    This statement is why continuing with the debate is pointless.

    My acceptance of the theory of evolution could change based on new evidence. This is the filter I use. If the evidence (upon its own merit) supports a theory, I accept it as the most probable truth until evidence can be presented to refute the theory.

    No, you haven’t provided sufficient evidence for me to doubt evolution.

  560. Maz said

    Zerxil: Are you REALLY a literal Bible believing Christian as you seemed to infer in #31?
    Yet you say a lot about evolution. You sound pretty mixed up in your beliefs.

  561. abc's said

    Post 559 was mine.

  562. Maz said

    Anon: It’s not pointless from my perspective. You see, I really DO BELIEVE that the Universe was Created by God, because I KNOW HIM. You on the other hand prove my point. Evolution is not as important to you as my Creator God is to me. You are willing to admit that evolution MIGHT be wrong by saying that ”my acceptance of the theory…could change based on new evidence.”

  563. abc's said


    I read the page listed in 558.

    “Such similarities are said to be due to ‘convergence’ or ‘parallel evolution’.”

    That is true. Convergence and parallel evolution are 2 well understood phenomena that are predictions made by the theory of evolution. It is the answer to why different species may have similar structures, but aren’t necessarily closely related.

    “‘Convergence’ is really just a grab bag to put similarities which cannot be explained through common ancestry (evolution).”

    That is an intellectually dishonest statement made by the writer.

    The whole article was just a critique of the theory of evolution. Where is the evidence to the contrary?

  564. Maz said

    This will be my last link for this evening if anyone is interested. It is based on ”The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory”.


  565. Zerxil said

    Hey John & Maz, ADB (not misspelled) is a creation evolutionist, and a paster.

  566. Maz said

    Abc’s: You quoted something from the link I gave on #558 as if the web site was saying it, but it was pointing out the ‘story’ of what evolutionists tell concerning ‘convergence’ and ‘paralell evolution.’
    I do not believe they were being intellectually honest about it.

  567. Maz said

    Oops!! I meant to say…..I do not believe they were being intellectually DISHONEST about it.

  568. Maz said

    Zerxil: We have quite a mixture here don’t we. Am I the only Christian here that believes in Creation as written in Genesis?

  569. abc's said

    The Biotic Message? Are you serious?
    I read part of that book in the bookstore recently.

    Think about this. Why can ReMine’s amazing ‘theory’ only be read about in his vanity press book. Why has he not written up manuscripts to be critiqued by his fellow scientists? The answer? Creationists prefer writing in a medium wherein they receive only praise from like-minded individuals, such as “John Woodmorappe”, not where those that know better would demolish his flimsy, evidence-less claims.

    Also, he is not a biologist. He has a masters degree in engineering.

  570. abc's said


    “You quoted something from the link I gave on #558 as if the web site was saying it, but it was pointing out the ’story’ of what evolutionists tell concerning ‘convergence’ and ‘paralell evolution.’”

    Convergence and parallel evolution are scientific terms that have meaning and are supported by data. They are not “stories.”

    The writer was either lying, or he doesn’t understand what he is critiquing.

  571. Maz said

    ADB: I forgot that you were a pastor…but the way you have been supporting the evolutionist belief on here, you can forgive me for it completely escaping my mind.
    What do you teach your congregation about Genesis 1 and 2? Do you teach them that God used evolution? What about sin? What about the fall? What about Jesus dying on the cross for our sins and the sin we inherited from the first man Adam?
    What I cannot understand is how anyone who really knows God can also be in a position of authority in the Church and believe something that is totally against what the Bible tells us.

  572. Maz said

    ADB: Creationists AREN’T ALLOWED to have their ‘critiques’ or any kind of ‘creationist’ science published in secular magazines. They just won’t have it. THEY want their evolutionary bias printed, but they won’t accept something that opposes their theory.

  573. abc's said


    That’s not true.

  574. Maz said

    ADB: How is it that, when I read your posts, I find it hard to believe that you are a minister for our Creator God? What denomination do you belong to?

  575. Maz said

    ADB: #573…That is the experience of people high up in the scientific circles that also believe in Creation.

  576. Zerxil said

    Truthfully I’m an IDer that thinks that Ken Ham and his elk has enough evidence to make a young earth possible. I was not a literal bible Christian until this past year. I still think that since humans had a hand in writing the bible (no matter how small) it can have mistakes in it. Mistakes not whole chapters. So if Gen 1 wasn’t there & you jumped into the garden story there wouldn’t be such a big deal with evo. “Since the bible contradicts me” the scientist says “It can not be right.” The thing that gets me is that God looked at his creation and saw that it was good. Which brings up the idea that it was possible that it wouldn’t be, and the questions ‘can God make mistakes and Is this the 1st universe that was created?’ which you have to admit is a thought stretcher. For you evo’s is this the 1st universe that formed? How could you prove If the big bang is a singularity or not? You don’t have to be a literal Christian to believe in Jesus, but if geniuses is a group of “stories” how can you be sure the new testament is not.

  577. Zerxil said

    attention! abc is not adb.

  578. Zerxil said

    or is he…

  579. abc's said

    I thought there was some confusion.

    abc’s is definitley not adb. I haven’t seen a post from adb in a long time.

  580. abc's said


    Name some of those people.

  581. Anonymous said


    “So if Gen 1 wasn’t there & you jumped into the garden story there wouldn’t be such a big deal with evo.”

    So you think the whole bit with the talking snake, and Eve created from Adam’s rib, and the worldwide flood and Noah are possible?

  582. Zerxil said

    Answers to 569 1. He already knows what they will say. 2. It is written in book form & they can debunk that. 2b. alot of scientific People will have to buy his book & start excepting it before the scientific community will ever start kicking it around, could also explain ID. Weird, alot is not a word as per firefox.

  583. Maz said

    Zerxil: You said ADB was a Pastor…..which started me confusing ABC with ADB. As ADB isn’t on here I wonder why you mentioned it?

  584. abc's said


    I can’t help it, i’m a teacher.

    a lot

    is 2 words.

  585. Maz said

    #580: Sorry havn’t got any specific names, dates and places, but then would it make any difference if I did? I’v looked up in my documents, and altho I know I have read and heard this happening more than once to scientists that have submitted articles and papers to non-religious magazines and been refused, I can’t find anything on it in my files at the moment.
    But the prejudice is out there.

  586. Maz said

    Abc’s: What do you teach?

  587. abc's said


    1. He already knows it will be rejected because it isn’t science. He made it up and he doesn’t have evidence to support the idea.
    2. Scientists won’t waste their time debunking a novel.
    3. If it is written as a book with no peer scrutiny, then technically, it really never enters the scientific arena.
    4. Popular opinion is no way to settle scientific matters.
    4. These things do explain why id is not accepted as a science.

  588. abc's said


    “Sorry havn’t got any specific names, dates and places, but then would it make any difference if I did?”

    For me it would make a huge difference. I say that it isn’t true, but if you have evidence, then I could change my mind. 🙂

    I am familiar with the movie Expelled, but that is a whole different topic.

  589. abc's said

    I teach Science.

  590. Zerxil said

    Sure the rib had DNA in it…so does that make her his twin? I believe in talking birds, talking apes (sign language), singing whales. Do you? So water world is scientifically disprovable, so what is the big deal with globel warming? The flood is the reason I believe in evo to the extent I do.

  591. Maz said

    Abc’s: Ahh! So do you teach evolution?
    And how is it that ID isn’t a science, when we have evidence of intelligent design in DNA?
    What would you call it if the information in DNA isn’t intelligent?
    And when you look at a butterfly, or anything else that is exquisitely paterned, wouldn’t you call that ‘design’?
    I couldn’t paint a design as beautiful as the ones you see on some butterfly wings.
    And then there is the peacock feathers. There are so many animals, and particularly birds that have such beuatifully coloured plumage….what about the bird I saw, described in #537?
    How do you account for such colours? It’s certainly not for camouflage.

  592. Maz said

    All animals have a language of some degree…..they communicate with each other. And my cat certainly communicates to me about when he is hungry! Actually we ‘talk’ to each other in his language. I havn’t a clue what I’m saying but it sounds right. 😉

  593. Zerxil said

    So ABC can you write a theory of ID using creation as a hypothesis even if you disagree with it?

  594. Zerxil said

    John, FLA, Maz, me and our motley collection of souls could write it & you and the evo’s can critic it. I know John & FLA are more of being evo’s than I am, but they are smart.

  595. Zerxil said

    In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. abc biological, physical or chemical sciences?

  596. Zerxil said

    1) Try to summarize the main idea or theme in a single paragraph. As Einstein once said, unless a theory has a simple underlying picture that the layman can understand, the theory is probably worthless…

    2) If you have a serious proposal for a new physical theory, submit it to a physics journal, just as Physical Review D or Nuclear Physics B. There, it will get the referee and serious attention that it deserves.

    3) Remember that your theory will receive more credibility if your theory builds on top of previous theories, rather than making claims like “Einstein was wrong!”

  597. Zerxil said

    theory 1. There is intelligence behind the design & creation of the universe.
    theory 2. There is intelligence behind the evolution of the universe.
    theory 3. There is intelligence behind the evolution of the creatures on this earth.
    theory 4. There is intelligence behind the design & creation of the so called “food chain” – “food circle”.
    theory 5. There is intelligence behind the design & creation of the “water circle”.
    theory 6. There is intelligence behind the design & creation of people.
    theory 7. There is intelligence behind the evolution of people.

    I am pretty good with the physical working side of things, and slicing the dross away. Pretty good at producing the dross too. 😉

  598. Zerxil said

    Can we do the food chain? FLA should really be a help…

  599. Maz said

    I have a very profound question.
    How come we have intelligence if there is no intelligent design in the Universe?

  600. I wonder how many phone lines we can have on the radio show at one time. My, but this would be a great on the air. Maz, Bob, Zerxil, ABC’s, John and F.L.A. Now, that would be some fun! We’d need at least 3 hours instead of 1.

    Moderator (not Stu)

  601. Zerxil said

    here is a start

    Title: How Food Chains or Trophic dynamics were made.

    Intelligence played an important role in the design and creation of Trophic dynamics. If the herbivores ever got too numerous they would trample & eat all the vegetation in an area so carnivores have to exist to dispose of excess, sick, deranged herbivores. Waste needs to be disposed of so there are microscopic animals, molds, & fungus that break down the ‘waste’. Plants than use the broken material to reproduce & get bigger. Herbivores eat plants to live & reproduce. Carnivores eat herbivores to live & reproduce.

    “One example of a multi-trophic interaction is a trophic cascade, in which predators benefit plants by suppressing herbivores. A simple way to show more than two trophic levels can be a pyramid, which shows the flow of energy throughout an ecosystem.

    Trophic dynamics
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

  602. Zerxil said

    So is there 3 moderators? stu, not stu, and the other one?

  603. Zerxil said

    Hey abc what is your definition of intelligence?

  604. Zerxil said

    intelligent design

    “The phrase was used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

    No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.[54]

    The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design”. A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, Teleological argument for the existence of God: “Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer”.[55] The phrases “intelligent design” and “intelligently designed” were used in a 1979 book Chance or Design? by James Horigan[56] and the phrase “intelligent design” was used in a 1982 speech by Sir Fred Hoyle in his promotion of panspermia.[57]
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

  605. Zerxil said

    New process to add to a debate

    Burden of proof (Latin, onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the ordinary rule is that “the necessity of proof lies with he who complains.” For example, a person has to prove that someone is guilty (in a criminal case) or liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations; a person is not required to prove his or her own innocence, it is rebuttably presumed. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position.

  606. Zerxil said

    Types of burden

    There are generally three broad types of burdens:

    * A “legal burden” or a “burden of persuasion” is an obligation that remains on a single party for the duration of the claim. Once the burden has been entirely discharged to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, the party carrying the burden will succeed in its claim. For example, the presumption of innocence places a legal burden upon the prosecution to prove all elements of the offence (generally beyond a reasonable doubt) and to disprove all the defences except for affirmative defenses in which the proof of nonexistence of all affirmative defence(s) is not constitutionally required of the prosecution (432 U.S. 197).

    * An “evidentiary burden” or “burden of leading evidence” is an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs. This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

    * A “tactical burden” is an obligation similar to an evidentiary burden. Presented with certain evidence, the Court has the discretion to infer a fact from it unless the opposing party can present evidence to the contrary.

    [edit] Standard of proof

    The “standard of proof” is the level of proof required in a legal action to discharge the burden of proof, that is to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof: “the balance of probabilities” (BOP), called the “preponderance of evidence” in the U.S., (which is the lowest level, generally thought to be greater than 50%, although numeric approximations are controversial) and “beyond a reasonable doubt” (which is the highest level, but defies numeric approximation).[citation needed] In addition to these, the U.S. introduced a third standard called “clear and convincing evidence”, (which is the medium level of proof).

    The first attempt to quantify reasonable doubt was made by Simon in 1970. In the attempt, she presented a trial to groups of students. Half of the students decided the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The other half recorded their perceived likelihood, given as a percentage, that the defendant committed the crime. She then matched the highest likelihoods of guilt with the guilty verdicts and the lowest likelihoods of guilt with the innocent verdicts. From this, she gauged that the cutoff for reasonable doubt fell somewhere between the highest likelihood of guilt matched to an innocent verdict and the lowest likelihood of guilt matched to a guilty verdict. From these samples, Simon concluded that the standard was between 0.70 and 0.74.[1]

    [edit] Air of reality

    The “air of reality” is a standard of proof used to determine whether a criminal defense may be used. The test asks whether a defense can be successful if it is assumed that all the claimed facts are to be true.

    Burden of proof
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

  607. John said

    Hi folks!
    Maz, it’s all about sexual competition and self defense, basically.
    Birds[and many reptiles] are brightly colored to help then attract mates.Their colors announce to the females “CHOOSE MEEEEE! I’M THE BEST! MATE WITH MEEEEEEE!”,. Almost every insect[and many types of amphibians] are brightly colored to warn potential predators of danger. Their colors announce “I AM DANGEROUS! IF YOU TOUCH,EAT, OR MESS WITH ME IN ANY WAY, I CAN KILL YOU!!!”.These animals are not pretty for OUR pleasure, that is coincidental.A fringe benefit[and does this imply that all of the ugly, violent stuff in nature is grounded in sin and Satan? An Angler Fish is ugly, but only by HUMAN standards.Do you think humanity has the monopoly on these judgements? This isn’t “Walt Disney Nature”, after all, where all the “good guys” are herbivores and cute, and all the “bad guys” are ugly carnivores]. Take flowers for example. Flowers are very lovely and smell great. Who doesn’t enjoy the experience of walking through a field of wildflowers in the Springtime, or a Citrus grove while it’s in full bloom? It’s heavenly. But when you realize WHY they are the colors that they are and WHY they smell as they do, you realize how much of a sex maniac Mother Nature must be[smile].They are sex organs, after all[think about THAT the next time you stick your nose in one[toothy grin].] The colors are to attract flies, bees, and other insects[they look different to their eyes, you know], not including those flowers that attract birds and bats to get their pollinating accomplished.
    Human sediments have little place within the natural world, Maz.
    There is no mercy and very little harmony and tolerance among many lifeforms.I’m not saying that it’s ALL “red in tooth and claw”, but it is all about various forms of competition, defense, consumption, and sex.

    Your a science teacher Abc’s? That’s cool. What kind of science do you teach? As a teacher, how have F. L. A. and I handled ourselves here so far? I was just curious.
    As you said within post#559, We agree.I have no idea what would qualify as useful evidence on this topic to the Maz Hermans and Bob Griffins of the world, so we both don’t know what to do, what to provide them with.We have concluded that there is nothing that they would ever be content with. I would say that they are “blinded by their faith”, but they might find some way to turn it into a compliment[sigh….smile].They judge these things too much with their hearts….and this is fine, but it puts us at an impasse in a debate of this kind.We had all this information to put out too, but now, well, we think that it would just be too much of a waste of time on our part.Did you read through the site that the Moderator presented us with in post#488? It was helpful.
    Perhaps Chris C. or someone else will have something to add that will help.

    Sounds like an interesting proposition Zerxil, but if we all worked on it, how shall we get things started?
    Yes, we both knew that about ADB.
    Gotta go now.

  608. F. L. A. said

    We just noticed your posts, Zerxil. Good work! There are also a number of insects[beetles, flies, worms too]that also breck down waste products in addition to the bacteria.And some predators eat each other too,but I’m being nit-picky, I guess.

    Moderator, that sounds like fun, but there is a big problem.
    Although I can make a number of weird and interesting noises, I cannot speak.
    I never could.

  609. Chris C. said

    Re: post 600.

    Hey, I go on vacation for a week an you all leave me out of the fun?? Whats up with that!

    Anyways, I will read through what I can. Surprised to see it all still going.

    Breifly: In response to Maz’ assertion that Birds of Paradise were beautiful because they were designed to be aesthetically pleasing to humans. The bright plumage is likely an adaptation to a highly competative environment. Sexual selection plays a key role evolution. The brighter and more colorful a given bird’s plumage is, the more a potential mate is likely to say think, “That male bird is very bright so he must be more fit and therefore I want to mate with him.” Now, in danger of you accusing me of ascribing intelligence to birds…

    Sexual selection does not work in other animals the way it works in humans. Other animals lack cognitive intelligence and consciousness (as best we can tell). The sexual selection mentioned above is akin to the bee always choosing the brightest flowers, or the hummingbirds always choosing the most red nectar. They do not consciously think about the choice. It is almost like water running down a hillside: it always takes the path of least resistnace. Does that water think about its course…no…but it predictale follows that path of least resistance every time. This is how sexual selection works: the animals which have some given appealing trait are automatically selected by mates for reproduction. Again, I highly recommend “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. I know he has a wrap as a Big Bad Atheist. Honestly, the idea of atheism is completely absent from The Selfish Gene…it is a biology book which puts the basics of evolution and selection in beautiful and simple terminology.

    Good to be back. I have some catching up to do.

  610. Chris C. said

    All it would take for creation to find its way into the main stream of science is one decent peer-reviewed article.

    Everyone loved Newton’s ideas of gravity and physics. They seemed airtight. Einstein came along and said, “No, this Newton fellow didn’t get it all right.” Left at that, we might have lughed at Einstein. But he had data to back up his assertion, and conceivable testable hypotheses which have now been tested. Now we know Einstein was right, and he overturned centuries of conventional scientific wisdom. Sure there was resitance to his ideas. And sure he was wrong about some things (his Cosmological Constant for example). But in the end the data and facts overcame resistance in the scientific community to a new paradigm.

    So let’s put this in perspective of evolution. When we look at the rocks, we see species going from simpler in the past to more complex as time passes. This is a fact. Natural selecton is the current theory as to how we account for the fossil record. Creation accounts differently for these fossils. There is a great deal of data to suggest that natural selection is the correct theory. In fact, not many seriously doubt the theory of Evoltion by Natural Selection today. For those that do (i.e. Ken Hamm, Kurt Wise, Duane Gish, etc.) all they need to do is bring foward some proof that the earth is really very young, or that all lifeforms seemed to come into existance at the same time. If they could do this, I am certain the scientific community would be fascinated. If the data passed peer review, it would be published. Well-established paradigms (such as Newtonian physics) have been overturned in the past. And it will happen again. But it won’t happen without sufficient evidence. (“You can’t explain how X, Y, or Z happened!” is not positive evidence, by the way). There is no conspiracy against creation.

  611. Maz said

    TruthTalk: I am better at writing than talking. It is easier to look up files and go on the internet for the information you want to put forward, you couldn’t do that live on a radio programme.

    Zerxil: In some places, innocence has to be proven, not guilt. And the ‘proof’ of evolution would not stand up in court. The Scotes trial is not a fair example.

    John: Glad to see you back. Have the storms passed?

    So, how on earth do the genes ‘decide’ which colours to produce on the birds to attract mates?
    It can’t ‘just’ happen, that is not scientific, and it is not ‘coincidental’ as you put it either. You have to have the colours coded in the DNA for it to produce the colours. It’s like a computer, you only get the information out that is put in.

    What about the ‘eyes’ found on the wings of certain insects? Tell me how they could possibly be created by genetic manipulation if it is not coded in the DNA to start with? Why don’t all moths etc. have eyes to protect them? It seems some creatures are more ‘interested’ in mating than protection!

    God made them that way. It was within the DNA to start with. And ofcourse they aren’t perfect now because of the curse. That brought in the harmful element in nature. Death and disease came.
    So what came first, the colourful flower or the bee? Or did they somehow ‘miraclulously’ evolve together in some fantastic ‘coincidence’.

    So, we are ”blinded by faith”. On the contrary, evolutionists are the blind ones.

    F.L.A: I preferred calling you Ferox, don’t you like using the name? You say you cannot speak, are you teasing us or is that true?

    Chris: I didn’t say that Birds of Paradise (I didn’t mention them by name) were beautiful because they were designed to be aesthetically (I didn’t use that word either…mainly because I wouldn’t know where to look it up in the dictionary to spell it! ;-)) pleasing to humans. God chose to make them beautiful and I appreciate that beauty.

    ”Sexual selection does not work in other animals the way it works in humans.” Why not?
    I thot, according to evolutionists, that we were all related, especially with apes?
    ”Other animals” (you are assuming here that we are just evolved animals ourselves) ”lack cognitive intelligence and consciousness (as best we can tell).”
    Ahh! Now how is it WE are the ONLY ONES upon this earth with this amazing intelligence?
    With animals, instinct plays a big roll in their lives (that’s the way God made them) so how did instinct and our intelligence originate? And how do birds know ‘instinctively’ which direction to fly in the winter (due South). Maybe evolution gave them a built in compass?? 🙂 We could do with that! ”…they do not consciously think about the choice.” So they have no conscious thot about where they are going. Amazing isn’t it?

    Water runs down a hillside because of gravity.

    What is, according to evolution scientists, ”one descent peer-reviewed article”? I guess the ‘peers’ are evolutionists?

    So Newton (a Christian) was wrong about some things, and Einstein was wrong about some things…which means that they were both right about some things?

    ”…we look at the rocks, we see species going from simpler in the past to more complex as time passes.” Don’t forget the Cambrian explosion which does not fit in with this picture.
    That is also a fact.

    ”…all they” (Ken Ham etc.) ”need to do is bring forward some proof that the earth is really very young..” They have…..as much as evolutionists assume to have for an old earth.
    But they won’t accept their findings. And the scientific community would certainly NOT be fascinated by it…..they never will be because they don’t accept young earth science, and deffinitely not the Biblical account of creation where it originates.

    There may not be any ‘conspiracy’ against creation science, but there IS a lot of deep seated prejudice in the secular media, particularly from the evolutionist front, against creation science and ministries like Ken Ham’s and John McKay’s. I see it all the time on TV. The media are going to have a field day when It’s Darwins birthday! All the evolutionary flags will be flying that day!
    And to think……he was completely wrong!

  612. Sorry Chris C. You’d be welcomed as well!


  613. Hey Zerxil –

    Stu doesn’t moderate the blog. He’s far too busy. Only one moderator. Sometimes I mention (not Stu), so people understand that it’s not him. Guess I need to be more consistent. My apologies.

    You all are setting a record on this post it seems.

    Good stuff.

    Moderator (not Stu)

  614. Maz said

    Abc’s: #580 I have a name for you!
    Dr. Mary Swietzer (sorry if the spelling is wrong) the lady who not only discovered in 1990 the dinosaur blood cells with haemaglobin in them, but also in 2005 the dinosaur flesh in a T-rex bone, could not get her papers published in any evolution journals because they said ”we do not want to publish this because we do not want to believe that what you have found is true.”
    You can question this if you like, I have no problem in believing this is what they actually said because I have seen this kind of thinking in the media. Many if not all scientists who believe in evolution will purposefully suppress any position that supports a creationist viewpoint however scientifically it is presented. We are talking about a lady who has a doctorate.
    How many creationist scientists have you seen on the National Geographic channel? Or in their magazine?
    When I watched that hour long programme on the secular channel a few weeks ago they gave Ken Ham about 10 seconds of air time with two or three little snippets, and each one was a quote about the Bible, nowhere was he given a chance to give any scientific evidence for what he believed.
    The question was…”Was Darwin Right?” You would think that both sides would be represented…….but no, a purely biased programme, and the evidence for Darwin being right was scanty to say the least.
    The bias exists. The prejudice exists. The exclusivity exists. And I am quite sure that you see this happening in the schools and universities of America aswell as in other countries.
    They want to silence the voice of the Creationist not listen.

  615. Zerxil said

    “The claim of discovering soft tissues in a 65 million year old fossil was disputed by molecular biologists for 15 years after Schweitzer’s announcement. The authenticity of her discovery, however, is now generally accepted in the scientific community although the mechanism of the preservation is not well understood.”

    Mary Higby Schweitzer
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

    so why did she find them & no one else?

  616. Zerxil said

    “Schweitzer believes that the unusual tissue inside the T. rex bone is actually medullary bone: a thin layer of highly vascular bone that is found in present-day female birds only during ovulation. This estrogen-linked reproductive bone tissue is laid down inside the hollow leg bones of the birds and persists until the last egg is laid, at which time it is completely resorbed into the bird’s body. Its formation is triggered by an increase in estrogen levels, and the temporary tissue provides the calcium necessary to form eggshells. Medullary bone is only found in present-day female birds; no other egg-laying species – including crocodiles, the other living dinosaur relative – produces this tissue naturally.

    Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

    Schweitzer viewed the tissues under both a light and an electron microscope, and found that the dinosaur tissues were virtually identical to those of the modern birds in form, location and distribution. Demineralization – the chemical removal of a bone’s minerals in order to obtain organic material that is much easier to work with in a lab environment – of the samples revealed that the medullary bone from the ostrich and emu was virtually identical in structure, orientation and even color, with that seen in the T. rex.

    Since only females produce medullary bone, its presence in the T. rex femur indicates that this fossil was a female, and probably one who died toward the end of her laying cycle. From a biological perspective, the tissue is another link between dinosaurs and living birds.

    “The discovery of medullary bone in the T. rex is important because it allows us to objectively sex a dinosaur,” says Schweitzer. “It also adds to the robust support linking birds and dinosaurs and shows that their reproductive physiologies may have been similar. Hopefully we’ll be able to identify features within dinosaurs that will help us determine the gender of our other fossils, and lead to more information about their herd structure or family groups.”

    The N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences will soon become the new home of the cast of the thigh bone. “We’re pleased to be able to provide a way for the public to see for themselves evidence that after millions of years, soft tissue can actually be preserved in dinosaur bone,” said Dr. Betsy M. Bennett, museum director. The cast will be placed in the museum’s Paleo Lab along with the complete story of where it was found, how it was excavated and how Schweitzer discovered the unique tissue cells in the hollow.

    Counterfeit, pirated goods costing U.S. billions.” science daily
    um if they are pirated can they be counterfeit?

  617. Zerxil said

    “how-can-we-bless-our-first-ladies/#comment-26060” in location lol. You seemed different a couple of weeks ago so I wondered. Stu has been thru here a few times, but it might not have been Stu.

  618. Maz said

    Zerxil: #615. Someone had to find them. Why did Lord Canarvon find Tutankamen? Because he was there at the right place and the right time I suppose.

    The understanding that this tissue survived millions of years is ofcourse in error. The fact that it was in the state it was supports recent fossilization not millions of years. But ofcourse this doesn’t fit the evolutionary model. So it is rejected outright. Actually fossilization can take as little as 40-60 years, you don’t need millions…unless ofcourse you need them to fit the theory of evolution.

    I wonder if anyone has seen a scaled bird or a dinosaur with feathers? And don’t all rush with the pterodactyl fossil. This was a true BIRD. And in any case, with so many dinosaur types ranging from chickens to the huge T-rex, why don’t we see loads and loads of intermediate fossil types of little dinosaur-to-bird fossils right up to the huge ones?
    Because they don’t exist and never have done.

  619. Maz said

    OOps! I meant archeopteryx not pterodactyl. Have I spelt them right?

  620. Zerxil said

    Truth’s new show ‘Those crazy bloggers, or what is truth?’

  621. Zerxil said

    615 oh the leg bone was broken…you’d’ have to break the bones to find it. there was a piece about a Chinese ancestor of t-rex with feathers, can’t find it now.

    Scientists are fleshing out the proof that today’s broiler-fryer is descended from the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex.

    With more data, Organ said, they probably would be able to place T. rex on the evolutionary tree between alligators and chickens and ostriches. (SO ITS NOT ON THERE ALREADY, IF IT IS THEY DIDN’T HAVE PROOF)

    “We also show that it groups better with birds than modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards,” Asara added.


  622. Maz said

    Zerxil: You’d have to have a pretty big egg cup for those T-rex eggs!! 8)
    And how about the roasting pan for those T-rex legs! Kentucky fried T-rex!

    What is the reason for saying that ”it groups better with birds than with reptiles…”? Is it to fit their so-called evolutionary tree, which in fact is not scientific?
    One wonders how they came to the conclusion that dinosaurs are nearer birds than reptiles!
    Those aligators look more like dinos than the feathered flyers.

  623. Zerxil said

    The chief thing we know about Tyrannosaurus rex, the fabled king of the Late Cretaceous, is that we still have much to learn about it, which should be a signal for caution, although it is also a license for speculation. There are only 25 or so specimens of T. rex, most incomplete, even though the species may have survived for several million years and tens of thousands of them, if not more, must have lived at one time or another.

    In popular imagination, T. rex started out as a ferocious tyrant. How are the mighty fallen, however! In 2001, Warhol’s curse struck T. rex and ushered in a drastic makeover for the capo di capo of dinosaurs. (How easy it is to fall into the style!) It had already been noised about that the thing was really only a scavenger of something else’s kills, more a hyena than a lion. By May 2001, T. rex had become cuddly and possibly even covered with feathers. By October, it had become the “Woody Allen of dinosaurs,” even neurotic.

    This may turn out to be a just-not-so story. T. rex is a member of a large group of dinosaurs called theropods. The idea that theropod dinosaurs and birds are related is very old, dating back at least to T. H. Huxley and now having much modern support. So far, so good. But how did T. rex get feathers? In 1999, National Geographic magazine published a story under the title “Feathers for T. rex” in which an amazing new find from China, intermediate between a bird and a dromaeosaur, was described. Amazing indeed; it was a fake. In April 2001 in Nature, Qiang Ji et al. published an account of a new Chinese theropod that had evidence of a kind of proto-feathers. Once again the media homed in on Tyrannosaurus: “Maybe even mighty Tyrannosaurus rex had feathers,” and “Maybe baby tyrannosaurus looked something like a cute, fuzzy baby chick,” said ABCNEWS.com. Perhaps the best line went to science writer Deborah Smith of the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald, April 27, 2001: “T-Rex in a feather boa turns heads among fossil hunters.” (T-rex instead of T. rex seems very popular with journalists.)

    Next, Jim Kirkland of the Utah Geological Survey and Doug Wolfe of Mesa Southwest Museum released an account of a new North American theropod—Nothronychus—at a Discovery Channel press conference. Nothronychus was evidently a vegetarian but with “bird-like characters and ? probably covered with feathers, said the scientists” (Reuters, June 19, 2001), to the newspapers’ delight. But was there any evidence? At the press conference it was stated that no feathers were found with Nothronychus. Certainly none have been found with Tyrannosaurus. So far the sequence is as follows: T. rex is related (but not closely) to Nothronychus, where there is no evidence of feathers; Nothronychus is more closely related to the Chinese dinosaur Beipaosaurus, where there is disputed evidence of proto-feathers. Score: feathers 3, logic 0.

    From Cuddly to Sad

    This past October, as the date for the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology drew near, the world waited for the inevitable sensational announcement that would hog the headlines while a great deal of excellent work was ignored. Predictably, sensation once again found our poor, put-upon friend Tyrannosaurus rex; but this one was a classic. As the London Times trumpeted: “Neurotic T-rex cast in a Woody Allen role.” On the web, the Associated Press had spread the news: “T-rex wasn’t happy ? T-rex was probably T-wrecks.” Obviously someone was getting his 15 minutes of fame!

    What happened had started out with good straightforward science. Elizabeth Rega at Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona and Chris Brochu at the University of Iowa had read a paper concerning skeletal abnormalities in T. rex, especially the Chicago specimen known as Sue. There was evidence of osteomyelitis of the left fibula, healed rib fractures and healed jaw lesions. They concluded: “While the number of these pathologies indicate that Sue was not healthy during life, the maturity of the specimen and the clear evidence of healing indicate that Sue was a robust individual who successfully survived many insults ?. No evidence of cause or manner of death is apparent.” So far, so sober. No drama there and no headlines, either.

    Then the Associated Press interviewed Robert Bakker, who was not an author of the paper but who announced the meaning in Rega and Brochu’s study that everyone else had missed: “If we did Jurassic Park 4, T-rex would be portrayed in an angst-ridden role—sort of a large Woody Allen character. ? They were beat up, limping, had oozing sores, were dripping pus and disease ridden, and had to worry about their children starving and other T-rexs coming in and kicking them out.” And worse, the London Times article wrongly claimed that “Mr Bakker’s view is endorsed by Elizabeth Rega,” thus adding injury to insult.

    Here the gap between the science and the hyperbole is truly staggering. Perhaps it is only some paleontologists, not the dinosaurs, who are like Woody Allen—sometimes combative, sometimes cuddly, bearing the scars of old battles and confused? Perhaps this sort of thing is perfectly harmless or even positive for paleontology, on the grounds that all publicity is good, especially if it remains divided into 15-minute chunks. But the creationists certainly had a field day with the faked “feathered dinosaur.”

    Admittedly, all progress in science involves the breaking of old stereotypes, and mistakes will be made all along the way. Who knows, maybe even a Tyrannosaurus with true feathers will someday be found; that is what makes science a real adventure. And, as Robert Browning famously wrote, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp” (Andrea del Sarto, 1855). Perhaps, though, both the scientists and the public deserve to travel a less jolting path toward enlightenment.

    © Keith Thomson

    This Article from Issue

    May-June 2002
    Volume 90, Number 3
    Page: 222
    DOI: 10.1511/2002.3.222

    You can find this online at http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/dinosaurs-the-media-and-andy-warhol/3

  624. Maz said

    Has anyone read about National Geographic who had to recant over the Archaeoraptor hoax?
    It was discovered to be a composite. An examination (CT scans) revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction.
    Xu Xing was one of the scientists who originally examined it.
    There appears to be an illegal market in China for bird fossils. It has been pointed out that adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot.

  625. abc's said

    I do cover evolution in my curriculum because it is a very large part of Science.

    F.L.A. I enjoy your posts. Sometimes I get confused when you say things like , “and now I must feed”.


    The Cambrian explosion? Don’t forget this “rapid” explosion encompasses at least 30 to 40 million years. Almost all of the life during that period that we have fossilized evidence for was shallow marine life. It is also generally accepted that there were no plants on the land. The land was mostly barren. Trilobites ruled the world. There were no mammals, no reptiles, fish, or birds. I believe that vertebrates were first starting to appear, but there were hardly any of those.

    The Ordovician period which followed is much more remarkable to me.

  626. Zerxil said

    Jerry made some good points (for and against) the Lingham-Soliar et al paper, although he was more generous than I can manage after two readings of it. I urge everyone to read the paper, but in brief: Lingham-Soliar (et al) examined a new(ish) specimen of Sinosauropteryx (IVPP V12415) under a conventional microscope, and argue that the preserved soft tissue morphology is consistent with collagen, hence presto-change-o there are no protofeathers on any Sinosauropteryx specimen. Their own photos of specimen NIGP 127587 (figure 4a) seem to indicate two very different tissue types, one with extensive parallel fibers that are almost certainly not epidermal insulation, and a dorsal surface that does resemble proto-feather epidermal structures as described in the type specimen of Sinosauropteryx (and other bird and feathered dromaeosaur specimens). To explain this (and the proto-feather appearance of the type specimen) they postulate that this difference in morphology is due to “taphonomic degradation” of the collagenous tissuse, and cite the soft tissue preserved in the dorsal region of the neck of IVPP V12415 as representing an intermediate stage of decomposition (Fig. 2c), linking all of the preserved fiber types.

    Their analysis is deeply flawed:

    1) Despite David Marjanovic’s assertation that Lingham-Soliar is an authority on collagen, little of that expertise is evident in this paper. To begin with, they never actually provide a method (e.g. morphology, chemistry, etc) to distinguish fossil collagenous tissue from other fiberous tissues in vertebrate bodies (e.g. muscle and elastic tissues). In particular, the tissue at the base of the neck of IVPP V12415 (figure 2c) is almost certainly not collagen. They note themselves that the _straight_ parallel fibers seem to converge from the neck towards “a point”. That “point” is near the cervico-dorsal juncture, running from there to the posterior cervical vertebrae (http://skeletaldrawing.com/ext_photos/sinosauropteryx_stuff/fig2c.jpg). This is an excellent match for the cervical musculature of birds, and is also not dissimilar to the elstic ligaments seen in ratites. There are similar fibers running parallell between neural spines of the vertebrae (to clarify you can see the same image with photoshoped lines parallelling the fibers here: http://skeletaldrawing.com/ext_photos/sinosauropteryx_stuff/fig2c_fibers.jpg).

    The fibers at the base of the neck not only resemble the neck muscles of birds in their location and orientation, they taphonomy practically demands that they be contractile or elastic fibers of some sort. The fossil is in the classic death pose, with the neck dorsaflexed well beyond the normal life position. This dorsaflexion pulls the neck back and shortens the tissues on the dorsal side of the vertebrae. Collagen fibers are not elastic, and they don’t “shrink” like muscles and elastic ligaments will; if those straight fibers were collagen the neck could not have ventroflexed back into life position! Since collagen fibers are non-elastic, have tensile strength, but no comporessive strength a collagen frill on the dorsal margin could not be under tension with the neck pulled back. Collagen fibers in this situation would look more like this:

    Since the fibers of the neck are all clearly shortening substantially to take up the slack created by the death pose, they have to either be elastic fibers or muscle fibers. The latter seem more likely to me, in light their similarity to bird cervical musculature. Lingham-Soliar do not even attempt to explain these problems, and appear oblivious to the fact that a dorsally located collagen frill should not exhibit linnear fibers while the neck is retracted.

    In short, they are clearly correct that the cervical fibers in this specimen are not epidermal insulatory structures, but they fail to make the case that the fibers are collagenous, let alone dermal in nature.

    2) Establishing that the structures are either dermal or epidermal (or less superficial altogether), and either muscular, elastic, or collagenous is problematic on all the fibers preserved in IVPP V12415. Similar arguments apply to the tail (Fig 2 a & b); in particular, the supposed tail “frill” section with a solid dorsal margin exhibits a more gradual curve than the neural spines that it would overlay, looking more like taught tissue that has partially pulled away from the tail as it contracted, rather than a feature that extends the entire length of the tail (you can actually see it disapearing distalling the figure 1a). The taphonomy is consistent with this, as while assuming the death pose the main portion of the tail has actually pulled away from the tail tip and an otherwise articulated portion of chevrons. There was clearly enough connective tissue/musclature to hold portions together and pull the tail into the death position, but decay was also advanced enough that the caudal vertebrae were ripped away (while remaining otherwise articulated) from the chevrons and tail tip, which themselves remain in articulation. To claim that these fibers (which look different from the type specimen) are homologous with the structures seen in other specimens without the type of detailed comparison that the authors’ themselves decry in other studies(!) is beyond careless: it’s special pleading.

    3) Taphonomy… speaking of special pleading… The paper attacks previous authors for ignoring the roll of taphonomy, and then…completely ignores the taphonomy of their specimens! For example, they repeatedly refer to the possible roll of wind and water “erosion” to play a roll in breaking down connective tissue into the appearance of insulatory structures, but don’t even make a passing mention of the actual depositional environment of these specimens. Since current consensus is they are from low-energy fine-grained shallow lakebed sediments there is no evidence of significant water currents (it would take a lot to break down collagen) and wind seems unlikely underwater, to say the least.

    4) They also show a photograph (Fig 4) of the tail of NIGP 127587. Despite claims in the paper, the photograph shows a dorsally located layer (apparently) consisting of dino-fuzz style insulatory structures, and a ventral layer of rigorously parallel non-epidermal fibers that are clearly not dino-fuzz (the taphonomy does not distinguish between collagen/elastin/muscle fiber hypotheses in this specimen like it does in IVPP P12415). Unless it is a trick of the lighting, the photograph seems to indicate the epidermal/insulatory layer is preserved on a more superficial layer of rock than the collagen/muscles fibers are. Worse yet, the proto-fuzz type fibers clearly extend down most of the way past the tail, indicating it is not a midline stucture.

    5) Finally, the tone of the paper is inexcusible (to me). Even ignoring the hypocrasy of chastizing previous studies for failure to consider taphonomy and do proper comparative work…while ignoring taphonomy (if not outright contradicting it) and failing to do detailed compartive work, the intro and conclusion is rife with phrases urging us to avoid “recourse to arbitrary conjectures on feather origins” (discussion section) that “strengthened the resolve of many palaeontologists that
    birds are direct descendents of theropod dinosaurs.” (introduction) This type of pejorative wording is distasteful enough on cable news shows; it has no place in scientific publications (well, perhaps in an editorial).

    In summary, the paper spends a lot of time accusing other studies of the same flaws it commits. The paper fails to make a good case that the fibers of IVPP V12415 are collagenous (especially the cervical tissues) or epidermal in nature. It fails to link the fibers in IVPP V12415 to the proposed proto-feathers of the type specimen, and in fact presents a photograph that appears to contradict the idea. They fail to provide a plausible mechanism that would decompose collagenous tissue into the appearance of insulatory strucutres, and the mechanisms they do postulate directly contradict the actual taphonomy of the specimens.

    Hopefully this paper will be the stimulus for further research into the nature of the fibers preserved in Sinosauropteryx, feathered dinosaurs, mammals, etc. from Liaoning. In the meantime, let’s all strive to write more papers taht are more responsible than this one, regardless of conclusions.

    Scott Hartman
    Science Director
    Wyoming Dinosaur Center
    110 Carter Ranch Rd.
    Thermopolis, WY 82443
    (800) 455-3466 ext. 230
    Cell: (307) 921-8333

  627. Zerxil said

    Knowledge is power, if only it worked both ways.
    Tom Fletcher
    From: Bristol

  628. abc's said

    Maz 623

    They figured out they were fakes by using Science.

  629. Zerxil said

    Well, we could get a sexy female to read maz’s & fla’s posts as she posts them, so no phone line. Ferox We have to assume you are human for it to be accepted into mainstream. I have a pretty good voice actually. ABC is a teacher so, I hope, he is a good speaker. How about you John & Chris c?

  630. Hey Zerxil,

    Re: post #617…

    Sorry, let me explain. When I’m logged in and actually working on the site it will say “Truth Talk Live” on my comments. I have to log in to actually delete all the comments that come in from the Scientologists……just kidding. When I’m not logged in and just checking comments I might post something as “Moderator (not Stu).” When Stu posts comments he always posts as “stu.”

    Hope this clears it up.

    I’m interested in see Ferox’s response concerning the question about whether or not she is human.

    Again, I’d just like to say thank you to all of you for keeping this debate clean and respectful. Emotions can run high when debating personal beliefs, but you all have done such a great job presenting evidence and debating the issue. It’s a very interesting read.


    Moderator (not Stu)

  631. Oh and sorry……no idea why the URL is mixed up on this thread. Some kind of mixup with WordPress. We are working on a redesign of this site, so expect some changes in the not to distant future. The platform will remain the same and everything will be archived. No worries.

    Moderator (not Stu)

  632. Zerxil said

    618 he was looking for tombs.

  633. Zerxil said

    Apologetics Press: Sensible Science

    Feduccia, an evolutionist, and his colleagues do not stop by simply dismissing the alleged “protofeathers.” They also admit there are lots of “obstacles” that remain for the alleged dinosaur-to-bird theory:

    It would not tax the imagination to engender a long list of obstacles for the now dominant model of a theropod origin of birds, including, but not limited to: the fact that early theropods (e.g., Triassic Herrerasaurus) are highly specialized obligate bipeds (with arms reduced to 1/2 the length of the hindlimbs); the fact that the stratigraphic sequence of bird-like theropods has been almost the reversal of the expected evolutionary sequence leading to birds; the fact that the earliest described “feathered dinosaur” is the unbird-like compsognathid Sinosauropteryx, devoid of any preserved structures that can be shown to be feather-like; the fact that any downy-like integumentary covering in a terrestrial theropod would be maladaptive; the fact that flight feathers arranged precisely on the hand as in modern birds are present in microraptors and the basal oviraptosaur Caudipteryx; the fact that many of the derived characters or synapomorphies linking birds and theropods are in question, including notably but not limited to: the sliding lower jaw joint of theropods (absent in birds), the theropod ascending process of the astragalus (distinctive from the avian pretibial bone), and the digital mismatch (1,2,3 theropod vs. 2,3,4 bird hand), etc., to mention a few (Feduccia, et al., 2005, 266:126, emp. added).

    Apologetics Press: Sensible Science

    Archaeopteryx—“The Greatest Embarrassment of Paleontology”
    by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

  634. abc's said

    Archaeopteryx is a very good example of a species that is in transition between lizards and birds. It is not fully a lizard and not fully a bird.

    Archaeopteryx’s avian features
    1) Feathers.
    Feathers are the diagnostic feature of modern birds. This is one of the main criterion for classifying Archae as a bird, as no other modern animal has feathers. The possession of feathers is a characteristic of birds, so strike one up for the birds. However, in late 1996, a discovery in China may change this view. A small theropod dinosaur Sinosauropteryx (Chen et al. 1998) was found with what appear to be feathers preserved along the back. The identification of the sturctures is equivocal however, (e.g. Unwin 1998), with some doubting that the structures are feathers.

    Feathered Dinosaurs Found

    Two species of dinosaur have recently been found in northeast China which possess feathers (Qiang et al. 1998). Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather inpressions. Further, they are not birds, lacking a reverted (backwards facing) big toe (see number 2 below) and a quadrratojugal squamosal contact, having a quadrojugal joined to the quatrate by a ligament and a reduced or absent process of the ishium. These and other characters group Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx with maniraptoran coelurosaurs rather than birds.

    [Systematics Note (from Padian 1998): Systematists define the names of organisms by their ancestry, in this case birds (Aves) consist of Archaeopteryx plus living birds and all the descendants of their most recent common ancester. Birds are diagnosed by unique features that only they possess and which are inherited from that common ancester. Even if feathers are shared by a wider group than just birds, birds are still defined as Archaeopteryx and later relatives. Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are not birds even though they have feathers because the suite of morphological characters they possess mark them as belong to the maniraptoran coelurosaur dinosarus.]

    It appears that feathers can no longer be used as a unique feature of birds.

    For a discussion of the feathered dinosaurs go to Jeff Poling’s Dinosauria page.

    2) Opposable hallux (big toe).
    This also is a character of birds and not of dinosaurs. Although opposable big toes are found in other groups, they are not, as far as I am aware, found in dinosaurs. A reversed big toe is found in some dinosaurs however, and the condition is approached in some theropod dinosaurs.

    3) Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline.
    Now we start getting on shaky ground. It used to be thought that the possession of a furcula distinguished birds from dinosaurs. Indeed, up until recently even clavicles were few and far between in even theropod dinosaurs (the suggested closest group to the birds and from which the birds evolved – see Ostrom 1976). However, it has been found that theropod dinosaurs did indeed have clavicles (e.g. Bryant & Russell 1993) and they have been found in several species, e.g., Segisaurus, Velociraptor, Euparkeria, Ornithosuchus, Saltoposuchus, Ticinosuchus. Also, Chure & Madson (1996) reported furculae in a non-maniraptoran, allosaurid dinosaur.

    It has been found that the clavicles are often small and poorly ossified. This is no surprise, since they are of little evolutionary advantage to your average theropod dinosaur. However, birds too show this variation in ossification, especially amongst the carniates and some parrots, clavicles are reduced or even missing. Therefore the apparent absence of clavicles in some theropod dinosaurs may well be due to poor ossification rather than true absence. However, furculas have been found in some theropod dinosaurs, namely the Oviraptorosauria (Barsbold et al. 1990, Bryant & Russell 1993), for example Oviraptor and Ingenia. Thus furculas do not appear to be diagnostic to birds and certain members of the suggested closest group to the birds now appear to possess furculas so it is a neutral character.

    A commonly cited criticism of this is that most of the theropod dinosaurs listed here post-date Archae. However, none of these is claimed as the ancestor anyway, and Eupakeria is a Triassic form. The presence of clavicles shows that this character is a feature of theropod dinosaurs and thus was probably present in early theropods.

    4) Pubis elongate and directed backward.
    This is a feature of birds, but it is also a feature of some theropod dinosaurs so is not diagnostic of birds – another neutral character. However, the pubic shafts of Archaeopteryx and dromaeosaurs (a group of theropod dinosaurs which are thought to be closely linked to birds) share a plate-like, slightly angled transverse cross-section which not found in any other archosaurs.

    Archaeopteryx’s reptile features
    5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.
    This is posh talk for “does not have a bill.” The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering, so Archaeopteryx has no bill. The bill is produced via the process of ‘cornification’ which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.

    6) Trunk region vertebra are free.
    In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.

    7) Bones are pneumatic.
    I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990, Brooks 1993). It should be pointed out that previous claims suggesting the bones of Archae were not pneumatic (Lambrecht 1933; de Beer 1954), was based on negative evidence, i.e. that the bones do not exhibit pneumatic pores (through which the air sacs enter the bones) and the bones show none of the plumpness and bulges which characterise the pneumatic bones of modern birds. Britt et al. (1998) found evidence for the presence of pnematic bones in Archaeopteryx:

    “Here we re-examine two specimens of _Archaeopteryx_. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity in the cervical and anterior thorasic vertebrae, thus confirming the phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan theropods and living birds” (Britt et al. 1998, p. 374)

    8) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
    A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds

    9) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn’t overlap it from behind or press down on it.
    This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990).

    10) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.
    The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, _Archaeopteryx_ does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs:
    “Notice that this coelurosaurian-like neck extended back from the rear of the skull in _Archaeopteryx_ – as it does in coelurosaurs [theropod dinosaurs], rather than from beneath as in later birds.” (Ostrom 1976, p. 137).

    Skull and brain of Archae is basically reptilian and is not “totally birdlike” (contrary to a certain creationist’s claim).

    11) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
    This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface:

    “The most striking feature of the vertebrae is the simple disk-like facets of their centra, without any sign of the saddle-shaped articulations found in other birds” (de Beer 1954, p. 17).

    12) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
    Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.

    13) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
    No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960; Orr 1966, p. 113). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth. Some birds subsequently produce ridges in the bill, but there is no connection between them and the embryonic tooth buds, since the ridges also form in other areas of the bill where no tooth buds have previouslu formed. Some birds produce hook-like structures which are papillae, and appear to be related to the process of keratinization of the beak (Romanoff 1960), and have nothing to do with teeth. They do not possess blood vessel or nerve connections, nor do they produce dentine.

    The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.

    14) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
    Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.

    15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).
    Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward – a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.

    What is interesting is that with the bird pelvis:

    “The ischium lies beneath the posterior part of the ilium and beneath this again is the pubis, which is directed backwards (i.e. like this: =). Embryological studies show that the peculiar position of these bones is the result of secondary rotation and that the pectineal process, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained.” (Bellairs & Jenkin 1960, p. 258).

    In other words, the embyonic pelvis of the bird, when first formed, looks, in shape and angle between the ilium and the pubis (45 degrees), very similar to the “A”-frame pelvis of Archaeopteryx (i.e. like this: <) (e.g. Romanoff 1960). The fully formed pelvis with all bones lying parallel is the result of secondary rotation of the pubis from “<” to “=”. This supports the view that birds had an ancester with a saurischian pelvis such as the type possessed by Archaeopteryx and other theropod dinosaurs. (see also A tale of two pelvises below)

    16) The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.
    This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae! So, while the variation seen in modern birds is large, it is nowhere near the number found in Archaeopteryx

    17) Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.
    This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused. All modern birds have a carpo-metacarpus, all fossil birds have a carpo-metacarpus – except one (guess!) :-). However, the carpals of several coelurosaur dinosaur groups show a trend towards fusion, and in the Late Cretaceous form Avimimus, a true carpo- metacarpus is formed.

    It has been suggested that the ostrich and/or other Ratites also possess unfused wrist/hand bones. This is not correct:

    “The ostrich, emus, rheas, cassowaries and kiwis are often referred to together as the Ratites, though they may not be closely related to each other. They have tiny wings and cannot fly, but the bones of their hands are fused together in the same peculiar way as in flying birds, which suggest that they evolved from flying birds.” (Alexander 1990, p. 435).

    Some similarity between the hand of the ostrich and some of the more derived theropod dinosaurs was once used to suggest that the Ratites were ‘primitive’ and evolved before the advent of flight in birds. However Tucker (1938b) showed that such similarities are entirely superficial.

    “He has directed attention to the bird-like characters of the hand of the dinosaur Ornitholestes as evidence that a bird-like hand can be developed independantly of flight, but the writer has pointed out in the communication mentioned above [Tucker 1938b] that the resemblance is utterly superficial and that the peculiar bowing and terminal fusion of metacarpals 2 and 3 which charcaterise both the Carnate and the Ratite hand are in no wise [sic?] reproduced in the dinosaur.” (Tucker 1938a, p. 334).

    “Reverting now to the reasons on which have sought to base the view that the Ratites were primitive birds whose ancesters had never flown, one: the similarity between the hand of the ostrich and that of the dinosaur, has been dismissed as invalid. Tucker (1938b) has shown that such resemblances as there are between them are only superficial and without significance.” (de Beer 1956, p. 65).

    18) Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).
    This is typical of reptiles, but not of birds. Where a fenestra is present in birds, it is always greatly reduced, and is involved in prokinesis (movement of the beak)

    19) Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
    Typical of reptiles but not found in birds

    20) Claws on 3 unfused digits.
    No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As McGowan (1984, p 123) says:

    “In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds.”

    21) The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
    This again is a typical character of reptiles. In birds the fibula is shortened and reduced.

    22) Metatarsals (foot bones) free.
    In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus. However, in modern bird embryos, the foot bones are initially separate as in the adult Archaeopteryx and is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No adult modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution – birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.

    Ceratosaurians, Avimimus, and Elmisauridae all show true tarso-metatarsi. Archae itself only shows the beginning of this structure.

    23) Gastralia present.
    Gastralia are “ventral ribs,” elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds, e.g.:

    “In addition to the true ribs the British Museum specimen shows a large number of so-called ventral ribs or gastralia, elements of dermal bone lying in the ventral wall of the abdomen.” (de Beer 1954, p. 18)

    “The gastralia of the Berlin specimen are identical with those of the British Museum specimen, but more have been preserved.” (de Beer 1954, p. 19)

    “The “new” specimen was found 8 September 1970 on display in the Teyler Museum, Haarlem, Netherlands. It consists of two small slabs (specimens 6928 & 6929), part and counterpart which contain impressions or parts of the left manus and forearm, pelvis, both legs and feet, and some gastralia.” (Ostrom 1970, p. 538)

    “Also present are numerous fragments of gastralia, faint impressions of three or four dorsal vertebrae, . . ” (Ostrom 1972, p. 291).

    “The counterpart slab (No. 6929) contains additional gastralia, phalanges, ..” (Ostrom 1972, p. 291)

    “Gastralia, or dermal abdominal ribs are present in all five skeletal specimens of _Archaeopteryx_” (Ostrom 1976, p. 139-140).

    Gastralia are present on the Eichstatt specimen (See Wellnhofer 1974, fig. 7C)

  635. Maz said

    Abc’s: Did you read my post #614 about the name I found for you, re prejudice against Creation scientists in the secular/evolution magazines?

  636. Maz said

    Abc’s: Did you know that the bone structure of the bird is completely different from the bone structure of the dinosaurs? The birds need a lighter body for flight, so their bones are filled with ‘bubbles’. Dinosaurs bones are more solid, thus heavier. Does that mean the bones also had to make a very drastic change? How is that possible? You would have to change the bone structure before the feathers evolved. Or did the feathers come first, then the bones? Then ofcourse there is a beak instead of a mouth etc. etc. etc.

    Also, there is no scientific explanation for how scales changed into feathers.
    Scales on dinosaurs, and feathers on birds are of a completely different material and construction. Not only that but the DNA would have to change it’s information drastically for this to be atall possible. DNA cannot change scales to feathers without losing the ‘scale’ information and adding the ‘feather’ information. Why should a dinosaur ‘want to’ (atleast on the moleculer scale) change into a bird? What possible reason would it need to change so much?
    There are too many questions without answers. Therefore how can evolutionist scientists make such bold statements like the dinosaurs evolved into birds.

  637. Zerxil said


    In 1860 Hermann von Meyer first described and named a newly discovered species of ancient bird, Archaeopteryx lithographica, based upon a single feather impression.

  638. Barney said

    Re: 614

    Maz posted this: “Dr. Mary Swietzer (sorry if the spelling is wrong) the lady who not only discovered in 1990 the dinosaur blood cells with haemaglobin in them, but also in 2005 the dinosaur flesh in a T-rex bone, could not get her papers published in any evolution journals because they said ”we do not want to publish this because we do not want to believe that what you have found is true.”

    Let’s hear from Dr. Mary Schweitzer on Maz’ young earth creationism:

    “Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.” (link to follow)

    So, Maz, it looks like once again you’ve misconstrued what science actually teaches us.

  639. Barney said

    Re: 638

    link to Dr. Schweitzer’s comments:


  640. Zerxil said

    Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui.

    Archaeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it’s difficult to tell which ones are fake and which ones are not. I have heard there is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feather dinosaurs were found.’[8]

    So according to Feduccia there are a lot of fake fossils in existence from Liaoning Province and even the experts find it difficult to tell the real from the fraudulent. This calls into question the whole field of dinosaur and bird palaeontology and casts a huge question mark over bought specimens from this Chinese Province. The motive for these frauds is financial, with allegations that there is a fake-fossil factory turning out specimens to suit the hunger of palaeontologists. Convincing, but fraudulent specimens can attract high prices for unscrupulous dealers.

    Ironically, having identified Liaoning Province evidence as unreliable, Feduccia does in fact favour something like Microraptor as the ancestor of birds. He believes in the tree-down hypothesis as opposed to the ground-up view of dinosaur to bird evolution, favouring the 50 mm long reptile, Longisquama, dated at 220 million years old, as having proto feathers.[9] However, these structures are no more than elongated scales and not feathers.[10]

    Bambiraptor feinbergi

    This fossil specimen was found by Wes Linster, a 14 year old boy in Glacier National Park in Montana in 1994 and dated to 75 million years old. The theropod fossil was displayed to the world on 15th March in Florida’s Graves Museum. Although no feathers were found with the fossil, this did not stop the imagination of palaeontologists getting carried away. They were quite happy to depict the specimen with feathers or feather-like features.


    Two other fossil specimens found recently are Caudipteryx zoui and Protarchaeopteryx robusta.[11] However, according to Feduccia these two should be considered flightless birds. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones to digest food.[12]

    Creation Science Movement

  641. Zerxil said

    638 see 615

  642. Maz said

    Abc’s: The only thing I might have misconstrude is that she was a Creationist who was refused publication in a evolutionistic magazine. But it still proves my point, that if there is something found that appears to question the millions of years of evolution, they do not want to put it into print incase the public sees it!

    (This may interest Zerxil) I know Christians that still believe in millions of years, that doesn’t mean they aren’t saved and going to Heaven, it just means they have their theology all mixed up. I was one once…believing in God and evolution. Only because I had my school days indoctrinated with the theory as if it was fact. I remember sitting in class and being taught how similar my hands were to an apes. I believed and was taught by one pastor that you could fit the millions of years into the first two verses of Gen: 1 v 1 and 2. It was called the Gap Theory. A bit like the ‘missing link’! I thank God, people like Ken Ham came along and helped me see the truth.
    The question is for theistic evolutionists is, if there were millions of years before man, when did Adam sin?
    He had to sin before disease and death entered the world after the Creation because that was the effect of the curse on sin. You couldn’t have death and disease before the fall of man.

  643. abc's said


    Everything you stated in that post reflects your misunderstanding of evolution.

    “Therefore how can evolutionist scientists make such bold statements like the dinosaurs evolved into birds.”

    Because of the evidence. We have fossilized evidence of archaeopteryx with the above mentioned characteristics.

    “Also, there is no scientific explanation for how scales changed into feathers.”

    This assumes that there won’t be one. There are many hypothesis. What remains are for them to be tested and verified.

    “Scales on dinosaurs, and feathers on birds are of a completely different material and construction.”

    Because birds are not dinosaurs. They simply share a common ancestor: archaeopteryx is a very famous example.

    From your creationist standpoint, how do you explain archaeopteryx? Why was it created? Why are they extinct? Why do they share traits with both reptiles and birds?

  644. Zerxil said

    Archaeoraptor” was unveiled at a press conference held by National Geographic magazine in October of 1999. At the same press conference also plans were announced to return the fossil to Chinese authorities, as it was illegally exported. In November of 1999 National Geographic featured the fossil in an article written by art editor Christopher Sloan. The article in general discussed feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds. It claimed the fossil was “a missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly” and informally reffered to it as “Archaeoraptor liaoningensis”, announcing it would later be formally named as such. This name means “ancient robber of Liaoning”.[5] This drew immediate criticism from Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Writing in Backbone, the newsletter of his museum, he denounced the publication of a scientific name in a popular journal, without peer review, as a “nightmare”.[6]

    On February 3, 2000, National Geographic issued a press release stating that the fossil could be a composite, and that an internal investigation had begun. In that same month Bill Allen, National Geographic editor, told Nature that he was “furious” to learn that the fossil might have been faked. In the March issue, in the forum section, a letter from Dr. Xu Xing pointed out that the tail section probably did not match the upper body. In October of 2000 National Geographic published the results of their investigation, in an article written by investigative journalist Lewis M. Simmons. They concluded that the fossil was a composite and that virtually everyone involved in the project had made some mistakes.[7]

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  645. Zerxil said

    Archaeoraptor, archaeopteryx oops sry

    T W I N C I T I E S C R E A T I O N S C I E N C E A S S O C I A T I O N


    by Ian Taylor


    The recent claims that the London specimen of the Archaeopteryx is a hoax have been clarified and there would seem to be grounds for suspicion. The published work on the Berlin specimen shows that it has every indication of being a hoax of the same kind, that is, a modified genuine fossil of the Compsognathus. All four of the more recent “discoveries” are shown to be nothing more than reclassification of genuine fossils of the same small dinosaur..

    To many people the very word ‘fossil’ causes about as much excitement as watching grass grow. However, when we lift the veil which shrouds the world’s most famous fossil, we find a labyrinth of intrigue and deception making it all somehow far more palatable. The fossil of the Archaeopteryx is said to be the paleontologist’s “Rosetta Stone” providing irrefutable evidence that evolution of the species actually occurred. It has taken pride of place in every biology textbook for over a century and has recently been wreathed in controversy following the claims that one of the principal specimens is a fake. We will first trace out the history of the discovery of the various specimens, then examine the claims that the London specimen is fraudulent. Following this, we will determine if the more famous Berlin specimen can withstand the harsh light of scrutiny. It will be shown that the weight of evidence from both human activity and technical detail for all the known specimens points overwhelmingly to both the London and Berlin specimens of the Archaeopteryx being nothing more than a clever hoax.

    When it came to evidence for his theory, Charles Darwin lamented that none had yet been discovered. Writing in 1859 he said:

    …as this process of extermination [survival of the fittest] has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. [1]

    And to this day this is still the tidy explanation offered to the public. An unintended side-effect of the publication of Darwin’s Origin was that by bewailing the absence of “intermediate varieties”; i.e., fossils of creatures in transition from one species to another, a charter was provided for fossil forgers. As early as 1833 French paleontologist Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire had proposed that the birds had evolved from the reptiles [2] and later Darwinian enthusiasts began to speculate on what some of these transitions should have looked like; the alleged transition between the reptiles and the birds was based upon the fact that the bone structure of certain extinct dinosaurs and that of the birds have some similar features.

    Within a matter of months after the publication of the German edition of the Origin, paleontologist Hermann von Meyer came into possession of the fossil of a single feather impression. The two halves of the small limestone slab containing the impression were supposed to have been found at the Solnhofen Quarry (Southern Germany) but details of its background never were given adequately. Meyer named the specimen Archaeopteryx lithographica [3]; the genus name meant “ancient wing” while the species name reflected the fact that the particular limestone at the quarry was used for the production of lithographic plates in the printing industry. The specimen made news, because, although the feather looked perfectly modern, it was supposed to have been found in strata of the Jurassic period and therefore 150 million years old. This meant that birds had evolved far earlier than anyone had expected, and, at the time, this was a severe blow to Cuvier’s then popular theory of multiple floods. One further detail worth noting was the fact that in a very unusual move the two halves of the slab were sold separately to the Berlin and the Munich museums respectively; normally, the slab and counter-slab are kept together. The agent for the sale of this extremely rare fossil was Dr. Karl Haberlein, medical officer for the district of Pappenheim.

    Less than two months later, in 1861, Haberlein had another specimen for sale, but this time it was of the entire creature except for its head. About as big as a pigeon, it was said to have been discovered in the strata of the Jurassic period at the Solnhofen quarry while this time the two halves, slab and counter-slab, were kept together. Haberlein invited museum representatives to see it, but they were not permitted to make notes or drawings; further, by refusing each offer he effectively drove up the price. One observer, M. Witte of Hanover, gave a very complete verbal description to professor Andreas Wagner who had discovered and named a small dinosaur Compsognathus. Wagner recognized from the description what seemed to him to be his Compsognathus but with feathers! He was extremely suspicious, and, in his paper in which he called the new discovery Griphosaurus, added the following warning:

    …I must add a few words to ward off Darwinian misinterpretations of our new Saurian. At first glance of Griphosaurus we might certainly form a notion that we had before us an intermediate creature, engaged in a transition from the Saurian to the bird. Darwin and his adherents will probably employ the new discovery as an exceedingly welcome occurrence for the justification of their strange views upon the transformation of the animals. But they will be wrong.[4]

    And, of course, Wagner was absolutely right; the Darwinians made it their Rosetta Stone. Haberlein’s reaction to Wagner’s paper can well be imagined and he resolved to unload the fossil at the next offer. He did not have to wait long, and, while the Germans argued among themselves, “real or forgery”, an offer came from England.

    Richard Owen, in charge of the British Natural History Museum, read Wagner’s description and immediately sent the geologist, George Waterhouse, to Pappenheim where the specimen changed hands for 600 pounds. The dispute now shifted to England. Owen published his description and an accurate engraving of just the slab, not the counter-slab, in 1864 [5]. The fact that it had fully developed feathers classified it as a bird and there were speculations as to whether the head would have had teeth or not; having teeth would place it more centrally between the reptile and the bird and thus be a more perfect confirmation of Darwin’s theory. Sure enough, sixteen years later, another Archaeopteryx turned up complete with head and it did have teeth! In the meantime, neither Darwin nor Thomas Huxley could be convinced that the London specimen was a transition. Darwin mentioned it in the 1866 (fourth) edition of his Origin as merely “a strange bird” [6] while Huxley expressed a similar opinion to the Royal Society in 1868 [7]. However, in his classic 1867 paper on .the classification of birds (8], Huxley , proposed the new taxonomic order Sauropsida for both reptiles and birds thus relating them on paper if not in fact.

    The second Archaeopteryx discovery in 1877 was again claimed to have been made at the Solnhofen site and passed through the hands of Karl Haberlein’s son, Ernst [9]; this time the enormous sum of thirty-six thousand gold marks was demanded for the prize. Far more than any museum could afford and after four years of negotiations, it was eventually bought by the industrial magnate, Werner Seimens. Seimens then sold it to the Prussian ministry so that it ended up in the Humbolt Museum in 1881. The formal description by professor Dames did not appear until 1884 [10]. The patriotic gesture by Seimens to ensure that the prize did not leave German soil was later rewarded by naming the creature Archaeopteryx siemensii. Later still, the classification name was changed, to Archaeopteryx lithographica or, more usually, the Berlin Specimen. Because it is the most complete, photographs of this specimen are shown in practically every school biology textbook as definitive evidence of a transition from one major group to another.

    Textbooks sometimes speak of “many other examples” and by this is meant: A poorly preserved specimen discovered in 1956 assigned by Heller as an Archaeopteryx and known as the Maxberg Specimen [11]; it remains in a private collection. A specimen discovered in 1855 and classified as a pterosaur by the Teyer Museum until 1970 when it was reclassified as an Archaeopteryx by Ostrom; it is referred to as the Haarlem Specimen [12]. A specimen discovered in 1951 and classified as a Compsognathus longipes reclassified by Mayr in 1973 as an Archaeopteryx and known today as the Eichstatt Specimen [13]. The most recent specimen was “discovered” in a private collection and classified by Wellnhofer in 1988 as an Archaeopteryx; it is referred to as the Solnhofen Specimen [14]. It is to be emphasized that none of these last four specimens show feather impressions. More will be said of this later. The great bird expert, Professor Ostrom, writing before the 1988 specimen was assigned said of these latest specimens:

    …these specimens are not particularly like modern birds at all. If feather impressions had not been preserved in the London and Berlin specimens, they [the Maxberg, Haarlem and Eichstatt specimens] would never have been identified as birds…notice [they] were all misidentified at first, and the Eichstatt Specimen for 20 years was thought to be a small specimen of the dinosaur Compsognathus [15].

    The six specimens of Archaeopteryx lithographica, together with the feather reported by Herman von Meyer, are summarized in table 1. The first column gives the date on which disclosure was made.
    TABLE 1

    Archaeopteryx lithographica

    1860 Single feather referred to as von Meyer’s.
    1861 London Specimen found at Solnhofen.
    1877 Berlin Specimen found at Solnhofen.
    1956 Maxberg Specimen assigned as Archaeopteryx.
    1970 1855 Haarlem Specimen (pterosaur) re-assigned.
    1973 1951 Eichstadt Compsognathus re-assigned.
    1988 Solnhofen Specimen assigned as Archaeopteryx.


    Dr. Lee Spetner of the Weizman Institute, Israel, long suspected that the London specimen was a fake and eventually persuaded the British Natural History Museum authorities to let him examine the actual specimen. Museum specimens of the calibre of the Archaeopteryx are securely squirreled away in vaults only accessible to the eye of certified believers; the public sees a mere plaster copy. British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle had also expressed reservations about the London specimen’s authenticity and Dr. Spetner invited him to co-operate in the examination of this fossil. Just before Christmas 1984 the precious artifact was exposed, perhaps for the first time in this century, to the skeptical eye of unbelievers. To forestall charges of fraud, an International Archaeo Archaeopteryx Conference had been held at Eichstatt just three months earlier where 80 of the faithful had gathered but they were denied the chance to see either the London or the Berlin specimens; the London Specimen was claimed to be “too fragile to travel” and the Berlin Specimen was said to be “in Japan” [16].

    During Spetner and Hoyle’s examination physical contact was not permitted but a great many photographs were taken using techniques intended to highlight the contours. This was important because the surface upon which the fossil impression lies is three dimensional; published photographs leave the viewer with the impression that the fossil lies on a two-dimensional plane. The results were most revealing but when it came to publication the ranks and hinds of the scientific press were solidly closed! In the end, Hoyle and Spetner and their associates published their findings in a series of photographic articles in The British Journal of Photography [17-20]. The charges led to counter-charges by Alan Charig and others of the British Museum [21]. In the meantime, the public press, reminded of the Piltdown affair at the same museum in 1953, smelled the makings of another scandal and eagerly fanned the flames of contention. Sir Fred Hoyle quickly published a little book containing some very interesting photographs and documentation of the charges and counter-charges [22]. Finally, in late 1987, the museum put their most famous fossil on display with a list of rebuttals to the charges of hoax in an attempt to regain the public confidence. From that day to this the public had heard nothing more of the debacle.

    Hoyle and Spetner concluded that the London Specimen was actually a genuine fossil of the Compsognathus, an extinct reptile, to which had been added the impressions of modern feathers. Hoyle suggested that the forgers had spread a mixture of finely ground limestone and gum arabic thinly across the wing and tail areas then pressed modern feathers into this mixture. The feathers were removed after the cement had completely hardened [23]. They also suggested that the first discovery, the von Meyer specimen, had been produced in the same way and pointed out that the texture of the slab and counter-slab were not the same as would be expected from a genuine fossil. It would seem that this would provide a very good reason for the forgers to have sold the two halves to separate museums [24]. Fossil forgery was not a new thing to the enterprising quarry owners of Solnhofen; Wendt shows for example that a fossil forgery business had flourished at Ohningen just 120 miles from Solnhofen for over a century [25].

    The London Specimen is unique in having an oversized furcula or wish-bone which is found in birds but not usually in reptiles. Indeed, it is the feather impressions and the furcula which give this fossil its avian status. However, in a paper communicated to the Royal Society in 1868, T.H. Huxley not only doubted that it was a furcula but declared it to be “conspicuous” and “bouleversement” or up-side-down. He then gleefully showed how this had completely confused his rival, the great Richard Owen in his description of the fossil [26]. In the same paper Huxley concluded:

    In fact, in its form, and strength relatively to the shoulder girdle, the so-called “furculum” appears to me to be the greatest osteological difficulty presented by Archaeopteryx. [27]

    Hoyle’s suspicions regarding the furcula centered upon the corresponding cavity in the counter-slab which appears to be insufficient to contain the prominent furcula. He suggested that the forgers had added a crude furcula then attempted to excavate a cavity in the counter-slab to get it to fit [28). However, a recent profile analysis has shown that there is, in fact, a perfect fit but detailed discussion of the feathers, furcula and other bones from all specimens will follow later. At this point a list of the principal evidences for hoax and the museum rebuttals will be given:

    a )The tail lies at the bottom of a depression in the surface of the slab and there is no corresponding raised area in the counter-slab. Hoyle maintained that when originally split the tail lay beneath the surface of the slab but the forgers excavated around the tail bone, back-filled part of the way with a cement of finely ground limestone and gum arabic, then set feathers in place so as to leave the impressions. Hoyle mistakenly refers to the tail area as “the tail feather” but of course the impressions consist of a number of feathers, two to each bone in the vertebrae. The museum maintains that it was scientists at the museum who removed some rock from the slab to reveal the tail feathers. However, if this was the case then it must have been carried out by Richard Owen’s staff prior to his 1864 publication [5]. This contains an excellent engraving of the slab complete with every tail feather as it is today but Owen mentioned nothing of any excavation work.

    b)The feather impressions mostly appear on the slab and not on the counter-slab except for one tiny piece described by Hoyle as ‘gum-like’; when analysed it showed traces of foreign substances. Hoyle’s photograph of this piece showed that it has feather impressions, but the museum’s explanation fails to mention this and simply says that the foreign substances probably came from mould-making or the sealer which has been applied to the surface. Neither explanation would account for the feather impressions. Hoyle’s supposition that the thin layer of ‘cement’ spread on the counter-slab by the forgers did not ‘take’ but fell off except for the one isolated ‘gum-like’ piece appears to be the more probable explanation [29].

    c)The museum granted Spetner two very small samples of the fossil surface; one from the “wing” area and the other as a control remote from the “wing” area. A scanning electron microscope analysis carried out at the Weizman Institute showed that the control sample was clean crystalline limestone as one would expect but that from the “wing” area was amorphous; X-ray luminescence analysis revealed that it had a strange composition. Suspicions that it was indeed the glue and limestone mixture which had been suggested, were close to being confirmed. Yet another sample was necessary to be sure the first sample was truly representative and not an artifact. The museum refused all further testing [30].

    d)Hoyle and his associates (but not Spetner) suggested that Richard Owen knew that the fossil was a forgery when he purchased it [20]. Hoyle argued that Owen was a creationist (untrue) and his intention was to expose it as a fraud after Darwin had accepted it and thus discredit Darwin and especially Huxley and the theory of evolution. However, this was an unfortunate piece of speculation which Gould has taken great delight in showing to be totally untrue [31].

    The museum’s prime evidences for the fossil being genuine are:

    e)There are hairline cracks in the feathered areas which match exactly on the slab and the counter-slab. These cracks are filled with natural crystals and so must have been in the slab before it was split open. Spetner and others have pointed out that when cracks in a wall are plastered over they re-appear as the house settles. The London specimen has indeed received much pounding by the hammer during the past century and removing of the “brain-case” was only one instance when cracks had ample opportunity to propagate through the thin layer of forger’s cement.

    f)Dendritic patterns, some of which match exactly on the slab and counter-slab, appear to overlie the feather impressions. Dendrites are tree-like growths of dark mineral crystals and take centuries to form. Dr. Spetner shows from his photographs that the dendritic pattern is genuine but does not overlie the feathered area [30] while in private correspondence he more forcefully states that “the matching dendrite claim is simply fraudulent” [31].

    So much for the London specimen and the observations of those who have actually examined it in contrast to those defenders of the faith, such as Gould [32], who write from a more distant ivory tower.

    The Berlin Archaeopteryx, discovered in 1877, is the most perfect of all the specimens since it not only has feathers on the wings and tail but is complete with the head having teeth and has both legs and both feet. The public was first made aware of this specimen in an engraving prepared from a drawing by Professors Steinmann and Doderlein and appeared in Karl Zittel’s prestigious Handbuch der Palaeontologie for 1887 [33]. The engraving was labeled “nach dem Berliner skelet…” (after the Berlin skeleton…) and consisted of an imaginary composite of the London and Berlin specimens including the up-side-down furcula. The illustration appeared in countless textbooks and led the public to believe the evidence to be more convincing than was actually the case. The complete engraving is shown in Figure 1 and the furcula (‘U’-shaped object top, center) is labeled ‘Cl’ for clavicle which is believed to be the reptile counterpart of the bird’s furcula. Figure 2 is a recent photograph of the same specimen and there is no sign of a furcula. Yet, as we shall see, there is worse to come and the discerning reader may suspect that this, most famous of all fossils, is another forgery.

    Professor C.H. Hurst personally examined and photographed the Berlin Specimen in 1893 and observed that there were serious discrepancies between the engraving and the actual specimen [34]. The furcula has already been mentioned. The principal discrepancy occurred in the wing area, and the engraving and his photograph of the left-wing are reproduced in Figures 3 and 4. Hurst’s photograph of the wing area was genuine and identical to the corresponding part of a photograph of the entire specimen published by Carl Vogt sometime shortly after its discovery in 1877. Hurst claimed that the original drawing was deliberately falsified to make it appear that the primary quill feathers originated in the ‘arm and not in the ‘hand’. He invited his readers to place a straight edge on the photograph and observe that the fourth primary feather is straight. Incredibly, modern photographs now show the wing feathers to be ‘bent’ exactly as in the engraving. Comparison between an early and a modern photograph may be made between Figures -2 and 4 but Figures 3 and 4 show the difference more clearly. The first three distal feathers curve very slightly backwards towards the base of the fourth and the remaining primary feathers curve slightly forwards towards the same point; all these primary feathers thus originate in the manus or hand. In contrast, the engraving shows that all seven primary quills are bent backwards, some almost 40 degrees which has increased their length and doubled it in the case of the third quill.

    Professor Hurst also pointed out that not only was the engraving unfaithful to the facts but argued that strongly curved feathers are useless for flight. Hurst also showed that in his detailed description of the specimen, Dames [10, p.138], states that the primary quills were attached to the longest finger [35]. The publication of Dr. Hurst’s criticism of the Berlin Specimen led to a lengthy rebuttal paper read to the British Association by Dr. W.P. Pycraft of the British Museum [36]. Pycraft defended the fossil on the basis of Hurst’s photograph rather than the engraving and rightly pointed out that straight primary feathers could be expected to originate from the fingers. This is true of most modern birds but the engraving and every modern photograph of the Berlin wing, including Heilmann’s dated 1923 [37], now show that the primary feathers are bent and originate in the ulna or fore-arm region. The change from straight to bent feathers in the photographs evidently took place sometime between 1893 and 1923.

    In the same paper Professor Hurst made another observation that “these fingers lie not in the wing at all, but upon its feather-clad surface” (his emphasis) [38]. He concluded that the Archaeopteryx was a winged quadruped which used its fingers for climbing. While few claim it to be a quadruped there has been much speculation as to whether the creature could fly or was it simply a climber? Recalling that the surface of the slab is actually in three dimensions and not two, then since the bones are exposed, there is little option but for the feather impressions to appear to lie beneath them. Without removing the bones there can be no proof that they do but it is self evident that if the situation were reversed with the bones beneath the feather impressions then the bones would not be seen at all. Any forger with his wits about him would be aware of this and arrange for the wing to appear to lay beneath the arm bones in the following way: The wing area adjacent to the ‘arm’ and ‘hand’ was masked off with wax and the surface gently etched away with acid to remove perhaps 2 mm. This was then partially back-filled with the comminuted limestone/gum arabic mixture and modern feathers pressed in place. No clumsy hammering and risk of damage would be involved.

    It is now almost a century since Professor Hurst published his criticisms based upon personal observations of both the London [39] and Berlin specimens. It may be wondered why this information is not more widely known. The scientific establishment has been virtually dominated by biologists ever since Darwin’s day and a kind of censorship of any work critical of evolution has been in effect throughout this time. Hurst had published his work in a scholarly journal offering a balanced airing of contrary opinions; the journal was short-lived (from 1892 to 1899) and is seldom found in library collections today. Similarly, because of the nature of Hoyle and Spetner’s findings, these were not found acceptable to the mainline biological journals and they were obliged to report them in The British Journal of Photography.

    Having seen some of the short-comings of both the London and Berlin specimens we will now briefly survey the various features of all the specimens bearing in mind Spetner and Hoyle’s contention that the London Specimen is a fraudulently modified Compsognathus. First, we will examine the two features which give the creature its status as a bird i.e. the feathers and the furcula.

    THE FEATHERS. Impressions of modern feathers only appear on the London and Berlin specimens and only on the tail and in the wing areas. Hurst had remarked on the marvelous state of preservation of the feather impressions saying, “even the barbules of some of the quills are recognizable” [40]. It may be added that there are no other examples of feathers having been preserved in such detail in the fossil record. One very recent case reported in 1988 from Spain [41] is of a single, half-inch long feather but this had been carbonized. That the preservation of such microscopic detail should occur in the two specimens already shrouded in suspicion is simply what one might expect from a forgery where the forgers had little choice but to use modern feathers. It raises an interesting question concerning the kind of detail present in the wing areas of the Berlin Specimen after its apparent modification about a century ago? As far as specimens assigned more recently to the status of Archaeopteryx are concerned, the popular accounts typically say that “feather impressions are distinct” [42] but, in fact, the investigator’s statements say, “These features are interpreted as imprints of feather shafts” [43]. Quite a different thing where for example the “feather shaft impressions” may have been produced by quills and not feathers. Moreover, there is not a hint of a feather or feather shaft impression near any of the tails of the Maxberg, Haarlem, or Solnhofen specimens; Wellnhofer [14] claims there are feather impressions in the tail area of the Eichstatt specimen but Ostrom denies this.

    THE FURCULA. While no one is quite sure of the function of the furcula, most evolutionary biologists believe that it came about by the fusion of the clavicles or collar-bones in the ancestor of the bird. This has led to much speculation among armchair scientists who may never have examined the actual specimens and it would seem better to accept with caution the arguments of those who have. John Ostrom is probably the world’s greatest expert on birds and has personally examined every one of the Archaeopteryx specimens. We will be referring to his 1975/6 papers [15,44] which can probably be regarded as the definitive work. Ostrom describes the furcula of the London specimen as a “boomerang” [45] while even to the untutored eye it is nothing like the delicate wish-bone found in any chicken; this should be cause for question but, so far, it has seemingly been accepted on faith alone. Ostrom maintains that the Berlin Specimen has fragments of bone which many claim as the furcula “although it cannot be proved” and expresses surprise that there is no trace of a furcula in the otherwise well-preserved Eichstatt Specimen [46]. Ostrom also maintains that “a similar bone is partially preserved in the two slabs of the Maxberg Specimen” [47]. This specimen is in the hands of a private collector and photographs of the furcula have not been published; in private correspondence with the author, professor Ostrom has provided a photograph of the alleged furcula but it is far from convincing while he admits that Heller [11] failed to even mention this vital detail. Finally, Ostrom points out that the presence of a furcula seems paradoxical together with the apparent absence of a sternum in every one of the Archaeopteryx specimens [48]. Moreover, there are many little avian details which are entirely absent in all these specimens such as the hypocleideum on the furcula or the external cnemial (shin) crest on the tibia [49].

    Over the years opinions have shifted back and forth between the Archaeopteryx being a feathered reptile to it being a bird with reptile features; the latter view prevails today. Among the claims for avian status has been “the perching feet” and “the orientation of the pubis” (the pubis bone of the birds faces backwards, that of the dinosaurians face forwards). Interestingly, and perhaps uniquely among dinosaurs, the Compsognathus is said to have had a backward facing pubis like that of a bird [50]. Ostrom refers to the classic work of Heilmann [37] who in 1926 gave an impressive list of the similarities between the Archaeopteryx on the one hand and the coelurosaurian theropods on the other. However, Heilmann then dismissed the theropod connection because it was believed that this branch of reptiles did not possess a clavicle; Ostrom cites more recent work to show that some theropods do have a clavicle thus removing this negative evidence. After spending half a lifetime studying the Archaeopteryx Ostrom concludes his 1976 paper with:

    Were it not for those remarkable feather imprints …both specimens [the London and Berlin] would be identified unquestionably as coelurosaurian theropods…there is only one skeletal feature that is not currently known in any theropod specimen. This single feature is the fusion of the clavicles into a furcula” [51].

    And in his 1975 paper, Ostrom is more specific:

    The presumed bird-like orientation of the pubis in the Berlin Specimen is probably not correct, but due to post-mortem displacement. The bird-like feet and hind-legs are equally theropodous and all of the other so-called bird-like features (hands, arms, pelvis, and skull) are actually more like those of theropod dinosaurs than they are bird-like” [52].

    The list of similarities is impressive there being for example, nine major points of similarity between the head of the Archaeopteryx and that of the Compsognathus alone [53]. But then this is precisely what would be expected if the Archaeopteryx is nothing more than a modified Compsognathus. Heilmann’s restoration of the Compsognathus is shown in Figure 5.

    In this paper we have not been concerned with the unlikely possibility that the Archaeopteryx was a strange mosaic creature like Australia’s duck-billed platypus. The concern has been with fraud: its motive seems to have been monetary gain, the result has been to provide evidence for a theory. When all the published facts regarding the Archaeopteryx are brought forward, any unbiased jury would find it extremely difficult not to conclude that both the London and Berlin specimens were fraudulent. The more recent “discoveries” are seemingly an attempt to restore confidence in an oft-told myth and have been carried out by mere re-classification of the same kind of fossil used for the hoax; the feather evidence, like Percival Lowell’s 700 canals on Mars, is more in the eye of faith than it is in fact. Professor Ostrom, who has examined every specimen, confesses that only the London and Berlin specimens contain clear feather impressions while the Eichstatt tail has a “plume” but no evidence of feathers. The London specimen is the only one having a clearly defined feature said to be a furcula and, while Ostrom claims the Maxberg specimen has a furcula, this is not at all convincing. Even if an undoubted furcula were discovered in another specimen, this would only tend to confirm that the furcula in the London specimen was genuine. However, it would not remove the suspicion of fraud because it seems likely that the Compsognathus itself may have had fused clavicles. Finally, it is surely incumbent upon the paleontologist to provide convincing explanations for: a) the change from straight feather impressions to the unlikely bent feather impressions in the Berlin specimen and b) why primary feathers, which are modern in every respect, attach to the ulna instead of the manus as in modern birds? Until such explanations are forthcoming the suspicion of fraud will remain.

  646. abc's said


    I’m not reading all of that.
    You are missing the forest for the trees.
    Archaeopteryx is only one transitional species that we have fossilized evidence for. There are many others.

  647. Zerxil said

    They were created to help evo’s maybe? Lol, Archaeoraptor has an intelligent designer.

  648. Zerxil said

    644 they have pictures if that will help…

  649. Zerxil said

    Textbooks sometimes speak of “many other examples” and by this is meant: A poorly preserved specimen discovered in 1956 assigned by Heller as an Archaeopteryx and known as the Maxberg Specimen [11]; it remains in a private collection. A specimen discovered in 1855 and classified as a pterosaur by the Teyer Museum until 1970 when it was reclassified as an Archaeopteryx by Ostrom; it is referred to as the Haarlem Specimen [12]. A specimen discovered in 1951 and classified as a Compsognathus longipes reclassified by Mayr in 1973 as an Archaeopteryx and known today as the Eichstatt Specimen [13]. The most recent specimen was “discovered” in a private collection and classified by Wellnhofer in 1988 as an Archaeopteryx; it is referred to as the Solnhofen Specimen [14]. It is to be emphasized that none of these last four specimens show feather impressions

  650. Zerxil said

    I have found a dino bone in the back yard. We will start the bidding at 25 thousand.

  651. Zerxil said

    It could be a composite but that doesn’t decrease the value at all…

  652. Maz said

    Zerxil: Your posts are very long and not in your own words…so to speak. Cutting and pasting is OK sometimes but you post quite a few of them and like Abc’s I’m not reading #644 either, it’s far too long.

    Abc’s: I have no misunderstanding about what evolutionists are trying to convey in their theory,
    I think they completely misunderstand the utter complexity of life. Their explanations for the variety of life we have on earth are far too simplistic to be reality.

    And about the evidence for dino-bird, I have already said there isn’t any. Archie is a bird and always has been no matter what you try to turn it into.

    You obviously use faith in your assertion that even though there is no scientific explanation for how scales changed into feathers, you still believe they did and that the evidence is just around the corner. I shouldn’t hold your breath.
    ”Common ancestry” is a misnomer. It doesn’t exist.

    And God created all the creatures perfectly in the beginning, and if I have to repeat myself yet again, it was only the curse that created imperfections, disease and death. If animals have died out, it is because of that curse.

    Zerxil: #643. I spoke about that in another post.

  653. Maz said

    Truth Talk: Considering that there was over 500 posts on the other ”Darwin” blog, has this broken all the records?
    If and when this fizzles out, you will have to find something else as interesting to debate.
    The last few havn’t done too well.

  654. Zerxil said

    No Maz, archie is not a bird. he was a feather, and than a composite. Caudipteryx zoui and Protarchaeopteryx robusta are flightless birds.

  655. Maz said

    Zerxil: What was that tangled up type of bird imprint on the rocks then that looked like a bird?

  656. Zerxil said

    I don’t know…I just cut & paste…where in the bible does it say the world was perfect?

  657. Maz said

    Let me introduce another line of thot from the scientific world.
    This is science in the raw:
    ”The Universe burst into SOMETHING from absolutely NOTHING….zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with evem more stuff that came from absolutely NOWHERE. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.” This was on the cover of DISCOVER magazine, April 2002. 😉

  658. Zerxil said

    Barney, 616 is newer and Mary is working with NASA now.

  659. Zerxil said

    If the world & everyting in it were perfect how did adam sin?

  660. Zerxil said

    347,117 blog reactions the huffington post.

  661. abc's said


    I don’t see any reason to continue the discussion with you as I feel that you understand the basics about evolution. It’s ok if you don’t believe it, or if you incorporate it into your personal beliefs.


    You don’t understand evolution and you refuse to accept any of the evidence. It’s ok not to believe it. I take it as a failing on my part that you do not understand it.

  662. Zerxil said

    655, must have been a bird…not an Archie, since those don’t exist.

  663. Maz said

    Zerxil; Read the beginning of Genesis. Ch 1 particularly.

  664. Chris C. said

    Hey Maz et al. You guys move far too fast for me to keep up. Anyways…

    Alan Guth’s theory of inflation actually dealt with how we can explain light from places in the universe reachign other places more than 14 billion light years away. So, say we discover some faint quasar that appears to be 16 billion years old. Guth’s theory postulates that the early universe actually expanded faster than the speed of light, thus allowing for things to appear futher away (older) than the universe itself. Again, the Big Bang theory is not completely perfect in its understanding of the early universe. But we know the universe is expanding and that it is likely about 14 billion years old, and that it must have started from a singularity. What came before that singularity (creationists love to call it “nothing” although singularities are in fact matter) is not known. Again, “we don’t know” does not = “GOD DID IT”.

    BTW, perhaps ABC’s can help me here, but I believe one of the better reasons we have for thinking birds came from dinosaurs is the bone structure of te ankle. Early dinosaurs and therapods had an ankle structure that only allowed them to lumber around slowly. Later dinosaurs of the Cretacious evolved “bird-like” feet that allowed for a great range of motion, greater speed, and the ability to use talons/digits. I have forgotten much of this from the class I took, but perhaps ABCs can add some more scientific info.

  665. Zerxil said

    662 Just micro, the whole macro thing I think I understand the theory behind it, not how it could work. In order for evolution to work it needs an ecosystem. Ecosystems need different organisms. You get different organisms thru evolution.

  666. Zerxil said

    Paraphrase “God created whatever, He states it is good.” But where does it specifically state that it was perfect.

  667. Chris C. said

    Maz, often times things in nature mimic their environment, such as leaf insects, walking sticks, moths and butterflies which have “faces” on their wings. Think of the base pairs of DNA like the three primary colors: cyan magenta and yellow. From those three colors you can make millions of other colors. The same is true of DNA, combining different letters in different sequences yields trillions of different possibilities. Throughout generations genes from different individuals mix, recombine, sometimes mutate, etc. Even in a small population, there is incredible genetic variation.

    Lets look at leaf insects. They look like leaves as a camoflauge. Over time, those whose genes express a more “leaflike” form will be selected for because they will survive better in the environment. Then, the frequency of leaf-like insects will increase in the population and the selective pressure for leafiness will increase. All of the variation and information is present from the start. Natural selection simply brings it out, or manipulates the population into the most adapted genotype.

  668. abc's said


    “The Universe burst into SOMETHING from absolutely NOTHING….zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with evem more stuff that came from absolutely NOWHERE.”

    Classic misunderstanding. The big bang sprang forth from a singularity that had a density and mass that approached infinity. It was a very small point, but all of the energy and mass we have today was already there.
    There is evidence to support this theory. We can look at objects in space and see how they behave. If we extrapolate into the past we can understand that everything came from the same region.
    Sure, something could have created that singularity. Or it could have always existed. But I don’t think you are arguing for either position.

  669. Maz said

    Zerxil: I called the bird Archie so I didn’t have to keep spelling that long name.

    Have you read Genesis atall? God, the perfect God, created everything perfect.
    Adam was perfect and Eve was perfect….until…..THEY chose with their free will to disobey Gods command not to eat of the tree in the midst of the garden. That disobedience was sin, and that sin brought the consequences of the curse, which brought disease and death into the perfect world. Then, the world was no longer perfect but marred by the curse.
    As a Christian, I thot you would know the basics of your beliefs and particularly the reason why Jesus, the ”last Adam” had to come and die for us.

  670. Maz said

    #668: This is a very simplistic explanation of how an insect slowly evolves into looking like a leaf.
    Really, if you stop and think about what you are actually saying, it really does sound silly.
    If man lived in the jungle for however many thousands of years (supposedly)before they started building structures to live in, why didn’t they start evolving green skin? Why? Because green pigment wasn’t in the skin to start with. We have a substance called melanin in our skin(I think it’s called) that is brown, but some of us have more than others. Black people have much more and we white Europeans have a lot less. But we will NEVER change into another colour.
    Leaf insects are like that because that is what their DNA have made them like. IN other words God created them that way. I think sometimes God has a real sense of humour.

  671. Maz said

    That last post should have been #667.

  672. Maz said

    Chris: Where did the Zebra get his stripes?

  673. Maz said

    Abc’s: #661. I don’t refuse to accept the evidence of evolution because I don’t see any.

  674. Chris C. said

    Maz, sorry the explanation seems silly to you. But it is scientifically sound. By the way, there is also a good reason that there are different skin pigmentations at different latitudes. And no, it’s not because God created them that way.

    Dark skin protects people from harmful UV radiation. Also, it protects their Vitamin B folate from beign degraded by sunlight. At the equator, dark skin allows just enough radiation through to power the prduction of Vitamin D, without destroying vitamin B or the melanocytes.

    At higher latitudes there is less solar radiation. Dark skin like that found near the equator would block out too much radiation and thus Vitamin D would not be synthesized. That is why people at high latittudes often drink more milk — thats how they get their vitamin D since they don’t get as much solar radiation. Google: “Nina Jablonski Skin Color” for more info. This is a scientifcally verified fact. Skin color evolved as a response to solar radiation. We weren’t all made “red and yellow, black and white” like that good olde song says.

  675. Zerxil said

    669 if they were perfect, they would not have sinned.

  676. Zerxil said

    668 so the universe was there before the big bang just in a different form.

  677. abc's said

    Zerxil 676

    According to the theory, yes.

    Chris C.
    Excellent explanations. Nice to see you back. I’m sorry I can’t be more help with the bird ankle question. It’s difficult to keep up with the posts sometimes, especially with the amount of ground being covered. It sounds vaguely familiar, but I don’t know everything. I’m much more knowledgeable about fish, to be honest.

  678. Yeah, this is definitely a new record. This is an important thread. If you took someone that doesn’t know or understand the differences between creationism and evolution and pointed them to this blog it would certainly help put some perspective on it.

    Barney – where have you been? Welcome back.

    Moderator (not Stu)

  679. Barney said

    Dr. Schweiter’s words speak for themselves, regardless of what Mr. Zerxil, Maz or Ken Ham tries to read into them:

    “As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old.” Dr. Mary Schweitzer(see post #639)

  680. Maz said

    Zerxil: How long have you been a Christian, because I find it hard to believe that you do not understand the fundementals of Christianity and what the Bible teaches?

  681. Maz said

    Barney: I only brought up Dr. Schweiter’s discovery of the dinosaur tissue and blood cells she found because her papers about it were refused publication because it didn’t fit with evolutionistic belief.
    Creationists seem to have the same problem when they write a paper or article about their scientific findings. They are refused publication only on the premise that it does not agree with evolution and therefore can’t be science.
    There is a lot of prejudice against any science that comes from Christian scientists, especially if they believe in a young earth.

  682. Barney said

    Maz, by Dr. Schweitzer’s own words her discovery DOES NOT SUPPORT the very creationism you cite her work for supporting!!!

    The prejudice against young earth creationism is well justified.

  683. F. L. A. said

    Maz, WHY did the Zebra get his stripes? I only want you to answer this question, if you would please.
    To answer your question, that was the end of THAT thunderstorm for that day.Down here it is the rainy/hurricane season, so if things go as they are supposed to, it should rain good EVERY DAY for the next two months.We will see.
    Thankyou Abc’s. We enjoy reading your posts too.

    Chris C., welcome back from the land of the super volcano! We missed you.

    Watch out Zerxil, Maz is thinking of demoting you from the “US” crowd to the “THEM” crowd[Ha. Ha.]
    By the way, I actually DID read the entire post. It was interesting[you hear John and I use that word a lot, don’t you?].
    I always wondered what I would sound like as a woman.Why does it have to be the voice of a sexy woman?

  684. Maz said

    Abc’s: I mentioned something about melonin that colours our skin but I can’t find the post…there has been so many it must be far back somewhere…and you said something about the sun.
    The fact is that the sun doesn’t cause us to go black, it was the sun that caused the people of darker skin to migrate towards the hotter Southern climates like Africa and the lighter coloured away to the cooler North, towards the Middle East and Europe.
    Not even for a million years would any of my desendents turn black again, because I am white and my children, childrens children, and so on will all be white because we pass down that much melonin within our genes to our offspring.
    In other words, the sun doesn’t turn us black….perhaps a nice shade of tan (altho I go red!)….it is genetic, passed down through the families. Adam and Eve would have had a certain amount of melonin in their body that would pass it down through successive generations in different amounts.
    Ofcourse, very rarely, a black baby could be born to a white couple, or, as was recently seen, a white couple had one black and one white baby(twins!). Somewhere in their ancestoral family they had a black relative, who’s melonin was passed on genetically, skipping several generations.
    I see this in my family as far as hair colour goes. I have red hair which my mother had, but her parents didn’t. My sister had dark hair the same as our father. Her children are fair, and my sons were both blonde, (thank goodness, I don’t like red hair on boys!). My grandsons are also blonde. If I had had a girl, which I may have done if I hadn’t had a miscarriage at three months term when I was in my twenties, I believe she may have had red hair.

  685. Maz said

    Zerxil #675: About a perfect man being able to sin……Jesus was perfect, He was sinless, He had to be to be our sacrifice for sin. That does not mean that He could not sin. He was tempted like us the Bible says, yet He didn’t sin. If He couldnt’ sin, why did the devil bother to tempt Him? So Adam, a perfect man, made by a perfect God…rememember, we were made in Gods image, so we had to be perfect at the beginning….sinned willfully with his own free will.
    I still don’t undersand how you can make the statement you did in #31 and deny the basic truths of the Bible. Your faith comes into question.

  686. Maz said

    Barney: #682. Read my post #681 again. The reason I mentioned her was not the one you think.

    Do you think that prejudice of any kind is justified?
    PREJUDICE: ”An opinion formed beforhand, especially an unfavourable one based on inadequate facts. The act or condition of holding such opinions. Intolerance of or dislike for people of a specific race or religion.” I guess that fits where evolutionists are concerned with their feelings towards Creationists and Christians who believe the Bible.

    F.L.A: I was asking Chris about the zebra for his answer from an evolutionists point of view.
    I believe God created it that way….atleast it wasn’t thro evolution.
    I believe God has a sense of humour, He can make things however He wants to. Look at the platypus!

    As far as Zerxil is concerned, he quite clearly believes in evolution over the Genesis account in the Bible…..which he said he believed in in post #31. So he has placed himself in the ”them”crowd.

    ”I always wondered what I would sound like as a woman”. Care to clarify?

    And has anyone come up with an answer to my question in #599 yet?

  687. Maz said

    Further info. concerning dino-bird evolution, and particularly Archaeopteryx:

    Theropod dinosaurs, widely accepted as the ancestors of birds, do not show a step-by-step gradational change to Archaeopteryx, the first known bird. The vast majority of traits reverse themselves at least once in the cladistic sequence. Those traits that do change in a unidirectional manner often show large jumps in the sequence. Ironically, the most bird-like of theropods (including the much touted feathered ‘theropod,’ Caudipteryx), are now apparently confirmed (under evolutionary presuppositions) to be nothing more than ‘secondarily’ flightless descendants of Archaeopteryx! Theropods fail as stratomorphic intermediates, occurring much too late in the stratigraphic record to serve as the ancestors of birds. The course of volant (flying) bird evolution itself is also full of discontinuities and trait reversals. Late Mesozoic birds fail to display a smooth connection either backwards to Archaeopteryx or forward to modern birds.

    The alleged evolutionary transformation of reptiles to birds is fraught with numerous subjective interpretations and conflicting opinions of evolutionary descent. The fashionable theory is that birds evolved from theropods (carnivorous dinosaurs), but the evolutionist Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, called it ‘one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion.’

    Archaeopteryx to modern birds.
    Of course, the data pertaining to Archaeopteryx does not tell the full story. It is interesting to note that many 19th century evolutionists, evidently following common sense, recognized the fact that Archaeopteryx does not qualify as a bona fide gap-filler for most of the morphological attributes that differentiate reptiles from birds.

    I’v only posted a very small part of the info on this subject because obviously it is too long to put here, but I think I have put enough to say what needed to be said, to show that dino-bird evolution is not atall feasable.

  688. Anonymous said

    Poor Maz. Where are all the other Christians….or should I say creationists?

  689. Maz said

    Anon: Not so poor! I’m richer than a multi-millionaire!

  690. Maz said

    Who said once that ”One with God is a majority.”

  691. abc's said


    Chris C. explained the evolutionary adaptations for the melanin in our skin with respect to the sun. He was right.

  692. Maz said

    Abc’s: Which post was that?

  693. abc's said


  694. Chris C. said

    Maz, why shouldn’t intelligence just now be evolving. If anything, intelligent beings like us should be a later result of evolution, not a first cause. Things go from simple to complex, not the other way around.

    Also, plenty of other animals have intelligence….dolphins, chimps, dogs, etc.

  695. Maz said

    Chris: Skin pigment. What you said in your post was true to a certain extent, but skin colour did not evolve as a response to solar radiation. As I said the information for melonin is in the DNA already and it is genetically inherited from our parents. Melonin was not added by mutation to protect the people in the hotter climates. God gave the first parents the right amount of melonin they needed to live healthily, but due to the people spreading out into groups in different places and marrying within their colour group, the skin colours, black, brown, red and ‘white’ varied and was caused genetically by being inherited from parents in each group.

  696. Maz said

    Chris: How can something that is not fully physical evolve? There is more to out ‘thinking’ and ‘reasoning’ than the physical cells and neurons in our brains. We are not purely physical beings.
    The intlligence in animals is not the kind that can think imaginatively or creatively. Birds build nests out of instinct, and most animals do the things they do out of instinct. Ofcourse, we as intelligent human beings can train animals to do certain things, but those animals would never have ‘thought up’ the idea of doing those things for themselves.
    We were created in the image of God, animals were not. Therefore there is within us something more than a soul…..we possess a spirit.
    Anyone here believe in ghosts?

  697. abc's said


    “God gave the first parents the right amount of melonin they needed to live healthily, but due to the people spreading out into groups in different places and marrying within their colour group,” etc

    That doesn’t explain why skin color changed from the “ideal”. If there was only 1 original set of parents, then why did they eventually have children with different skin pigmentation that then spread out and congregated amongst themselves?

  698. Maz said

    Chris: ”Things go from simple to complex.” This is the evolutionary idea, but it is not based on fact. Would you say our world and all that’s in it is getting better? I wouldn’t.
    Everything, including what is in space, is heading downward and becoming degenerate.

  699. abc's said

    I guess I could answer the question based on my own recollection of the biblical account.

    The people gathered together and started work on the tower of Babel. This made God nervous or angry, so he confused them, and spread them out and mixed up their languages so that they could no longer communicatem, and he destroyed the tower.

    Is this close to your understanding Maz?

  700. Maz said

    Abc’s: Adam and Eves children probably had more or less the same colour skin as they did, but over successive generations, skin colour went into differing shades of lighter or darker. Isn’t this obvious when you see a child of black and white parents? This would be the other end of the scale, but as people married differing colours their offspring would become lighter or darker, or they could stay the same until another shade was injected into the gene pool.

    Don’t forget, Adam and Eve lived several hundred years, so Eve probably had many children over that time. The amount of melonin in some could have been more than in others and so the colours began to vary as they multiplied.

  701. abc's said


    So we have evolved since that time?

  702. Maz said

    Abc’s: Whatever the Bible says about the tower of Babel, I believe.
    God saw that they were uniting in a bad way. The key is in the words of the people ”..let us make US a NAME…” Gen: 11 v 5, and God said, ”..now nothing will be witheld from them, which they have IMAGINED to do.” They were beginning to unite in their OWN way and not in Gods. In building the Tower they thot they could reach God, or a god of their imagination, so God had to scatter them or they could eventually have destroyed themselves.

  703. abc's said

    What is the evidence that supports that story?

  704. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”So we have evolved since that time?” Ofcourse not. Evolution never happened……I thot you had understood this by now. We have been on this site for a whole month, and now gone over the 700 mark! God did not use evolution ATALL, not at the beginning, not just after the beginning and not up to the present day. NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. 🙂

  705. abc's said


    I have been posting in this forum since February.

    What do you call it when 2 parents have a child with different skin pigmentation?

  706. Maz said

    Abc’s: I would have to look up the archeological evidence to answer that. But even if there wasn’t any physical evidence, I believe what the Bible says there, because there is plenty of archeological evidence for other ‘stories’ (as you may call them) within the Bible.

  707. Maz said

    Abc’s: THIS site started in May. If you are talking about the original, I was there too.

  708. Maz said

    # 705, last question…don’t know.

  709. Maz said

    Abc’s: The only information I can find at the moment about archeological evidence for the Tower of Babel is that, in the Biblical account, the place described would suggest Southern Mesopotamia. Nearly 30 ziggurats, or tower structures have been found in this area. So there had been towers built here.
    The structure at Eridu, the earliest structure that some designate a ziggurat, is dated in it’ earliest level to the Ubaid period about 4300-3500 B.C. Roughly about the time the Tower of Babel would have been built. There is ofcourse no absolute evidence to say this was the Tower of Babel.

  710. Barney said

    Trying to reason with Maz is tiring. I quit. Have fun you guys.3

  711. Maz said

    Oh Barney: Where is your stamina?

  712. abc's said

    There could be all the evidence in the world to support that towers were being built in the area. I don’t doubt that. The story probably has its basis in fact somewhere along the line.

    I mean, what type of evidence could there possibly be to prove that God scattered the people and confused their speech. That kind of thing would leave no evidence.
    We can’t say that because people speak different languages now, that means the story must be true. I could make up a story that explains the different languages and neither one of us could prove it wrong.

  713. Maz said

    Abc’s: There are some things that cannot be proved by solid evidence and I guess this could be one of them.

  714. abc's said

    If it can’t be supported with evidence, how can we claim it is the truth?

  715. Maz said

    Abc’s: You mean nothing is true unless it has solid evidence to back it up?

  716. Zerxil said

    683 PERSONAL PREFERENCE…684 she already did 705 EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT LEVELS OF malitonien (spelled wrong) which, I guess, shows your point about evolution…

  717. abc's said



    How can we say that it is true if there is no evidence? We can make up any kind of reason. The evidence is how separate true and false propositions.

  718. Zerxil said

    would strong evidence do, or only solid evidence about truth.

  719. abc's said

    Any correlated evidence would be a good start. The evidence for proof would have to be persuasive enough to rule out all of the other possibilities.

  720. Zerxil said

    Maz let me get your thought straight. Adam was perfect, he sinned than he changed. Right? So your saying sinning and or the fruit changed him. Which means you think he devolved, but an evo would think that is evolution. What I’m saying is Adam was not perfect, if he was he wouldn’t have sinned. I say since Jesus didn’t sin he was morally perfect, he couldn’t have been physically perfect because Mary devolved from Adam. Adam had the ability to sin & he did. We should have the ability to not sin because the bible says Jesus had the EXACT same temptations we do. If he started out having a higher morality he would not have faced the EXACT same temptations we do. RIGHT?

  721. Zerxil said

    Any correlated evidence would be a good start. The evidence for proof would have to be persuasive enough to rule out all of the other possibilities.

    Couldn’t the correlated evidence for proof be equal, or even slightly less. I mean strongly proving any amount of ID in nature would be impressive.

    I have to stop now for a few hours be back soon.

  722. Zerxil said

    By the way I believe the creatures we have now evolved from the ones on the arc. I believe the bible was told to humans through God, and any mistakes were too small & not worth his time. If that makes me not a creationist (I already stated a thought about a middle earth), so be it.

  723. abc's said


    The only “strong” point the id tries to make is that some things are irreducibly complex.
    That is impossible to prove.
    All of the other evidence is already strongly supportive of evolution.

  724. F. L. A. said

    Maz, the Zebra has stripes to confuse predators like lions.It messes with a lions vision to see all those striped bodies moving around in a herd of zebras, they all become blended in with one another.Thus, the lions must wait until one of them separate from the herd so they can more easily focus on the target, or just rush the herd and get lucky at sorting one zebra from the others.
    Which of course pokes holes in the whole argument of all animal life before the Fall being peaceful herbivores.The same for any animal with warning colors or camouflage. Ken ham would say that all of these physical adaptations for capture, killing and evasion resulted AFTER the Fall of biblical man, but will not or cannot explain how these radical adaptive changes are not the same as what we would call EVOLUTION.

    Abc’s I can see how the Tower of Babel story might be used in mythology to try and explain why there are so many different world languages among the races of men, but I fail to understand how this explains the origins of the different races of men.
    Be back later.

  725. Chris C. said

    “What you said in your post was true to a certain extent, but skin colour did not evolve as a response to solar radiation.”
    Every ounce of scientific evidence posits that it did. Population frequencies of dark-skinned vs. light skinned people; ocurrances of rickets (a vitamin D deficiency) in the northern latitudes, a lack of ancestral pasturalism in around the equator. The theory of skin pigmentation is a strong one, backed up by mounds of observational evidence.

    “Things go from simple to complex.” This is the evolutionary idea, but it is not based on fact. Would you say our world and all that’s in it is getting better? I wouldn’t.
    Everything, including what is in space, is heading downward and becoming degenerate.”
    Look at the rocks, the geologic column. Simple in the past, more complex as time progresses. That was all I meant. And yes, the universe will eventually have an end, but stars are still being born, new solar systems forming, etc.

    So if the tower of Babel was around 4000 BC, and that is when God scattered people across the globe, how do you account for the human settlement at Monte Verde, along the coast of Chile around 11,500 BC?

  726. abc's said


    “I can see how the Tower of Babel story might be used in mythology to try and explain why there are so many different world languages among the races of men, but I fail to understand how this explains the origins of the different races of men.”

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe the story. I was only using it to generate questions for Maz. She believes the story of Babel is literal truth, but also agrees that there is not sufficient evidence to support it.
    I don’t believe that story because there is no sufficient evidence.
    I was just relating it back to the discussion on skin pigmentation. Evolution is a better answer.

  727. Bob Griffin said

    Got busy and Im about 100 posts behind. My take on the last posts:

    As a christian I believe everything was created at once by God. I walk out my door and the world looks like I think it should. Evolutionists believe in nature doing things by itself and having many transitional forms – you walk out the door and it looks like I say it should. What does your logic tell you happened if you just look at nature?

  728. Chris C. said

    Bob man’s instincts told him we are at the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around us; the the earth is flat and that disease is a curse by God. It was through research and math and science we discovered these basic observations to be innacurate. You have never seen God and he has never spoken to you and told you that he created the earth. All you have is a book and the powerful emotional journey of religion. You are taking a lack of knowledge (i.e. How did we get here?) and using that as positive evidence for a God…

  729. Maz said

    Zerxil #720: There is no such thing as ‘devolve’. You can change from good to bad without any physical difference. The only difference that took place in Adam and Eve was their relationship with God (they became spiritually separated) and they lost the ability to live forever. Death reigned because of sin. Rom: 5 v 12, ”Wherefore as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.” v19, ”For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus) shall many be made righteous.” Read all of Romans 5 to get the full picture. I didn’t want to flood the site with loads of scripture.

    As far as Jesus was concerned, his mother was the vessel by which He was brought into this world, but I don’t know if you know this, but the blood of a child comes from the father. As Joseph was not his real father…God was…the blood flowing in His veins was not Adams tainted blood (tainted by sin) but the pure blood that God placed in His veins. Only pure blood could have been shed for the sacrifice for sin. And having sinless blood flowing through His veins, death could not claim Him. (He had to GIVE up His life on the cross for us, but then three days later he was able to rise again from death).
    The sin nature was passed down from the father (Adam) to the children, but as I said, Joseph, Adams descendent, was not his true father so Jesus did not inherit the sin nature from him. Jesus was God’s Son, and He had the Divine nature within Him from His Father.
    I don’t know if you will understand any of this but if you are a born-again believer then the Holy Spirit should show you the truth…otherwise…

    And Jesus could still be tempted…YET without yielding to those temptations. It is only when you yield to them that sin enters. He was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days, yet He resisted the devil each time.

  730. Maz said

    Abc’s: #723. How can you say that irreducable complexity cannot be proved? If you look through a microscope for a minute you may see the proof, unless you have dark glasses on.

    F.L.A; #724. The fact that the lions get confused about the stripes on a zebra doesn’t prove a thing about how they got there in the first place.

    And the animals were affected by the curse of sin too. They WERE herbivores until sin entered, then most turned to killing and eating flesh.

    And there is only one race….the human race.

  731. Maz said

    Chris: #725. Some of what you said is true, but the main cause of skin colour is still down to the amount of melonin passed down through the generations, not the radiation from the sun.

    There is no such thing as the geological column. This was made up and put in a text book to try and show what evolutionists believe. It is nowhere in the rock layers. You will not find this column anywhere in the world.

    It’s all to do with dating methods. You get your methods wrong and you get the dates wrong.
    Some dating methods can throw up different dates for the same thing.
    And I did’t say the Tower of Babel was built 4000 years ago, they were dates given for the ziggurats. Obviously the Tower was built some time after the flood, but exactly when I’m not sure. Would have to do more study to find out.

  732. abc's said


    So when the “curse” entered the world, things went from good to bad, without changing anything else? Why are there carnivores then?

    “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

    Genesis 2:17

    According to the story, Adam lived more than 900 more years and bore children.

    Why should Adam be afraid t