Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

What’s the BIG deal about evolution in public schools?

Posted by truthtalklive on September 30, 2008

PLEASE VISIT OUR NEW SITE AT www.truthtalklive.com. We are turning comments off here now.

Bookmark and Share

Our guest host, Robby Dillmore (The Christian Car Guy) talks on evolution in public schools. His guest is Bob Griffin and his son Garett with Inference Ministries. For more information please contact Inference Ministries by e-mail at inference@tirad.rr.com. For more information on Robby Dilmore please click the link above! As Always Thnaks for Listening and we look foward to your comments!

AFTER THE SHOW CHECK OUT THE PODCAST!

LISTEN LIVE NOW!

 

Behind Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design and the Easter Bunny

Flock of Dodos: Behind Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design and the Easter Bunny

Advertisements

717 Responses to “What’s the BIG deal about evolution in public schools?”

  1. John said

    I would pray for Stu to be healthy again real soon, but Maz, implied that it wouldn’t work, coming from me.
    Aw heck, I’m gonna do it anyway. Just to be ornery[smile].

  2. Maz said

    John: God does sometimes answer prayers from someone who is not a Christian if it is sincere, but then how can you pray to someone you don’t accept as God?

  3. John said

    Don’t accept as MY God, Maz. But he’s still paying attention, right? I can do this because I am polytheistic, and thus not bound by the cosmic rules of your theological belief system. I do not accept Jehovah as my personal Patron God, this however has no effect upon my belief in Jehovah as a powerful Deity, and the respect I have for those that acquire this position.
    So I will say a prayer to Jehovah on Stu’s behalf, and if Jehovah permits it, add my positive energy with that of anyone else who’s also prayed for the well being and swift healing of Stu.

  4. Stanley said

    Whats wrong with Stu?!

  5. Maz said

    John: But you ARE bound by Gods ‘rules’ as you put it, whether you like it or not. Your beliefs in other gods makes no difference. You are, in Gods eyes, idolatrous, which is an abominnation in His eyes.

  6. Maz said

    So to come to the subject in hand, schools need to teach both sides of the argumant, so that children are fully informed as to differing ideas and beliefs in the scientific field. Evolution has a monopoly in the schools and this should change.
    Heres a little snippet I was sent today:

    ”British doctor and medical missionary Robert Gurney has a sound understanding of all these issues (evolution v creation), as well as having empathy towards those who, like himself till recently, believed in the billions of years. His book ‘Six-Day Creation: Does it matter what you believe?’ succinctly explains the major issues behind accepting Genesis as written. He shows how the very gospel depends on this history in Genesis. He also covers attempts to harmonize the Bible with long-ages, deals with the basic principles in thinking about the scientific issues and answers common objections to believing what the Bible says.”

  7. James said

    Truth Talk Live,
    Your program on Tuesday September 30 asked the question of how
    to deal with the treatment of evolution vs. Creation. What about
    encouraging people to study the Bible? As I think of how I
    changed my mind on this and other similar issues, I realize an
    important part of the change came in studying the Bible. God
    began to convince me that all Scripture is true. I think that an
    important issue at stake here is inerrancy of Scripture within
    the Church and our culture. It seems many Christians don’t see
    the importance of the inerrancy of Scripture. Within our culture
    we’re in a battle for the hearts and minds of mankind. “We are
    destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against
    the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to
    the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all
    disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.” (2
    Corinthians 10:5,6)
    God Bless,
    James in Arizona

  8. Stu has….ok, brace yourself…….lost his voice.

    He has laryngitis.

    Listen….don’t everybody jump on that at one time.

    Thank you,
    Moderator

  9. A said

    I pray for Stu and encourage other to do the same. I also have comments about the evolution debate. Too often, we get sucked into arguments that distract us from our MAIN purposes which Jesus identified as loving God and loving others. That includes all others by the way…even those that maintain different opinions. I believe in creation and I have at least one friend that is a Christ follower that believes in evolution. I do not know all of his reasons for doing so. I do know that God does not intend for this issue to be so divisive that we do not stand arm-in-arm to praise Jesus and build His Kingdom.

  10. Maz said

    A: When I first came onto this site to debate the different subjects discussed I felt like I had been thrown to the wolves!
    I believe we can debate these subjects, in love, without any bad feeling, but it is difficult at times when you have a small minority element that will come on here with a very disagreeable attitude.
    But as it is a site for debate, it is inevitable that we shall enter into disagreement with people, even Christians, and we really need wisdom to know how to react….reply…respond to the more difficult debater.

    I want to testify of the truth of the Word of God, and that includes all sorts of subjects, aswell as putting the gospel forth to people who need to hear it.
    At times I’v been dragged into a running match, and as soon as I feel it is going nowhere and it is just an argument I do choose to withdraw, which I have on a couple of occasions.
    So, let us debate, with the love of the Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit that those who don’t know Him will come to know Him…..for He is Someone worth knowing!

  11. A said

    Well said…

  12. Stanley said

    Oh, well I’m glad its something not serious.

  13. F. L. A. said

    Laryngitis? Is that all?
    I believe John wasted his time…..

  14. John said

    Well, shootfire.
    I thought Stu had some kind of…..serious throat infection, or something.
    Maz, post #5- Why do you think I would care about this judgment from your God? Remember our posts regarding the “President of China”?
    And at least I TRIED to help, and I did it through an appeal to your deity, I never even bothered mentioning Stu to mine.Surely that should have been worth something.

    Evolutionary sciences have a monopoly within academic fields because it is based on facts and an overwhelming amount of undeniable[to those with good sense and a sound education]evidences. Other theories, theological based or otherwise, are not.

  15. John said

    Too bad that the radio station couldn’t find an advocate of the modern Evolutionary Sciences to debate with Mr. Griffin and his son on the show, eh[smile]?

  16. Maz said

    John: ”Evolutionary sciences have a monopoly within academic fields because it is based on facts and an overwhelming amount of undeniable[to those with good sense and a sound education]evidences. Other theories, theological based or otherwise, are not.” I’v said it before and I will say it again for the record….evolution is NOT based on fact or ‘undeniable and overwhelming evidence’. And good sense and education doesn’t prove anything, especially when it is so biased in the first place.

    You should care about the judgment of God because you will have to stand before Him one day and face the judgment upon your idolatry and denial of Jesus Christ as Savior.

    You TRIED……there is a heart within you to be sure, but God wants it.

  17. Duncan Chapman said

    Laryngitis? Are you sure Sue didn’t get Sarah Palin’s name caught in his throat while trying to explain why he still thinks she’s qualified, informed, and intelligent enough to be VP? In all seriousness, I hope he gets well soon; I depend on the laugh I get out of listening to him on my way home from work.

    Evolution in the schools eh? And the problem with that is…? I’ve always contended that if you’re simple-minded enough to believe in Biblical fables from several thousand years ago to explain the existence of our world and everything in it, and that makes you feel all warm, cozy, and satisfied, then be my guest. Just don’t try to convince the rest of us that it’s reality; especially in our public schools. I believe there is a God, that he is responsible for all that we see and know, and that it’s actually OK to have increased our level of understanding beyond the limited knowledge of two thousand years ago (or two hundred for that matter). For those that choose to ignore the advances in understanding we’ve made over that period of time, be my guest.

  18. abc's said

    I think it’s fair to say that the only “big deal” about teaching evolution in public schools is that a minority of people have religious objections to the theory.

  19. Thanks for listening, Duncan. Whether you laugh, cry, throw up or agree…we appreciate it. If you keep listening, then we’re doing our job.

    Moderator

  20. Stanley said

    I think its actually super important to teach evolution in schools. The reason why creationists have objections to it is because they know little about it and don’t understand it. I expect if they knew more about it, then they wouldn’t have such strong objections to it being taught. Its funny though, they think its a religion, when really its just a scientific paradigm.

  21. Maz said

    Maybe you can all tell me why the evolutionists are always so up in arms about teaching Creation in schools? What’s the Big Deal about giving both sides the chance to put their science into the classroom? Whether you think it is a load of rubbish, or crazy, or that we are simple for believing it makes no difference….if it is THAT silly then why are evolutionists so afraid to let it be taught in schools?

    Is it because Creationists actually have got evidence that evolution doesn’t work?

    Duncan: Are you a Christian or an agnostic? The Bible is the Word of GOD, not of man. So whatever was written thousands of years ago….or even if it had been written millions of years ago it would still be relevant today because Gods Word NEVER changes.
    It’s truth remains intact from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22.

  22. Maz said

    Stanley: ”The reason why creationists have objections to it is because they know little about it and don’t understand it.”

    You could also say exactly the same thing by putting ‘evolutionists’ instead of ‘creationists’.

  23. Maz said

    P.S: ‘it’ being Creation.

  24. abc's said

    Maz

    Honestly, you do not want me teaching about creationism alongside of evolution.

    I would enjoy giving a lecture regarding pseudoscience using creationist theories and methods.

  25. Stanley said

    Well, I actually wouldn’t mind having creationism taught in, say, English class. OR IF creationists could provide some scientific proof, then it could be taught in science class. Unfortunately for creationists, there is so little evidence to support a young earth that it would be silly to try and argue it in a science class.

    Actually, maybe if you taught creationism in schools along side evolution, then you’d transform Christians into Atheists, or at least long day creationists instead of young earth.

    What “evidence” do you have that evolution doesn’t work?

  26. Maz said

    Stanley: Evolutionists may insist there is tons of evidence for evolution and none for Creation but they are simply deceiving themselves.

    Look up the other Evolution/Creation debates and have a look at the evidence that has been put forward on there already, several times. I am not going to waste my time saying it all again because you cannot or rather won’t see it.

  27. Stanley said

    There is a TON of evidence for evolution.

  28. F. L. A. said

    That is a most excellent idea, Maz.
    I heartily recommend the same.
    Would anyone like for me to provide a list of site titles to help make the search easier?

  29. Maz said

    Stanley: Ha! ha!

  30. Maz said

    F.L.A: We could go round in perpetual circles and I tend to get dizzy!

  31. Stanley said

    I’ll do it!

  32. John said

    Maz, perhaps you or Mr. Griffin could dredge up some of that wisdom you spoke of within post#10 to help you react…reply…respond to the more difficult debaters in regards to this topic this time around.

  33. Duncan said

    People, people, people… (Maz in particular) Evoloution is a S-C-I-E-N-C-E, and S-C-I-E-N-C-E is a S-U-B-J-E-C-T taught in S-C-H-O-O-L (and in the rest of the informed world); whereas creationism is based in R-E-L-I-G-I-O-U-S beliefs (or whatever you want to call it), and should be taught in church, or in a private religious school where the little rascals can be brainwashed, but NOT alongside each other in a public school or any other institution of higher learning as if they’re on equal footing. No, don’t even waste your energy…

  34. F. L. A. said

    It is not adequate enough to use the label of “science” anymore Duncan, which is unfortunate. Young Earth Christian Creationist now have their own scientists with their own custom-made branch of “sciences’ to support their theological views.

  35. Stanley said

    Changed my mind, I have better things to do.

  36. Maz said

    Duncan…Duncan: There is enough science to prove Creation is a fact of History, it is not just a religious belief, it is FACT. But because you don’t or won’t believe it, you put it in the box of your own choice.

    And havn’t we all been brainwashed in our schools for millions of years!! (ha ha ha) from a very early age that evolution is a fact, when it is only a theory…..and I’v been over the deffinition of theory before so any explanations about science theory will be wasted on me.

    And Ferox is right.

  37. Duncan said

    Believing that “Creation is a fact of history”, makes about as much sense as the Pres. of Iran (Ackma-Dinner-Jacket) saying that the Holocaust never happend; it’s the same mentality; the ability to convince yourself of anything, no matter how absurd it may be. La-la-la-la-la…..

    Too bad they didn’t ask Sarah Palin this question last night. Now THAT would have been entertaining! Come to think of it… this debate is sort of like that debate… Biden is the informed, intelligent one (evolution), and Palin is clueless (Creationism).

  38. Stanley said

    She did say she didn’t think Global Warming wasn’t man-made, which is almost as embarrassing.

  39. Stanley said

    Maz, did you believe in evolution before you became a christian?

  40. Maz said

    Duncan: Ditto……Believing that evolution is a fact of history makes no sense. You deny the Creation just like the Iranian President denys the holocaust.

  41. Maz said

    Stanley #38: Maybe you can remind me where I said that.

    And it goes to show that you don’t read all the posts, atleast not mine, as I’v already said I believed in evolution before and for some years after I became a Christian until I saw the evidence against it. Thanks to ministries like Answers in Genesis, Creation Research, and other creationist speakers who I heard. It all made sense of what I read in Genesis, whereas before it didn’t.

  42. A said

    You guys are very entertaining. I am not emotionally attached to either position. I am convinced that we should not let our differences in opinion keep us divided. I just participated in a United Way presentation in which their theme is “Live United” which they did not create. This comes from the Bible that most of us on this site agree to be the very Word of God. As I alluded to in #9, our primary purpose is to glorify God in all that we do and say. The debate will not be resolved here so let’s focus on the Kingship of Jesus Christ. Peace Brothers …

  43. Maz said

    A: Actually most debates on here are never ‘resolved’.

  44. Stanley said

    When I said “She” I meant Sarah Palin, not you Maz. Sorry for the confusion.

  45. Maz said

    #38 OK.

  46. Bob Griffin said

    Maz, Been way too busy and not able to check in until now.

    Duncan – The first rule of science is to observe the phenomena. Which part of evolution did Darwin observe? Why does he use the words “suppose” and “assume” so much? Biden is intelligent? The last figure I saw was 14 lies in his debate. Maybe he’s an intelligent liar.

  47. Maz said

    Bob: Good to see you back.

    I watched another one of those Nat. Geog. Science programmes again the other day, and it makes me laugh the way they keep saying ‘probably’ and associated words of uncertainty when they are talking about how the solar system was created and the Universe began. But there are so many problems to the accretion disc theory. We shouldn’t have large gas giant planets where they are, but we do. Why? Because God put them there.

  48. F. L. A. said

    Welcome back, Mr.Griffin. We were wondering were you were.
    I would like to ask you the same question in regards to Christian Young Earth Creation “Science” and the alleged factual evidence used to support their beliefs, and yet, we both know how that would end, do we not?
    I apologize for butting in.
    Take your best shot, Duncan, however hopefully you have already read many of the other sites here that involves the topic of evolution and have by now a good idea of what has been tried, offered, accepted, or rejected by people on both sides of this topic.

  49. abc's said

    Bob Griffin re 46

    Darwin directly observed natural selection.

  50. F. L. A. said

    That’s right Maz, after all, what would the scientists working with National Geographic know about anything?
    This is sarcasm, of course.

  51. abc's said

    Maz

    When we do Science we’re not dealing with absolute truths. We are dealing with probabilities.

    For instance:
    It’s fair to say that the sun will “probably” rise tomorrow. (nevermind the fact that the sun doesn’t “rise”, instead the Earth rotates)

    Does using the word “probably” automatically falsify the statement: The sun will probably rise tomorrow.

  52. Maz said

    Abc’s: In the context that they use the word ‘probably’ they are meaning that THEY DON’T KNOW.
    It is not the same as your little example. Naturally the sun WILL rise unless ofcourse something drastic happens to the earth……but the sun rises continually around the globe anyway so I don’t think that is a good statement to make.

    And #39. We don’t deny natural selection, we deny evolution, you should know that, they are not the same thing. Ofcourse we believe natural selection only happens WITHIN the kinds…or genus…or species…whatever you call them. There is no changing from one genus or species (whatever) into another.

  53. Maz said

    Abc’s: That should have been #49 not #39.

  54. abc's said

    From dictionary.com

    evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

    Natural selection is a very important part of evolution.

  55. Maz said

    Abc’s: But it isn’t evolution.

  56. abc's said

    Maz

    Bob Griffin asked “which part of evolution did Darwin observe?”

    Natural selection is the part of the theory of evolution that Darwin observed.

  57. Maz said

    Abc’s: In other words he observed natural selection and thought that that proved evolution?

  58. John said

    Yup. Basically.

    Remember Abc’s, folks like Maz have a special, different idea of what it means for something to be a “species” than an evolutionists does.

  59. Bob Griffin said

    Last political gems of the day: Biden also told about how FDR got on TV in 1929 to ease the nations fears. And Obama spoke about being in all 57 states.

    FLA As I have said before, neither side can prove their point absolutely. I dont have the attitude of most of the atheists that I am 100% correct.

    What natural selection did Darwin observe?

    Yes John, we do have a different idea than you. You use micro evolution to prove macro. I dont buy that.

  60. Maz said

    John: Most likely you would call me arrogant to say that I AM 100% correct in saying evolution is a man-made theory and Creation is a God-fact! That’s fine. I believe 100% in the Creator God! 😉

  61. Maz said

    Abc’s: How does natural selection prove evolution from a blob of jelly to what we hav today?
    Does it show animals actually evolving from one species (whatever that means to you) to another?

  62. Maz said

    Abc’s: Species….genus….I mean cats stay cats, dogs stay dogs, horses stay horses, cattle stay cattle, sheep stay sheep, elephants stay elephants, get my drift?

  63. Stanley said

    Fruit flies turn into something different if you breed them enough, and become reproductively incompatible with fruit flies.

  64. F. L. A. said

    And elephants were not always elephants, unless of course one chooses to deny their humbler origins and the diversity that their “kind” has evolved to produce, from Mastodons to elephants to Indian Sea Cows[How much of an elephant does THAT animal look like Maz?].
    It has been like this with almost everything.

  65. Maz said

    Stanley: So what are they if they aren’t flies?

  66. Maz said

    F.L.A: But it wasn’t of the cat or dog or horse or deer or any other animal family….it was still of the elephant family. And where is the evidence for all this gradual change? How many millions of fossils should we have if all this evolutionary change took place over hundreds of milions of years? Where are those gradual changes in the fossil record? You should see it step by step by step, inch by inch. So why did the trunk grow so long? Why the ears so big? Why does the giraffe have a long neck? Why does the rhino have a horn on it’s nose?

  67. F. L. A. said

    There you go asking questions that have already been answered again.
    “Where is the evidence? Where? Where?….How? How?…”
    My goodness woman, how could you miss it?!?
    And then you ask questions that can only be answered if one actually accepts evolution, which you do not, in favor of the “just because God made it that way, like, just because.” conclusion. I would be interested in seeing your Creation Science theories usede to try and answer your own questions.
    A rhino’s horn is not a real horn, you know. It’s actually like…super condensed hair.
    All this animal talk made me hungry, so I’ll be back later.

  68. abc's said

    Maz

    “How does natural selection prove evolution from a blob of jelly to what we hav today?”

    Natural selection doesn’t prove that. It is one of the mechanisms of evolution that we can directly observe.

    “Does it show animals actually evolving from one species (whatever that means to you) to another?”

    No, the fossil record shows that.

    “How many millions of fossils should we have if all this evolutionary change took place over hundreds of milions of years? Where are those gradual changes in the fossil record? You should see it step by step by step, inch by inch.”

    I know that you’ve heard this all before, and that you don’t accept it, but for the benefit of others…

    A fossil is not formed every time something dies. If that happened, the earth would be covered with them, and we wouldn’t have any oil, aka “fossil fuel”. Fossils only form under specific conditions. We are lucky to find as much as we do.

    The fossils that we do find unfortunately don’t show the gradual progression from a to b to c to d of every single species of animal that ever lived. It is unreasonable to expect that. What we do find are the steps from a to e to l to x to y to z. Those fossils are found right where we expect to find them, and during the geologic period they should have lived.

  69. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”The members of the order Sirenia are believed to be relatives of the elephants.”
    They are ”believed to be”……where is the evidence?

    Oh, I’v asked THAT question again. But I can’t help it…I don’t see it because it isn’t there. And it is obvious we are going to ask the same questions…..and usually we get the same answers, except that they are still not convincing.

    Miss it? Yes, because the links are still MISSING.

  70. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”Natural selection doesn’t prove that. It is one of the mechanisms of evolution that we can directly observe”.

    I’m puzzled as to how you can point to natural selection being the ‘mechanism of evolution’ and yet say it doesn’t prove evolution. If you see the mechanism working how can you then say that it doesn’t prove or show evolution in action? Is this a play on words? Something that evolutionits are often doing.

  71. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”The fossils that we do find unfortunately don’t show the gradual progression from a to b to c to d of every single species of animal that ever lived. It is unreasonable to expect that. What we do find are the steps from a to e to l to x to y to z. Those fossils are found right where we expect to find them, and during the geologic period they should have lived.”

    I don’t think it is unreasonable to find, out of all those millions of fossils that do get hidden in the rocks etc. to show more evidence of evolution than we actually see, in fact I see no evidence atall, but even the evidence the evolutionists seem to think is there is only a tiny partical compared to a mountain-ful that should be there.

  72. Barney said

    For Maz:

    http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=254166

  73. abc's said

    The fossil record is not the only line of evidence that supports evolution. We also have evidence from homologies in respect to comparative anatomy, developmental biology, and genetics.

    We have the evidence from the distribution of species in time and space which shows the overall chronology that early life was less complex and became more complex as time passed, as well as the geopgraphic distribution of similar species.

    We have evidence by example which deals with artificial selection, ecology, nested hierarchies and modern day experiments. We are still creating new species of plants and animals by artificial selection by manipulating the rules of evolution.

    There’s a lot of evidence for evolution. It is the fundamental theory underlying all of biology.

  74. Maz said

    Abc’s: Chronology. Why should I trust what you say about chronology when evolutionists have made up a chronological record of the horse to try and prove it evolved from a smaller creature? It shows the horse types out of chronological order.

    ”We are still creating new species of plants and animals by artificial selection by manipulating the rules of evolution.”

    Yes, human beings have to MANIPULATE the ‘rules’ of evolution, ‘rules’ that were made up in the first place to fit the evolutionary worldview. There was no one in the beginning to manipulate the chemicals etc. so how on earth did life ever get started without us?

    And come to think of it, rules are things that are regular and ordered, evolution is based on chance and happenstance.

  75. Maz said

    Barney: Thanks for the link, but I think I’v posted a list of names before about scientists that believe in the Genesis Creation. There are people all over the world that believe all sorts of weird and wonderful things, some of them are scientists. I think it has to do with the fact that they are human aswell. The mind can be made to believe anything if told enough times. Especially if it has been indoctrinated into them from an early age all their school life.

  76. Stanley said

    Webster defines Irony as: Maz, post 75.

  77. Maz said

    Stanley: Have you ever seen the original Websters Dictionary? Really interesting.

  78. Barney said

    You’re welcome, Maz. I thought you’d enjoy ignoring that.

  79. Stanley said

    Did you get the irony in your post?

  80. Maz said

    Yes Stanley, you can see it the other way.

  81. Maz said

    Stanley: re #77?

  82. Stanley said

    No.

  83. Maz said

    Stanley: You shouldn’t use something that you don’t know anything about. Websters original dictionary was FULL of SCRIPTURE!

  84. Bob Griffin said

    The example we used on natural selection on the show was the peppered moths. They had a change in the proportion of the moths from light to dark. They did not come up with a new species. Any comments?

  85. F. L. A. said

    An excellent example of “survival of the fittest”.
    Would you have expected us evolutionists to think that they would have evolved into a completely new species over this occurrence?
    We have been over this with these moths before Mr.Griffin, remember?
    This is “old hat”.

  86. Maz said

    F.L.A: But you don’t get the point. No ”natural selection” or ”survival of the fittest” EVER caused a COMPLETE CHANGE in morphology,(that word popped up in my mind but not sure if it’s the correct one!) In other words it does not produce a new animal genus. It does not prove evolution from one animal into an entirey different animal! We have been through all this before too, but you still don’t listen.

  87. Mike S. said

    The finch’s beaks may evolve over time but 10 million years from now, they will still be finches.

  88. Maz said

    Yep….EXACTLY!

  89. Stanley said

    What happens when your finch becomes so unlike other finches that it can no longer reproduce with the finches it used to be like and becomes a whole new type of finch?

    And Websters is a dictionary, its history is not relevant to the joke Maz…

  90. Maz said

    Stanley: Wouldn’t happen.

  91. F. L. A. said

    Why Stanley, it would quality as a new species[Huge sharp-toothed grin].
    Still Finches in ten millions years of evolution? Oh, I seriously doubt that. Too bad none of us shall be around to find out.I would be surprised if humanity will even still exist in another five million years. If it did, I bet you would not be able to recognize them as your descendants.I will not waste the time describing to you what “humanity” was like five million years ago.
    Maz, you really should have a good understanding of the mechanics of the various forms of evolution before you try and convince one such as myself that I “just don’t listen and understand”.
    We HAVE been over this all before, yet, if you are unable to supply new or more scientifically sound data to help back up your theological beliefs on this matter, then your position within this debate shall remain as it has always been.
    It is not a very good position, Maz.

  92. F. L. A. said

    Sorry, I intended to type “qualify” not “quality” in the first sentence.

  93. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”Maz, you really should have a good understanding of the mechanics of the various forms of evolution before you try and convince one such as myself that I “just don’t listen and understand”.”

    The main constituent of life, and what makes an animal what it is, is DNA.
    The DNA in the finches would never change enough to make an entirely different animal however long you wait. The information within the DNA in finches will always make finches. Just as when you put the same information into a cmputer you always get the same result…unless you make a mistake, and that wouldn’t help the end result atall.

    All mutations are mistakes, that is not good news for evolution. More like devolution.
    So WHO is the one that hasn’t got a good understanding of the mechanics of life?

  94. F. L. A. said

    I have no idea as to why you believe that DNA and RNA would never change enough to make one form of animal[or plant] life change enough to be something entirely different. Sea Cows and Elephants are both related by distant ancestry, as are Humans and Spider Monkeys. Would you call these animals one in the same? No, of course not,yet the very genetics that you would try to use to support your ideas prove that Manatees and Elephants ARE distantly related by a common ancestor, but you would instead ignore such evidence in favor for the idea that “In the beginning, God created the elephant and the manatee as they are today…” with no drastic intermediate physical changes. And you think that those like myself are the ones lacking good understanding. You help prove my points better than I am allowed to through fear of attracting negative attention from the Moderator[Huge sharp-toothed grin]. All mutations are not mistakes as you believe them to be, Maz. This too has been well covered in the past, on various sites.

  95. Maz said

    F.L.A: They may be distant related because they have similar DNA, but that doesn’t prove that the DNA changed in the past and made Sea Cows into elephants or monkeys into men. Evolution on the other hand does make a monkey out of man! 😉

  96. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    We have gone over it before. You using some micro example to justify macro evolution. The fittest survived, but they stayed fit, not changed.

    Please do tell us what humanity was like 5 million years ago.

    Still waiting on the answer as to how 3 billion base pairs of DNA arranged themselves in the right order at the right time.

  97. Stanley said

    Really? It wouldn’t happen? It does happen and we’ve OBSERVED IT. Not just seen it in the fossil record, but SEEN it happen.

    “Humanity” didn’t exist 5 million years ago, but transitional forms did. Humans are a pretty recent thing, especially when you’re considering the massive timescale that is the known past.

  98. Stanley said

    Actually, I heard one of the best arguments for life starting naturally, and complexity. In space, we see that non-organic things are very organized at existing, and life is just one way for the universe to organize certain chemicals. I’m not great at explaining it, but I’d check out Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything. Its eye opening, scientific, and funny!

    By the way, you should thank your cells right now. Your cells do everything for you, regulate chemicals, die for you, and generally do everything you could possibly ask them to, and they are never thanked for being so good at keeping you alive.

  99. Maz said

    And certain intelligent scientists still can’t explain…….but only theorise:

    1) How the Universe came into being.

    2) How the solar system was made.

    3) How life began.

    So how can they be so dogmatic about how life evolved?

  100. Stanley said

    Actually, there is pretty good explanations for all of those things, all much better than “God did it”. Does God not also need a method of creation, and if he created it, wouldn’t we expect to find proof of the creation? Now, I’m no expert, I’m a college sophomore, but I’ve done some reading on all of these.

    1. There are a number of good explanations on the subject, but no one can or should claim to KNOW what happened. I’m fond of the big bang theory where all the matter in the universe was reduced to a super charged “ball” of quarks and subatomic particles, and that time is as infinite as space. This explains why the universe is expanding, and how atoms and matter originated. The theory is rather complex, so I won’t attempt to understand or explain the details. What is exciting though, is that you can reduce and reduce matter for almost infinity. It would be interesting to see if you can reduce quarks and such. I’m going to be reading about this as soon as I finish my current book “A Short History of Nearly Everything,” by Bill Bryson, which is AMAZING!

    2. A reasonable explanation would be: some time after the big bang, matter began to sort and organize itself into stars, planets, and other celestial bodies because matter really seems to want to organize itself. Then gravity provides for how the planets started orbiting the sun. Obviously, I’m leaving out a good deal of details, but its mostly because it would take a long time to explain it. Those are the fundamentals as I understand them.

    3. Matter seems to really like organizing itself. Non-organic compounds form rather complex chains in nature, why would we not expect for organic compounds to do the same? All the building blocks of life occur naturally, I think its reasonable to expect that these building blocks would somehow sort themselves out (unconsciously, obviously) into something that became what we could call “life” and has endured since that time. Life don’t do all that much, one on thing it is rather good at is surviving and replicating.

    I think you have a misconception of Evolutionary “dogma.” There is considerable evidence to support evolution, and most all non-religious fundamentalists acknowledge and accept the evidence. But there is a great deal we don’t know, but the difference between religious dogma and scientific dogma is that scientists KNOW they DON’T know… yet, where as religion attempts to say “I KNOW that which I cannot.”

    A fundamental difference between religious and scientific “dogma” is that scientists are willing to change their beliefs when new evidence is uncovered, which is why I think that religious fundamentalism is a judgment killer.

  101. abc's said

    Bob Griffin

    “Still waiting on the answer as to how 3 billion base pairs of DNA arranged themselves in the right order at the right time.”

    I’ve answered this question for you a few times in different ways.

    Creationists are the only ones suggesting that 3 billion base pairs of DNA arranged themselves in the right order at the right time and they call it Adam.

    It is impossible for that to happen. Science and Math prove that a whole cloth creation event is impossible. This is where the whole straw man argument where someone throws out an impossibly huge logarithmic probability.

  102. abc's said

    Maz

    The beginning of the universe, solar system and life could have been one off events in time. No one was there to observe what was happening, so we will never know with absolute certainty how those things happened. Science doesn’t deal with absolute truths.
    Evolution is something that is still happening. We can still observe it.

  103. Maz said

    Stanley: ”Actually, there is pretty good explanations for all of those things, all much better than “God did it”.”

    So are you saying you know more than the scientists?

    ”There are a number of good explanations on the subject, but no one can or should claim to KNOW what happened.”

    Exactly my point.

    ”This explains why the universe is expanding, and how atoms and matter originated.”

    So now we have ‘an explanation’ of how atoms and matter originated?? A THEORY.

    ”Does God not also need a method of creation, and if he created it, wouldn’t we expect to find proof of the creation?”

    There IS proof of a Creator, all around you, you just don’t want to see it.

    ”A reasonable explanation would be: some time after the big bang, matter began to sort and organize itself into stars, planets, and other celestial bodies because matter really seems to want to organize itself.”

    Why is it reasonable? Because Creation is unreasonable….. To you?
    And somehow this inorganic matter seems to have a mind of its own?
    An intelligence even?

    ”Matter seems to really like organizing itself.”

    Ha ha ha!
    Because it is governed by laws that God placed there.

    ”All the building blocks of life occur naturally, I think its reasonable to expect that these building blocks would somehow sort themselves out (unconsciously, obviously) into something that became what we could call “life” and has endured since that time. Life don’t do all that much, one on thing it is rather good at is surviving and replicating.”

    The building blocks of life cannot occur just by themselves naturally, they are far too complicated. There are left handed and right handed amino acids and they have to occur in a very complex way or life could never survive. Only an intelligence could do that.
    And ”somehow sort themselves out”, this sounds very scientific I must say!!
    Your last line in number 3 was not very intelligable either.

    ”…most all non-religious fundamentalists acknowledge and accept the evidence.”

    Ofcourse they would as they want to see it.

    ”But there is a great deal we don’t know, but the difference between religious dogma and scientific dogma is that scientists KNOW they DON’T know… yet, where as religion attempts to say “I KNOW that which I cannot.” ”

    Scientists may KNOW they DON’T know, but they won’t admit it easily if atall. There are some things they don’t know which they make out they do.
    I can’t say ‘I don’t know’ when I do. God SAID He created the heavens and the earth. That is what I KNOW and believe, because I believe what GOD SAID. So I can’t deny what I believe to be the truth.

    ”A fundamental difference between religious and scientific “dogma” is that scientists are willing to change their beliefs when new evidence is uncovered, which is why I think that religious fundamentalism is a judgment killer.”

    Scientists are always having to change their theories! Havn’t you noticed? It is because THEY HAD IT WRONG BEFORE. The more evidence we obtain, especially since the Hubble telescope, has forced scientists to change their theories many times, especially about the three things I listed in my post #99. And….THEY STILL DON’T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE THREE THINGS, even though they talk as if they do!

    Next time you read your books or watch a scientific programme, listen very closely to the words they use. I have noticed their language…..why don’t you?

  104. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”Science doesn’t deal with absolute truths.”

    That is such a weak excuse for all their weak theories.
    There is an absolute truth, and God is the absolute Truth aswell.

  105. Maz said

    Abc’s. ”Evolution is something that is still happening. We can still observe it.”
    How many times do we hear this and how many times do we have to say, you can’t see evolution today because according to the scientists it took millions of years?? So how do we see it in just a few years?? Natural Selection, yes. Survival of the fittest, yes. Evolution, NO.

  106. F. L. A. said

    I apologize for taking so long to get back to you, but I was out in the real world having a good time.

    I knew that about humans Stanley, that is why I typed the word humanity as “humanity”. I liked you work within post#100, for what it is worth.

    Maz, any educated evolutionist does not believe that monkeys became men or that Sea Cow became Elephants. My point was that these organisms are related by distant ancestors[Which has been proven] and through the evolutionary processes have become completely different organisms than the original “source” organisms. Do you understand what I mean? If not then perhaps I can try putting it to you differently.
    The three topics that you brought up within post#99 has NO BEARING on whether or not evolution has occurred.These are related, yet different topics of debate.
    We evolutionists are “dogmatic”, as you put it, in regards to the modern evolutionary sciences conclusions on the evolution of life in this world because, unlike the three topics you brought up, we have observed evolution in life, and have an enormous amount of evidence and clues to help us understand the evolution of lifeforms and theorize on how they evolved.
    In mathematics, if you were to go through and study the sequence[5-10-15-20- -30-35- – -50- – -65-70-75-80etc.etc.] would it not be reasonable to theorize that the missing numbers are25,40,45,55,and60? This is how it is with the “missing links” within evolutionary theory. We have not all of the answers[yet], however it is not hard to understand the order of things and how things came to be.
    What you are thinking is somewhat like “IIIINN the begining….there was75…and he begot 80, who begot..” while appearing to willfully ignore and disregard any evidence presented that there was anything before 75.

    Mr. Griffin, go to the local Library[Unless it is a very small one, in which case, go to your local Collage Library.]and look them up in books. This way you will not be distracted by unrelated websites.

  107. Mike S. said

    I am not going to use Religion here at all. Just logical and reasonable observations to your comments…

    “This explains why the universe is expanding” That’s funny, I thought that it was wearing down. How does the law of thermodynamics fit this paradigm?

    “you can reduce and reduce matter for almost infinity” Alomost infinity huh? Is that like “sort of pregnant”?

    “matter began to sort and organize itself into stars, planets, and other celestial bodies because matter really seems to want to organize itself” OK Stanley who is operating on “faith” now? I think I’ll stick to my belief that there is an ultimate “organizer”. Ever heard of the cause and effect theory? Every effect has a cause that is greater than itself.

    “Life don’t do all that much, one on thing it is rather good at is surviving and replicating.” HUH??

    ABC says “Science doesn’t deal with absolute truths” Are not principles from “Physics” used in Science? Are there not absolute truths in Physics and Mathematics? I think my hypothesis is absoutely true that if Abc jumps off of a 200′ tall building, he will “splat”. I doubt he wants try to prove me wrong here.

  108. abc's said

    Stanley

    Good for you!

    Mike S.

    ““This explains why the universe is expanding” That’s funny, I thought that it was wearing down. How does the law of thermodynamics fit this paradigm?”

    Judging by this statement, you don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics, or what is meant by the phrase “expanding universe.”

    ““you can reduce and reduce matter for almost infinity” Alomost infinity huh? Is that like “sort of pregnant”?”

    You don’t understand the mathematical concept of limits as they approach infinity either. Most college level calculus 2 courses deal almost almost exclusively with this mathematical concept.

    “Ever heard of the cause and effect theory? Every effect has a cause that is greater than itself.”

    What caused God?

    ““Life don’t do all that much, one on thing it is rather good at is surviving and replicating.” HUH??”

    I don’t want to put words into Stanley’s mouth, but I think what he was trying to say can be summed up as something like: “Life is a brief struggle against entropy.”

    “Are not principles from “Physics” used in Science? Are there not absolute truths in Physics and Mathematics? I think my hypothesis is absoutely true that if Abc jumps off of a 200′ tall building, he will “splat”. I doubt he wants try to prove me wrong here.”

    No, they’re not absolutely true. The probability of me going “splat” if I jumped off a building is so great that we can both safely assume that it is true.

    But for the sake of argument, suppose I jumped off of a 200′ tall building onto an adjacent building that is 198′ tall.

  109. Mike S. said

    “What caused God?” Typical strawman… We do not claim that God was/is the effect of anything!! We claim that he eternally existed. Do you not agree that “something” had to eternally exist or do you believe that something can come out of nothing? I claim that something had to eteranlly exist. We say it’s God… What do you say it is? Abc your last comment was just plain silly.

  110. abc's said

    Mike S.

    What’s wrong with a little humor?

    ““What caused God?” Typical strawman… We do not claim that God was/is the effect of anything!! We claim that he eternally existed. Do you not agree that “something” had to eternally exist or do you believe that something can come out of nothing?”

    I didn’t make the claim and I don’t see the straw man here. You said that everything has a cause. Now you say everything has a cause except for God because he exists eternally.

  111. Mike S. said

    So… Abc. 2+2 might just be something else other than 4 huh? You are reaching way too far into relativism now. Maybe your a “Matrix” believer? Are you a relativist?

  112. Maz said

    What caused God? OR Who created God? Two silly questions.
    You could theories that some greater power or entity created God, but then you have to ask Who created THAT power or entity? Ad infinitum.

    But it’s just as silly to say that we had an infinitely tiny mass at the beginning that suddenly exploded and expanded at a speed that must have been greater than light and bringing about the millions upon milions of galaxies that we now see in our vast Universe. But then, where did that infinitely tiny mass come from? Did it exist in timeless space for eons and eons and then for some inexplicable reason suddenly exploded?

    Or sillier than that, that there was NOTHING. So how do you get something to explode from nothing?

    I think to believe in a Creator God, a Super Powerful Being Who is eternal and infinite, is far more plausible than any scientific theories brought forth till today.

  113. Mike S. said

    No… I didn’t say everything has a cause. I said every “Effect” has a cause. God is not an effect. Why can’t you see the difference?

  114. Mike S. said

    And you didn’t answer my question either…. typical

  115. Mike S. said

    The strawman is your question implying that we claim that God is an effect of something. That is not what we claim.

  116. Stanley said

    Doesn’t*
    mike.

  117. Mike S. said

    BTW Abc, my silly comment wasn’t targeted at your humor “although silly as well”, rather to your claims about about absolute truth. Are you sure about your claim? Absolutely sure?

  118. Maz said

    I really do wonder sometimes if there is any point in continuing this debate, seeing that the antagonists to Christianity and a Divine Creator seem intent on their crusade against the Truth.
    I think in fact they enjoy coming on here to throw the cat among the proverbial pigeons, and to see feathers fly.

  119. Stanley said

    Actually, I want one side to finally convince the other. I want to know how I can change people’s minds.

  120. John said

    How is it that you interpret our recent posts as antagonistic Maz?
    It seems odd that the creationists call call us fools, liars, brainwashed, uneducated,etc., but If any of US challenge THEM in any way, then we are being rude and antagonistic.
    If it is truth, then why can’t you explain it better?

  121. Bob Griffin said

    ABC Thanks for the answers. That clears it up for me.

    FLA Got one for you without going to the library. You used the sequence example. I contend 3 billion base pairs could not assemble themselves randomly. You think so. Lets say were playing Black Jack together and I get the first 100 hands in a row where I get 21. Would you think this occurred randomly, or I was cheating?

  122. Kasha said

    Maz,
    The THEORY of evolution doesn’t disprove the TRUTH of God. So relax. Both can co-exist. Theories will come and go, and be added to, and some will be found to be fact. None of that affects the reality of the resurrected Christ.

  123. F. L. A. said

    Is this the best/only argument that you have at your disposal to try and prove your theory?
    Why would you not go to the library? You just did not feel it was necessary or really did not wish to actually know, correct?
    Perhaps you have forgotten that, as a theist myself, I follow the belief of a form of theistic evolution, therefor allowing the possibility of biological manipulation by divine powers during and at various times after “creation”.
    Try another method Mr.Griffin[Huge sharp-toothed grin].

  124. Stanley said

    Maz, admit you don’t know.

  125. Maz said

    Stanley: #119. I think we all want that.

  126. Maz said

    John: ”It seems odd that the creationists call call us fools, liars, brainwashed, uneducated,etc., but If any of US challenge THEM in any way, then we are being rude and antagonistic.”

    Have I ever called you those things?

    ”If it is truth, then why can’t you explain it better?”

    I don’t think it is our ability to explain the truth as your ability to receive what we are saying.

  127. Maz said

    Good example Bob: Isn’t there also the example that there is more chance of a monkey typing out Shakespeare or something than life beginning by chance?

  128. Mike S. said

    Stanley said…
    “Doesn’t*
    mike.”

    Sorry, you lost me with that one bud.

  129. abc's said

    Mike S.

    I realize I read your post wrong. You did say that every effect has a cause, and that would exclude God.

    I understand that you accept God as the uncaused first cause. I don’t have a belief regarding an uncaused first cause, whether it be a God, many Gods or just the Universe itself existing eternally. I don’t think I can really even understand what that means.

    I have a feeling you didn’t accept the answer I gave to the old 3 billion base pairs question. No one contends that 3 billion base pairs randomly came together at once to form life.

  130. Mike S. said

    Fair enough Abc. Also, I was not the one who brought up the 3 billion pairs thing. Let me ask you something else. You said:

    “I don’t have a belief regarding an uncaused first cause, whether it be a God, many Gods or just the Universe itself existing eternally. I don’t think I can really even understand what that means.”

    Which is more reasonable to believe?

    1. An uncaused first cause… Even Carl Sagan believed that the universe eternally existed. This of course poses many challenges because of the obviuos order and design of all things. (Even Richard Dawkins admits that the universe “appears” designed, yet he can not offer any reasonable explanations, only emotional problems he has with the concept of a designer)

    or

    2. Cause and effect having no beginning at all. Just a series of continual causes and effects going backward in time forever? Again, how does the order of all things fit into this paradigm?

    I believe that it is much more reasonable to believe that God, an eternally existent being is the ultimate cause agent. And He created us in His image. We are the only cause agents on this planet that can make “purposeful” choices to effect this world. Sure, there are many other things that can cause events and even animals can do so, however, it is only humans who can make the purposeful choices to cause desired and sometimes undesired effects (knowing that our choices will result in such effects). I am sure that John and Ferox will probably disagree. I think they believe that animals can think and reason for themselves rather than just act out their nature and instincts. Of course many people believe that is all that humans do as well. Sorry… I rambled. Something to think about anyway.

  131. Mike S. said

    Correction… change “God, an eternally existent being”
    to
    “God, THE eternally existent being”

  132. abc's said

    Mike S.

    I don’t think that it is unreasonable to believe that a creator God exists without a cause and everything springs forth from that.

    I think the idea of the Universe existing eternally is basically the same thing. I don’t think of the Universe as a conscious entity that “does” anything. I like to think of it more as a background, like the stage that a play takes place on. It is the setting for “things” and “actions.” I don’t see any evidence that this couldn’t be the case.

    I don’t think it poses any “obvious challenges” to believe in an eternally existing universe. Things appear to have order because that’s how we make sense of things. It would take a long time to flesh out what I think about this idea.

    I do think it is unreasonable to believe that a Creator God exists and created everything for our sake, and created us in his image, and seeks a personal relationship with us, and wants us to be “good” rather than “bad” and that all of these ideas were written in a perfect inspired book.

    So to restate my answer more simply. I don’t think it’s irrational to believe in an eternal universe (stage), or a God that created the Universe (stage) in which everything unfolds. I only think it is unreasonable to expect a God to be anything like us.

  133. F. L. A. said

    Yes, I would disagree with that statement Mr.Sears, but, who cares?
    People can disagree on something and yet not get all bent out of shape over it.

    Maz, post#126, yes. Would you like for me to compile a collection of quotes as an example?

    Kash, post#122, for what it is worth I agree completely.

    Stanley, although you may change some peoples minds I cannot phantom how it could ever come to pass that one side could completely convince and win over their opposition. What is your grand plan?

  134. abc's said

    Mike S.

    I didn’t mean for my last post to seem disparaging in any way. I know that lots of people believe in God with every fiber of their being and they are completely convinced that it is the truth.
    When I say it is unreasonable to believe in a God that wants to have a personal relationship, I mean that it is unreasonable for me. I am incapable of truly believing that.

    I find it interesting that people do believe so strongly and that’s a big part of why I keep coming back to this forum. I’m not the kind of person that only takes part in things that reaffirm what I already know or believe.

  135. Stanley said

    Does God not have a recordable method of creation? If God exists, don’t you think he would create it in ways that fit his rules of nature? The universe is natural, how would it come in to being supernaturally?

  136. Bob Griffin said

    FLA 123

    Are you a politician? (Huge sharp-toothed grin). Just answer the question.

  137. F. L. A. said

    Supernaturally, Stanley[Huge sharp-toothed grin].
    What are “his rules of nature”? We mortals are still in the process of learning the rules ourselves.
    What confuses me personally about the theories of Young Earth Christian Creation is that, were any of it absolutely true, why has EVERYTHING within the known universe been “created” to appear as if it has all been touched by extreme age and the evolutionary processes. Why would Yahweh[Assuming he was working alone]leave so much room for doubt, and so much evidence that appears contrary to Christian And Jewish theological teachings?

  138. Mike S. said

    Thanks for your concern Abc, although I did not take it as disparaging at all. Just truthful. I assume that your reasons for not believing such things are philosophical right? Care to share your reasons? It’s really interesting to see the varying differences in people’s belief systems. My instruction book teaches me to know what I believe and why I believe it. Many people will not truly go deep enough into their belief system to logically mete out their beliefs to their ultimate conclusion. You seem to give more thought to your beliefs than many people I converse with. Keep up the search!

  139. Mike S. said

    Stanley
    He does.

    If you are willing to believe that the supernatural is possible, why would it be a problem?

  140. F. L. A. said

    No, I believe that I am far too honest for politics,Mr.Griffin.
    Are you trying to imply that I have not answered your questions?
    Some rhetorical questions cannot be answered with simple yes or no answers, you know, and I re-explained to you within post#123 why this approach will not work on one such as myself, but is better suited for the Atheist or Agnostic.
    So…….try another method.
    Or content yourself with the answers that you receive.

  141. abc's said

    Mike S.

    The are lots of reasons that I don’t believe, and many of them are philosophical, but on the most basic level it comes down to the evidence.
    When I study Christianity, the 2 best lines of “evidence” that convince most people are things that I don’t even consider to be real evidence.
    1. Personal testimony
    2. The Bible

    I know that lots of people experience real life changing events when they become a believer. I can’t deny that, and everyone has their own story. But, people experience the same types of real life changing events when they convert to other religions also.
    People can and do make amazing changes in their lives and belief can be a very powerful motivator. However, their belief isn’t evidence of anything, because making those changes only seems to require that they believe in something, it doesn’t matter what or who that something is.

    I have studied the Bible and I don’t find it to be anything close to inspired word from a creator. It smacks of being written by chauvinistic men with little understanding of the natural world living in barbaric times.

    I understand that people accept evolution and believe in the Bible, I just don’t understand how. The whole reason for the Bible is to tell the story of man’s redemption through Christ as he conquered sin. Sin entered the world in the book of Genesis. I think the evidence for evolution completely destroys all of Genesis as a literal story.
    If the story is taken figuratively, then what’s the point of Jesus? I think we both agree on that point.

    Like I said, there are many other reasons why I don’t believe in the Bible, but these are 2 of the important ones that I think I can reliably use evidence to discredit. For me, personal testimony is not evidence, and the Bible contains things that aren’t true.
    So I can substitute the Bible with any religious text and it works out the same.

    I also think about supernatural things in much the same way. It’s all personal testimony. If a supernatural entity did exist, and that being could act on the natural world, then it ceases to be supernatural, and therefore must have a cause, and we should have evidence for it. So I don’t believe in ghosts/spirits/djinn/bigfoot/nessie, etc. because I haven’t seen any evidence for those things.

    If good evidence does come in, then I would be required to change my mind.

  142. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    Lets try another way. You think the 3 billion pairs can arrange themselves randomly. How about anything from statistics that shows the chances of that happening. Im sure you would trust math as reliable.

  143. Maz said

    Ferox: #133 (#126): ”It seems odd that the creationists call call us fools, liars, brainwashed, uneducated,”

    If I have called you any of these things please show me the context in which I used those words. If I have been overly rude I will apologise.

  144. abc's said

    Bob Griffin

    The argument you keep making is flawed. No one is suggesting that 3 billion base pairs arranged themselves spontaneously to form life because that is impossible. Only creationists believe that happened.

  145. Maz said

    Abc’s: The point is WHO caused those 3 billion base pairs to be arranged into survivable life forms if it wasn’t, as you say, spontaneous, because ‘that is impossible’?
    That is what Bob is saying!
    It is impossible without an Outside agent, a Cause, a Creator, can’t you see that?

  146. abc's said

    Maz

    In my view, jumping to a “who” is a non-sequitur.

    I don’t know how life began, but I think the chemical model of abiogenesis makes a lot of sense. The rules of physics and chemistry govern how matter behaves.

    It has already been shown that simple organic molecules and macro-molecules can form without any direct influence.
    It seems plausible that simple organic molecules combined and recombined in millions of possible ways based on chemistry and physics, until a short chain of molecules that was able to copy itself was produced.

    Once that kind of event takes place, it opens the door for natural selection and competition. The molecule chains could copy themselves and invariably make mistakes, adding new material or losing some. Natural selection would constantly improve the process. This isn’t life yet, but it could eventually lead to it.

    Once again, I don’t have any evidence that this is the specific way that life began, but it makes a lot of sense that this could have happened, because it doesn’t break any of the rules of nature.

  147. Maz said

    Abc’s: It makes no sense when you said yourself it was impossible. Even if some molecular structure came into being, it could not survive. I have heard something about the righthanded and lefthanded amino acids, you can only have one type or life can never get started. If I find the information on this I will post it. But even if I could, I doubt whether this would even convince you. There is also something about the sugars. It CANNOT do what it does by pure chance, it has to have some intelligent agency whether you want to call it a ‘who’ or a ‘what’ or not.

  148. Maz said

    Abc’s: I have some notes on Proteins. 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 bases tell the cell how to make a protein called haemoglobin 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 for evolutionists. Left to themselves the NATURAL trend of acid-base 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 experimants carried out by Miller, Fox and others to produce life in the lab never worked. Left to TIME, CHANCE and their INHERENT CHEMICAL PROPERTIES, 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……Divine Creation.

  149. Maz said

    Abc’s: And did you know….while scientists are concentrating their search for water so that they could find life on Mars………water, although needed to sustain life, is actually detrimental to the origin of life.

  150. abc's said

    Maz

    You’re talking about the chirality of amino acids. I’m very aware. There’s a lot of interesting research going on that deals with why life on Earth is almost exclusively homochiral in the preference for left handed amino acids.
    The sugars used in biological processes are also homochiral with the difference being that they are almost exclusively ‘right handed’. It’s an interesting problem, but I don’t think this automatically points to an intelligent creator.

  151. Maz said

    Abc’s: But it certainly proves that life could not possibly come about by chance happenings either, and therefore no evolution could ever get started let alone any life survive whether they are ‘fit’ or not!

  152. Barney said

    “Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”

    Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory” Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 118.

  153. Maz said

    Abc’s: Following what you said in post #150, about it being ‘a problem’, Richard Dawkins seems to believe it isn’t, but that it is a FACT that ”The first living cell arose and from that we all descended, be it plants or animals or humans. THAT’S AN ESTABLISHED FACT. They’re all cousins. NOT TO BELIEVE IT WOULD BE ABSURD.” You see he CANNOT believe in anything else but evolution, and especially not creation because THAT is ABSURD, so he HAS TO BELIEVE in what he says….not what actually is proven scientific fact.

  154. Maz said

    Barney: I was told by evolutionists on here that the Theory of evolution is FACT. So what you said……”And facts and theories are different things” contradicts that statement.

  155. abc's said

    Maz

    You’re talking about Richard Dawkins now?I think that he believes that all life evolved from a common ancestor because it is a scientific fact. It’s not a matter of personal opinion. The evidence points right to evolution.

    (I posted some links earlier. They could show up at any time.)

  156. Maz said

    Barney: ”And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.””

    ”Whether they did so by Darwins PROPOSED mechanism….OR…..some OTHER TO BE DISCOVERED.”??

    Do you see what you have just said?

  157. abc's said

    Maz

    and when I was talking about the chirality of amino acids being a “problem” I didn’t mean that it was a hinderance to the beginning of life.
    I meant that it poses an interesting challenge that we will have to study further to discover possible solutions, and indeed, it’s already been done. (links are coming)

  158. Maz said

    Abc’s: This is another example of using words that sounds like there is no problem with life beginning, only a ‘hindrance’…BUT…a hindrance is a problem against life ever beginning atall. They have to try and discover solutions……but while they are trying to dicover solutions to this problem…..there still is no way life could have started NATURALLY. It is still IMPOSSIBLE.

  159. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs 144

    So how did the first 3 billion pair string come about? What are you suggesting as an evolutionist happened? All you can cite is a short chain happening. Going from a short chain to 3 billion base pairs takes a lot of faith on your part.

  160. Maz said

    Abc’s: I read your post wrong. I should have said that the problem IS A HINDERANCE to life beginning.

  161. Maz said

    Bob: Their faith in the origins of life has to be far greater than ours, when they believe the impossible without a God to create it!

  162. Stanley said

    Its not impossible… actually, I subscribe to the idea that since non-organic materials organize themselves, why should organic chemicals behave differently?

  163. abc's said

    Bob Griffin

    Here’s a snarky answer.

    A prior chain of amino acids that was 2,999,999,999 links long was able to replicate itself, and during the process it made a mistake and picked up an extra link.

    The real Science isn’t much different, but if you’re really interested I will be posting a link.

  164. abc's said

    Evolution of Amino Acid Frequencies in Proteins Over Deep Time: Inferred Order of Introduction of Amino Acids into the Genetic Code

    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/10/1645

  165. Stanley said

    There has been like 3.5 billion years for mutation to happen, and knowing how fast life moves at a very small level, it shouldn’t surprise you that after 3.5 billion (with a B) life has become rather complex. I shouldn’t expect us to completely understand it yet, because life has a 3.4999 billion year head start on our science.

  166. Maz said

    Stanley:
    Scientists STILL DON’T KNOW how life began on earth.
    Scientists STILL DON’T KNOW how the Big Bang began.
    Scientists STILL DON’T KNOW how our solar system came into being.

  167. Maz said

    Stanlet: And even if a chimpanzee were given 3.5 trillion years he would never be able to type out the whole works of Shakespeare….and that is what you trying to convince us of in the realm of life’s origins.

  168. Maz said

    Sorry mispelt your name Stanley.

  169. Maz said

    Abc’s and Stanley: In Scientific American February 1991, Miller, who did the famous ‘creating life in a lab’ experiment (but didn’t), said that the question of the origin of life is much more difficult than he, or anyone else, had thought. Clutching at straws, others have suggested mid-ocean ridges, with their cockail of hot chemicals, as the cradle of life. Others have postulated an extra-terrestrial seeding of earth. This latter still does not offer a mechanism for abiogenesis (this is, life coming from a non-living source) but suggests it all happened long ago and far away. Doesn’t that sound like a fairy tale to you?

  170. Maz said

    Abc’s and Stanley: And here is another little bit of info…..Urey and Miller had to assume, contrary to the opinions of geologists, that the early Earth had no oxygen in it’s atmosphere. This is because amio acids are destroyed by oxygen. But absence of oxygen implies absence of ozone, another form of oxygen. Ozone in our atmophere protects us from high-energy ultra-violet rays from the Sun. Nucleic acids are rapidly decomposed by UV light. So, in both the presence and absence of oxygen, life could not get started.
    Which means it would have to have already been created as it roughly is now. It couldnt’ come any other way.
    And by the way, they have found tha there was more oxygen in the atmosphere early in earths history than they thought.

  171. Barney said

    “Do you see what you have just said?” – Maz

    I didn’t say it, Maz.

    You don’t understand, that’s clear.

  172. Maz said

    Baney: What? About the history of the earth, and there being more oxygen? 6000 years ago?

  173. F. L. A. said

    That is not true Maz, we have covered in the past how prehistoric forms of simple algae in the first oceans needed no oxygen in order to survive, remember?
    And there is a vital point that you and Bob seem to not be realizing, and this is that, despite what any theist may believe in regards to the topic of Abiogenesis this has not bearing whatsoever on the fact that evolution has occurred and continues to this day.
    So you can rail all you like about three billion base pairs and the origins of life being caused by divine intervention or whatever, it matters not in the slightest.
    We all know that you have no real interest in learning or even trying to understand modern Evolutionary Sciences[The real stuff, not Creation.Org/Ken Ham type sciences], but instead only wish to promote Christian Young Earth Creationism as being superior to modern sciences.Your methods leave much to be desired. Remember when you tried to use Punctuated Equilibrium to back up your claims on the second site “Was Darwin right or wrong?”, Bob? Thermal Dynamics?It is always interesting to watch people try to use science to back up theology and have it backfire on them.
    Maz, in regards to post#143, there is no need to apologize but I think it is safe for me to assume that we both appreciate the idea that you were willing to attempt an apology.
    Do you really want those examples?

  174. Maz said

    F.L.A: Evolution would not even exist today unless abiogenesis could come about by itself, and that is impossible.

    I am only interested in the truth.

    And why have you asked me again about your examples of my being disrespectful?…..bring them on, I’m sure they are no worse than what you have said in the past to me. But I am interested in the context in which I used the words you brought up, and I will have a chance to apologise for said words.

  175. F. L. A. said

    I just read your post#52 on the site “Does God still love Prodigals…even Homosexuals?”, Maz.
    This post gives me a tainted idea of the positive nature of any apology you may have given. Am I wrong?
    It seems that this post could have very easily just replaced the post#143 above.

  176. Maz said

    F.L.A: Why should that be a tainted idea? I was just stating why I can only say what I believe is true. Take ignorance for instance, we are all ignorant of something otherwise we would all know everything, so this isn’t disrespect, it is a fact. What about the other words I was supposed to have said?

  177. Maz said

    PS Ferox: Ofcourse if you don’t tell me what I said I can’t know whether an apology is actually necessary or not.

  178. Maz said

    Sorry Ferox: Will have to wait until tomorrow to see your list. Good nite!

  179. F. L. A. said

    According to the post#52 mentioned on the other site and post#176 above, it would already seem that you believe an apology to be unnecessary.
    After all, If you think that you are absolutely in the right, and we are absolutely in the wrong, and you are just “telling it like it is” overly rude or not[How rude is the point of overly rude, anyway, as compared to just regular rudeness? It is all up to personal interpretation, namely yours.] “for our own good” spiritually speaking, then why bother apologizing?
    As a display of common courtesy? I would not think you would deem such a display necessary either considering the circumstances.
    Forget it. We were not offended anyway, only confused about your behavior, making such comments about others and then complaining about others coming off as acting rude or antagonistic towards you.
    We both follow “The Golden Rule”, however we ALSO do unto others as they do unto us.
    If you want those examples, how far back would you like me to go? I shall only limit it to the topic of evolution, of course, although similar behavior has been displayed on a variety of other sites covering various other topics.
    Just to make things clear, the reason I have not presented you with any yet is not for any lack of good material to display, for there is a lot, but simply because I am lazy and wish to do the minimal amount of work for what I believe will be an unsatisfying/unrewarding result.

  180. John said

    Post#176, so Maz, considering how ignorant you appear to be on this topic,despite the facts and explanations that have been presented I guess we haven’t been that disrespectful to you after all[smile].
    Now personally, I would have considered the sentence above as somewhat disrespectful to you, but I am of a different mindset, “the natural man” full of worldly wisdom instead of God inspired wisdom, so perhaps by trusting what is in my heart I am wrong, hmmmm?

  181. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    I looked over your study. The highest number I saw was about 165,000. Youre still a few billion short. Remember, Antony Flew changed from atheism because of DNA and other complexities of life. He used the current science (ID) that you cant accept.

  182. Bob Griffin said

    Stanley,

    I love that train of thought – over time, anything can happen.

    If you are 4 feet tall and try to dunk a basketball, you cant. But I guess over time that could happen, right?

  183. F. L. A. said

    Yes, if he’s a four foot tall child at the time of his failed basketball dunking attempt.
    Do you not follow the philosophy “With God, anything can happen”, Mr.Griffin?

  184. John said

    “Known for several decades as a prominent Atheist, Flew first expressed Deist views in 2004. These changes, however, are a matter of great controversy, with critics maintaining that Flew has mentally declined, and is being manipulated by religious Apologists.”-Wikipedia
    Go and check it out, especially the sections “revised views” and “reaction and response”.
    He would not have been considered a Christian by Maz. If he even was a Christian.

  185. Stanley said

    Bob, are you saying things don’t change over time?

  186. F. L. A. said

    Bob Griffin, like Maz, believes in a 6,000 year old universe.
    In this version of the universe there is “very little” time for much of the “change”[and the evidence produced by these changes] that evolutionists and Old Earth/Universe believers use to support their side of their arguments.
    Sorry if I told you something that you were already aware of.

  187. Maz said

    F.L.A: Dear me, all I wanted was for you to tell me where I had said the things you accuse me of saying and if necessary I would apologise……if indeed I said these things, but you say you are too lazy to give me the evidence for my disrespect. Well, Ferox, I will let you off the hook, you don’t need to waste your time because I am getting bored with this argument now.

  188. F. L. A. said

    Did not think it would get so complicated Maz?
    You should know how “anal”[Extreme abet,somewhat annoying and pointless attention to small detail.] I am over things[Huge sharp-toothed grin].
    Why are you awake at this hour? Is your back giving you trouble?

  189. Maz said

    F.L.A: No it is not getting complicated. And no my back is fine. I just couldnt sleep…and it ha nothing to do with this debate. I usually have hot chocolate when I go to bed but I didn’t have enough milk..so…I had tea instead.

  190. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    I was pointing out that the impossible will not happen just because you give a lot of time to try it. And you are right, anything is possible with God. So would that mean God had to create the base pairs?

  191. Bob Griffin said

    John,

    Youre quoting from Wikipedia. Im impressed. I have read his book and seen several taped interviews with him. Have you?

  192. Bob Griffin said

    Stanley,

    Obviously things change over time. Just not like Darwin says.

  193. Stanley said

    Well… we’ve got irrefutable evidence in the fossil record that says things do…

  194. abc's said

    Bob

    I’ve never heard of Antony Flew, so thanks for that. I did learn something from you after all.

    If you have a chance, look at the site http://www.exchristian.net. It’s full of testimony from thousands of ex ministers, preachers, pastors, deacons, rabbi’s etc, that converted to atheism because of the evidence.

    But we both know that personal testimony is just a matter of opinion and is not very compelling.

  195. abc's said

    A quote from Antony Flew,

    “While reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.”

    I don’t have any objections to this concept of deism. He’s basically saying that he believes in a creator in spite of the fact that there can never be any evidence. Spoken like a true philosopher.

  196. F. L. A. said

    Mr.Griffin, in regards to post#190, first of all, you[or anyone so far] has not proven that evolution is impossible, and there is an overwhelming amount of physical[not theoretical] evidence that confirms that it has and continues to happen, and shows no evidence that the evolutionary processes will be ending anytime in the future.
    Secondly, as a theist myself, I have made it quite clear within other post on other sites that I believe in a form of “creationism” abet, not yours, so if what you are really wishing to know is if I believe that YOUR God had anything to do with this process on Earth, then the answer is yes…..but not exclusively. I hold a somewhat agnostic attitude in regards to divinely effected Ambiogenesis in this world.

  197. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    One word for you: Lee Strobel. There are plenty of examples both ways. The evidence takes all of us one of 2 ways – one day well find out for sure. Flew was one of the main atheists of the last 50 years. I assume you can provide concrete evidence there is no creator?

  198. Bob Griffin said

    Stanley,

    Fossils can be interpreted, classified, dated, etc etc differently. Ive got a real different interpretation than you do.

  199. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    Once again, as Darwin himself asked, why is nature not all in confusion? In other words, why cant we look out the front door and see transitional forms? Do you have any answer besides the lame ” were all transitional forms?” Your theory predicts the way it should be, and its not that way.

    Are you a theist, agnostic or atheist? Or all of the above?

  200. abc's said

    Bob

    “One word for you: Lee Strobel.”
    That isn’t one word, but I understand where you’re going with this.

    I don’t have evidence that there isn’t a creator. No one does because it’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. I am agnostic in that sense.

    The evidence doesn’t divide people between 2 ways of looking at the world. Or at least it doesn’t set up that dichotomy for me. The evidence points to evolution. If there is a creator then that is likely the method used for creation.

    “Do you have any answer besides the lame ” were all transitional forms?” ”

    That is the answer. You just don’t accept it and that’s fine.

    Let’s try this avenue….
    What would you expect a transitional form to look like?

  201. Stanley said

    “Fossils can be interpreted, classified, dated, etc etc differently. Ive got a real different interpretation than you do.”

    lol. Correctly and incorrectly?

  202. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    Glad you got the joke. I did know it was one word.

    Most people seem to think we were either created, or came about from nothing. It does set up a dichotomy. I will go with created.

    For a transitional form, how about mermaid. Darwin thought that was a possibility in his book.

  203. abc's said

    Bob

    I got a good chuckle from that last joke. The mermaid thing is also pretty funny.

    The existence of a real mermaid would be solid evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong.

    There are no mermaids because fish and hominids don’t share a recent common ancestor. They are separated by all of the amphibians, reptiles and most mammals.

    Darwin wouldn’t necessarily have known this.

  204. F. L. A. said

    Lee Strobel is a poor example to present Mr.Griffin. We have three of his books, and he is to theistic investigation what “Lois Lane” is to investigation[She actually WORKED with Superman, the focus of her own career! What idiots they are at The Daily Planet! No wonder Superman hangs out there. And this woman got a job as a reporter?!? If ANYONE that you saw all the time put on a suit and big glasses, wouldn’t you still know who they were? At least Spider and Bat Man had the good sense to hide their faces.]. He sees what he wants and is blind and dismissive to the rest. Have you ever wondered why he only seems to interview people who can help support his theistic views and theories?
    If Mermaids existed, you would insist that they were always that way.Why not use something real as an example? If you are expecting an example like two different modern animals sliced together into one form like a winged monkey from the “Wizard of Oz” movie just popping into existence as evidence of a transitional life form then you still do not understand what a transitional life form is and hoe they come into being.
    How could I possibly be an Atheist, theist, and an Agnostic all at the same time?
    I am a theist that is agnostic in regards to certain theistic theories and belief systems, if you understand what I mean.
    Where did you get the idea of me being Atheistic from? My support of the Evolutionary Sciences?

  205. Stanley said

    And you think an anthropomorphic god is a possibility in your book…

    And don’t you think we were created from nothing? There was nothing, and then god said there was something, and without any method of creation other than words he created the universe! Makes perfect sense.

  206. F. L. A. said

    I may be wrong Stanley, but I believe Bob’s idea of “nothing” is different than yours. Besides, as long as Jehovah was involved in it the whole idea becomes self validated.

  207. Bob Griffin said

    203 ABCs

    Lets try another way. You pick the first animal, then walk me through the transition to the second animal.

  208. Bob Griffin said

    204 FLA

    I see from your comic book illustrations that you live in fantasy land. Lee does talk to people that support his case, but he asks tough questions (his main doubts and those of others).
    Would you go to Answers in Genesis to help build your case for evolution?

    Same task for you: pick the first animal, then walk me through the transition to the second.

    If mermaids existed I would say they were that way, unless I saw them changing. Where is all this change you say should happen?

    2 out of 3 aint bad.

  209. abc's said

    Bob Griffin

    Here’s a short list of some of the intermediate species between Eosimias sinensis and Homo Habilis. Or as you may commonly refer to as “monkey to man.”

    Eosimias sinensis
    Aegyptopithecus zeuxis
    Proconsul africanus
    Afropithecus turkanensis
    Turkanapithecus kalakolensis
    Oreopithecus bambolii
    Lufengpithecus lufengensis
    Sivapithecus indicus
    Sahelanthropus tchadensis
    Orrorin tugenensis
    Laetoli Footprint
    Australopithecus afarensis
    Kenyanthropus platyops
    Australopithecus bahrelghazali
    Australopithecus africanus
    Paranthropus aethiopicus
    Paranthropus robustus
    Homo habilis
    Homo rudolfensis
    Paranthropus boisei
    Homo georgicus
    Homo ergaster
    Homo erectus
    Homo heidelbergensis
    Homo neanderthalensis
    Homo rhodesiensis
    Homo sapiens idaltu
    Homo sapiens

  210. F. L. A. said

    I shall hazard the guess Abc’s that if Mr.Griffin cannot find any fault[imaginary or otherwise] with your excellent examples within post#209 that he will find some fault[imaginary or otherwise] with the sciences used to produce those examples. Remember, if he believes that this world is only six thousand years old, then most of the examples that you mentioned could not even exist to be used in this argument,….they would not have had the time to even come into existence. This is part of the reason the “educated” Young Earth Christian Creationist cannot recognize such examples as transitional life forms.They think MEN hunted the Apotasaurous to extinction, if you get my drift.

    Mr.Griffin, you think I live in a “fantasy land” because I compared Lee Strobel to a fictional character??
    See:”Was Darwin right or wrong?” posts#1114-#1118. I do not recall you ever commenting against Maz’s belief in dragons….
    I have gone to such sites as Answers in Genesis for information to help support the Evolutionary Sciences[Huge sharp-toothed grin]. We have several books within our library on Young-Earth Christian Creationism as well as information on many scientific topics from Y.E.C.C.websites. Even if one disagrees with said source of information it nevertheless helps to understand and study the conflicting source and what it presents. Which people like Lee Strobel never seem to do. Does the end justifies the means?
    I shall grant your request as Abc’s

  211. F. L. A. said

    I pushed the wrong button too soon, my apologies.
    I meant to say, I shall grant your request as Abc’s has, depending on the manner in which you critique the information provided within post#209.

  212. Maz said

    Abc’s, Lovely long list in #209, it’s a shame it doesn’t tell much of a story…just names.
    I would suggest you read the following:

    The human-fossil record does not support evolution, and even some prominent evolutionists have admitted the problems—including David Pilbeam and Mary Leakey. Most people believe the fossil record does support evolution because they are told this by others who confuse wishful thinking with facts.

    This point has been brought out strongly in a new book by Marvin L. Lubenow—Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992).

    Lubenow’s 25 years of research into the human-fossil issue has shown that our alleged evolutionary ancestors seem to be on the run. It is impossible to track them down. Vital evidence for the evolutionary side has included fakes, mistakes, datings that shift to fit the theory better, and classifications that go against clear anatomical evidence.

    Lubenow says that evolutionists have done some extraordinary waving of magic wands to make evidence against their theory disappear.

    For example, he points out that a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human’s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

    If the Kanapoi fossil had been given human status, as it obviously should have been, it would have contradicted the theory of human evolution—because it would show that humans had been around before their alleged ape-like ancestors had evolved into them!

    ‘As far as we can tell from the fossil record,’ Lubenow says, ‘when humans first appear in the fossil record they are already human. It is this abrupt appearance of our ancestors in morphologically human form that makes the human fossil record compatible with the concept of Special Creation.’

    Problems leap out when you study the human-fossil record in evolutionary terms. For instance, most people who have heard of Neandertal man believe the Neandertal people fit somewhere in the evolutionary line leading up to modern humans.

    But where do they fit? Although they were a race of humans, evolutionists have no idea where Neandertals came from or went. The Neandertals’ ‘evolutionary’ origin is as mysterious as their alleged rapid disappearance. From a creationist point of view though, the Neandertals were simply a group of humans who lived in the past.

    When different ‘types’ of fossil humans which allegedly evolved one into the other (such as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, etc.) are discovered at the same place and/or at the same level, it is regarded as an evolution ‘anomaly’. Such evidence is either lamely explained away or shelved and largely forgotten. But shouldn’t it alert evolutionists to the fact that their theory may be wrong?

    Marvin Lubenow has done a superb job in showing that the human-fossil record is contrary to the idea of human evolution and is strongly supportive of the idea of special creation. Both evolutionists and creationists would do well to study his assessment of the current state of human fossils.

  213. abc's said

    Maz

    “Most people believe the fossil record does support evolution because they are told this by others who confuse wishful thinking with facts.”

    Obviously, i’m not one of those people now am I?

    “‘As far as we can tell from the fossil record,’ Lubenow says, ‘when humans first appear in the fossil record they are already human.”

    He is casually dismissing all of the transitional forms I listed.

    “Problems leap out when you study the human-fossil record in evolutionary terms. For instance, most people who have heard of Neandertal man believe the Neandertal people fit somewhere in the evolutionary line leading up to modern humans.”

    Most people? …. maybe, but certainly not many in the scientific community. It’s becoming evident that neandertal man was a separate species than any in the direct line of descent of homo sapiens. Many species of ape man existed at the same time, just like we observe different species of hominids existing simultaneously today.

    “When different ‘types’ of fossil humans which allegedly evolved one into the other (such as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, etc.) are discovered at the same place and/or at the same level, it is regarded as an evolution ‘anomaly’.”

    Either the author has very little understanding of the subject, or they are being intentionally misleading.
    Here’s an example: dogs. It is very clear that dogs are descended from wolves. Why is it so hard to believe that both wolves and mastiff’s can exist at the same time, and overlap on an evolutionary timescale? What we never find is a fossilized mastiff that is older than any known wolf fossil.

    “Marvin Lubenow has done a superb job in showing that the human-fossil record is contrary to the idea of human evolution and is strongly supportive of the idea of special creation.”

    Ok Maz. How? Please explain to me in detail how his misunderstanding of evolution and casual dismissal of the science supports creation.

  214. John said

    “If the Kanapoi fossil had been given human status, as it obviously should have been, it would have contradicted the theory of human evolution-because it would show that humans had been around before their alleged ape-like ancestors had evolved into them!”

    Ummm, Maz,….there is a problem with this example of yours.
    The strata in Kanapoi in which this[and many other] fossils have been found is over four million years old.
    That’s an awful lot older than your six thousand year old universe, so, why would a Young Earth Christian Creationist want to associate themselves with such evidence when trying to combat the “lies” of the Evolutionary Sciences?
    Of course you can always claim that the dating techniques used by evolutionary scientists are flawed or biased, but then you are posed with the problem of trying to prove HOW they are flawed or biased, and we’ve been through this before. Remember how it ended?
    We give you credit for your efforts though[smile].

  215. John said

    Check this out Abc’s, type in “Marvin L. Lubenow-EnviroWiki” and give it a read.

  216. Bob Griffin said

    209 ABCs

    Do all evolutionary scientists agree with this list? NO. The point is, all fossils can be arranged and classified however you like. Then to get into dating would be another 1000 posts. Read Lubenows book. Its good, but you would dismiss it a priori because of the author.

  217. Bob Griffin said

    FLA and ABCs

    Whats so hard about my proposed thought exercise?

  218. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”Either the author has very little understanding of the subject, or they are being intentionally misleading.”

    You obviously know more than they do???????? Mmmmm.
    And I really can’t be bothered to explain anything, I’v been down that road too many times so I just give you the experts opinion on your evolutionistic THEORY of mankinds ‘evolution’.

  219. Maz said

    John # 214: It wasn’t my example, it was straight from a scientists viewpoint. I’m through trying to explain why evolution is wrong, I’ll let the experts speak for themselves. You can accept it or not.

  220. Maz said

    Scientifically, the concept of apemen implies the following.

    That evolution is true and that it produced a line of semi-human creatures from some original non-human ancestor.
    That the process which ultimately produced man was death of the less fit along the way.
    That the millions of years necessary for this process did occur.
    That the fossils claimed to be relics of such creatures constitute a reliable record, i.e. have been interpreted correctly in anatomy, age, and presumed evolutionary relationships.

    What is the evidence?

    There are many differences between humans and apes that can be seen in fossil remains. These include the fact that humans walk erect and so have appropriate/distinctive knee and hip joints, backbone, toes, etc. Humans also have an opposable thumb, make and use sophisticated tools as well as fire, and engage in diverse creativity. They have a larger brain capacity than apes, smaller teeth set in parabolic or V-shaped, rather than U-shaped, jaws, and they sometimes write, paint or make and play musical instruments.

    Communication by language is another crucial difference, as is the ability to do mathematics. Other differences include the exercise of reason and free-will, rather than just instinct. However, evidence of these capabilities is not usually observable from fossil fragments.

    A fertile field for hoaxers.

    Evolutionists looking for evidence of apemen search for fossils that show anatomical features that look ‘intermediate’ between those of apes and humans, or that show some but not all of the above bodily characteristics. This has provided a fertile field for hoaxers.

    The most notable hoax was Piltdown Man, ‘discovered’ in England from 1908 to 1912. This comprised a human skullcap plus the lower jaw of an orangutan, the teeth of which had been stained and filed to make them look human and match the size of the teeth in the upper human jaw. Although the hoax was poorly done, it fooled the establishment and was probably the most quoted ‘evidence for evolution’ for around 40 years, until 1953, when the fraud was exposed.

    Another huge hoax field has been the way in which scores of deformed humans were exhibited as ‘apemen’ or ‘apewomen’ in circus sideshows from the early 1800s for over a century, with no known scientific refutation of the frauds so perpetrated.

    The desperate need of evolutionists to find a missing link has also contributed to some inexcusably gross scientific boo-boos. The most notable of these was Nebraska Man. A pig’s tooth, found by Harold Cook in 1922, was proclaimed by the eminent evolutionist Dr Henry Fairfield Osborne to belong to the first anthropoid (man-like) ape of America, which he named Hesperopithecus (‘western ape’). The Illustrated London News for June 24, 1922, printed an artist’s impression of the tooth’s owner as an upright-standing apeman, showing the shape of his body, head, nose, ears, hair, etc., together with his wife, domestic animals, and tools.

    This highlights the fact that fossils of so-called ‘hominids’ are often only fragments of bones which, when combined with a huge dose of imagination, are transformed into apemen. Another factor is that ‘hominid’ fossils are sufficiently rare that many researchers have never actually handled one, so that many scientific papers on human evolution are based on only casts or published photos, measurements and descriptions.

  221. abc's said

    Bob 216

    I understand the point you keep making, but you asked for some of the fossil evidence for transitional species and I provided it. I know you don’t accept it, but there it is anyways.

    Maz

    I was giving Mr. Lubenow the benefit of the doubt. My opinion is that he is being intentionally mileading regarding the evidence.
    I also know about the hoaxes of Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man and the like. Notice that I didn’t mention any of those in my list of transitional species. Good science exposed those hoaxes, not any kind of creationist.

    “That evolution is true and that it produced a line of semi-human creatures from some original non-human ancestor.”

    See my list above that lists just a few of them.

    “That the process which ultimately produced man was death of the less fit along the way.”

    This is an oversimplification. Current scientific consensus states that it was evolution by natural selection. This same process produced every single living species that we have today.

    “That the millions of years necessary for this process did occur.”

    This is supported by geology, astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, anthropology, and various independent dating methods.

    “That the fossils claimed to be relics of such creatures constitute a reliable record, i.e. have been interpreted correctly in anatomy, age, and presumed evolutionary relationships.”

    How do you account for the fact that all of these fossils exist?

    For the record, we are only talking about the transitial fossils in the hominid line. There are many many more that show clear transitions from Nautiloids to Ammonoids, invertebrates to fish, fish to tetrapods, amphibians to amniotes, synapsid to mammal.

  222. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”I was giving Mr. Lubenow the benefit of the doubt. My opinion is that he is being intentionally mileading regarding the evidence.”

    Well, so you are accusing him of doing exactly what the evolutionists have being doing these millions of years….I mean these last hundred or so years, the same road that gets others to follow that ‘yellow bricked road’ down to the fairy tale Wizard of Oz?

    If evolutionists would just let the evidence speak for itself instead of trying to make it fit their world view set in concrete, they may see the truth.

    Many assumptions are made in dating methods, they are not reliable.

  223. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”I also know about the hoaxes of Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man and the like. Notice that I didn’t mention any of those in my list of transitional species. Good science exposed those hoaxes, not any kind of creationist.”

    So because ‘good science’ (meaning an evolutionist) exposed theses frauds, hoaxes, that makes it OK?
    It took ‘good science’ over 40 years to expose the Piltdown man……and not even an evolutionist would come out with the truth (especially those who were responsible and those who knew about it) all that time?

    And I ask myself this simple question….why create the hoax in the first place and put your whole career on the line if there was plenty of evidence already? Mmmmmmm??

  224. abc's said

    Maz

    If I understand you correctly, you dismiss the fossil evidence from:

    Eosimias sinensis
    Aegyptopithecus zeuxis
    Proconsul africanus
    Afropithecus turkanensis
    Turkanapithecus kalakolensis
    Oreopithecus bambolii
    Lufengpithecus lufengensis
    Sivapithecus indicus
    Sahelanthropus tchadensis
    Orrorin tugenensis
    Laetoli Footprint
    Australopithecus afarensis
    Kenyanthropus platyops
    Australopithecus bahrelghazali
    Australopithecus africanus
    Paranthropus aethiopicus
    Paranthropus robustus
    Homo habilis
    Homo rudolfensis
    Paranthropus boisei
    Homo georgicus
    Homo ergaster
    Homo erectus
    Homo heidelbergensis
    Homo neanderthalensis
    Homo rhodesiensis
    Homo sapiens idaltu
    Homo sapiens

    because of a few hoaxes that happend in the 1910’s and 1920’s?
    Those hoaxes were exposed precisely because they didn’t fit with the evolutionary model. It took a few decades for newer advances in science to prove they were fake, but they were always viewed with skepticism.

  225. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    I can get books to refute all your fossils. We will never agree with one another. So, Im still waiting for somebody to complete my thought exercise.

    Everybody mocks my example of a mermaid for a transitional form. The Darwin fish you see on cars has feet coming out of it. Why would that be?

  226. abc's said

    What was your thought exercise?

  227. Barney said

    “The Darwin fish you see on cars has feet coming out of it. Why would that be?” – Bob

    Humor, Bob, that’s called humor. Your Mermaid example is funny, too.

  228. Maz said

    Abc’s: One wonders why you don’t see the point……if you have all these intermediate ape/man fossils which you have so nicely given a list of to us, why the hoax? Why the fakes? And how was it that the Piltdown man went so long undetected as a hoax? Why didn’t the very intelligent ??? scientists of the day…..years….see it for what it was? Do you know why? I’ll tell you, because they REALLY wanted to BELIEVE it was a missing link between ape and man……..but hey!….if there were no missing links in the first place why look for any? MMmmmmmmmmmmm.

  229. Mike S. said

    And that foot in Stanley’s mouth… What’s that all about?? 😮 🙂

  230. Maz said

    Has anyone here read the book ”Bones of contention” by Lubenow?
    I want to get a copy.

  231. Maz said

    Bob: The evolutionistic fish with legs is supposed to be sarcastic towards the Christian symbol of the fish. It shows that the evolutionist believes fish became……..a few million or so years down the line…..men!

  232. Maz said

    Abc’s: I’v researched just a little into your impressive looking list of ape to man fossils, and find that most of the list is in fact ape fossils, and not until you get to Homo habilis is there any question about whether it is a human fossil or not. In fact they say that it is a ‘poorly defined species’. Sounds a bit suspect to me. The first fossil on your family tree is in fact very much like the present day Marmoset. The Paranthropus aethiopicus fossil of part of a mandibel is very much ape looking. The Homo rudolfensis is also a ‘much debated topic’ and they say that it could be australopethecine rather than a member of the genus ‘homo’.
    Also one of the earlier fossils was found to be in the same place as a much later one……all this does not go well with your nice long ape to man chain of evolution.

  233. abc's said

    Maz

    Thank you for taking the time to look at a few of them.

  234. Barney said

    You guys can ignore the science all you want, but it just makes you appear to be arrogant. Why not admit that there are difficulties reconciling what natural philosophy (science) teaches us about the origins of species and what your religion teaches you?

    Instead, you insist that mainstream science is conspiring to discredit your religion. Why? Because Noah’s Ark simply MUST be taken literally and those scientists just don’t get it.

  235. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs See 208 for the thought exercise.

    Barney – It is humorous that somebody would think we evolved from a fish.

    Maz – I have read the book. You can get it at most Christian bookstores. They are forgetting the topic of the last show – Icons of Evolution that are still being put in the textbooks. I guess science isnt self correcting.

  236. Maz said

    Barney: Did you see what Abc’s said to me? ”Thank you for taking the time to look at a few of them,” and then you have the nerve to say I ignore the science! I DO NOT blindly go with what I am told by just one side, I DO look at BOTH. And YES, I cannot reconcile evolutionistic science with what THE BIBLE (not religion) tells me, and what the real scientific evidence shows us without the dogmatic evolutionistic and a truly arrogant bias.

  237. F. L. A. said

    Bob, post#217, who said the exercise was hard? I just tire of wasting the time to compile and display evidence that was requested by one who does not really wish to see it.
    Could you explain to all of us how it is that ABC’s list within post#109 does not constitute as an answer to what you requested within post#207 and #208?
    Does it have anything with the current Y.E.C.Creationist belief that these examples are all from one short time period but simply all mixed up into the order and periods of history that Atheistic Evolutionistic Scientists personally want them to be?

  238. F. L. A. said

    Maz, within your quote within post# you mentioned some of the differences between Humans and other apes.
    Why not mention all of the similarities too?

  239. Barney said

    “Barney – It is humorous that somebody would think we evolved from a fish.” – Bob

    You’re joking, right? It’s hard to tell sometimes.

  240. Maz said

    F.L.A: Most of the list was of ape fossils anyway….and we have human fossils….there is no progressive evolution and what you said at the end of post #237 was correct…..it is not just YEC belief, it happens to be a fact.

  241. Maz said

    F.L.A: And by the way I got the information from secular NOT creationist sites.

  242. Maz said

    Barney: It is hard to tell because it IS a joke that people actually believe we came from fish….in other words from the sea originally.

  243. Barney said

    Maz, lacking the ability to know when you are wrong is arrogant. Sorry, but that’s it.

  244. F. L. A. said

    Maz, post#240…..I thought that is how you would feel about it.
    Who is to say that I do not understand were you are coming from?[Huge sharp-toothed grin]
    If Mr.Griffin shares your opinion within post#240, then perhaps he, or at least people like Abc’s and Barney, can understand why I have not bothered to provide any examples of my own.
    Can you provide me with the secular sites so I can go and read all of it? I would appreciate it.

  245. Maz said

    Barney: But the question is….WHO is lacking the ablility to know when they are wrong?
    Just because I truly believe in what I believe does not make me arrogant. Anymore then you are arrogant to believe in evolution without question.

  246. Maz said

    F.L.A: I got onto the sites by putting the names of the fossils in Abc’s list in Google.

  247. Barney said

    But I do question. And that is the essence of science isn’t it? Questioning the Bible is natural philosophy. Your ‘science’ begins by not questioning.

    I am not saying your are arrogant for believing your Bible. But you are wrong about science.

  248. Mike S. said

    Oh Master Barney, the omniscient of all science, we are so privileged to have you offer your vast knowledge to us. LOL

  249. Maz said

    Barney: Your last 6 words reveal your arrogance.

  250. F. L. A. said

    Darn!
    Why cannot IIII get such praise and gratitude as Barney within post#248?!?![LAUGHTER]

  251. Mike S. said

    Your just a little too humble for that honor F.L.A. 🙂

  252. F. L. A. said

    Ahhh.
    I try, but lord knows it is so hard some times.

  253. Barney said

    Swagger it, Mike.

  254. Barney said

    Maz, I am not sorry that I tried to reason with you. Good luck!

  255. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    Its really not hard? All your examples are fine. You keep dodging with them. I am not asking for a list of existing fossils. You dont have to compile anything. Im just asking for your hypothetical sequence of animal 1 to animal 2.

  256. Bob Griffin said

    Barney,

    Sorry I referred to you as a fish. I guess it should be an ape.

  257. Maz said

    That song comes into mind from ‘Jungle Book’ (the cartoon version). ”OO-oo-oo, I want to be like you-oo-oo, I wanna walk like you, talk like you-oo-oo-oo…….. 😉

  258. Mike S. said

    Funny Maz, Even funnier is the thought that maybe some evolutionists are subconsciously singing that to the apes!! They call it going back to their roots.

  259. Maz said

    Like F.L.A, I do like to sprinkle a little humour into the sour grapes to sweeten them up sometimes!

  260. F. L. A. said

    Mr. Griffin,….a HYPOTHETICAL sequence???
    Why create the purely hypothetical when the factual evidence can be presented? Are you asking that you would like me to take a life form from the present time period, create a series of hypothetical evolutionary steps, and produce a hypothetical ancestor for it?
    Or….do you just wish to try and understand how one chosen subject from the fossil record believed to be an ancient ancestor of a more modern subject…hypothetically… became the more modern subject through the evolutionary processes?

  261. abc's said

    Bob Griffin

    For your a priori dismissal

    http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

  262. Maz said

    Hey, didn’t I hear something recently about the fact that they now think we are related to bats?
    It would have been helpful to have that inbuilt radar system so we could walk in the dark and not bump into anything. 😉

  263. abc's said

    Maz

    You probably heard that bats are mammals, which means that we share a closer common ancestor to bats than reptiles or amphibians.

  264. Maz said

    Abc’s: I wonder if they will find one day that we are related to hypopotomuses…… Homo Hypo! It has a ring to it. 😉

  265. F.L.A. said

    Thank you for the presentation of that site Abc’s.The resulting response from Mr.Griffin will be interesting.
    I considered doing something similar for Mr.Griffin but I was interested in hearing his reply to my post#260.

  266. Mike S said

    Maz
    That’s really insensitive of you. Calling those poor hippo’s homo’s. 😉

  267. John said

    Hey, they must have some in the hippo world. In the “homosexual community” do you know what large/fat hairy men are called?
    “Bears”[smile].

  268. Maz said

    Mike: I was being facetious…..in a humourous state of mind which I often am when I read some of these posts! 😉

  269. Mike S. said

    Me too Maz. John don’t you think that homosexuality flies in the face of the evolutionary worldview? Especially in the case of the animal kingdom? In an evolution sense is this not considered unnatural as it goes against the process of natural selection and the survival of species? Or maybe that is why some species went extinct, because the males were enflamed with passion for males and females vice versa. Hmm… Where have I seen that before?

  270. Maz said

    Has any evolutionist had the crazy thought that maybe the sexes are in transition!? Men becoming women and visa versa! (Crooked grin and twinkle in the eye).

    More facetiousness!!!

  271. abc's said

  272. John said

    Mr.Sears, considering the multitude of animal life that engages in homo/bi-sexual activity with no seemingly ill results to the species, I guess I’ll have to say no, it does not seem to fly in the face of evolution[at least not too much] and endanger the survival of animal life. There are also different reasons that animals life engages in this kind of behavior.
    Human animals just have an ability to not let their lives be completely controlled by their passions, for better or worse.

    Maz, sexuality in the animal kingdom is a really weird and interesting subject to get into.
    Did you know that some animals DO in fact change their genders, and that some animals are hermaphrodites, or reproduce through parthenogenesis?
    Very interesting stuff.
    So……why couldn’t sexuality be in transition?

  273. Stanley said

    God said so.

  274. John said

    Are you speaking for Maz?

  275. Bob Griffin said

    FLA/ABC

    Got to be quick cause Ill be at Disney Fri – Mon.

    Thats an impressive list. I may be an evolutionist when I get back from Florida. Ill have a reply to that when I get back.

    Still dont see why my question is so hard. If you dont want to be HYPOTHETICAL, take me throught the transition from the first animal to the second. That would mean not some whale sequence, but the very first animal to the second.

  276. Maz said

    John: So what happens to reproduction while we are all changing?

  277. Maz said

    Bob: It would be impossible for them to give a list of transitional forms like that in reality (and I know you know that but for the sake of others reading this) because it is SO SLOW, and the transitions would be SO GRADUAL, DNA molecule by DNA molecule. They site the archeopteryx (for example) as a transition from reptile to bird, but where are the OH SO SLOW transitions inbetween? Archeopteryx would be a GIANT LEAP from the reptiles, and then you would need another GIANT LEAP to true birds. They couldn’t give you those transitional forms (as you know) because they don’t exist. But do they see that? NOOOOOOOO.

  278. Bob Griffin said

    Maz,

    True. I must have come up with too hard an exercise for them to complete.

  279. abc's said

    Bob

    Have fun at Disney.

    You are still demonstrating that you don’t understand the concept of evolution.

    You wrote the whole article off as “some whale sequence.” The article shows the evolution of whales from Sinonyx, a wolf-sized land dwelling mesonychid.

    You asked for some evidence showing an ancestor animal, some of the intermediates and then the “new” animal. This is exactly what you asked for.

  280. F. L. A. said

    And yet…Mr.Griffin and Maz believe that the difficulty in understanding is in us. Fascinating.
    Have fun Mr.Griffin.I am a little jealous, I have always wanted to see an amusement park.

    Maz, could you please explain a little more what you wanted to know within post#276 in regards to human[?] reproduction?

  281. Maz said

    Abc’s: So we don’t understand evolution? Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don’t understand it. Actually I understand the theory of evolution all too well. And I STILL disagree with it.

    Can you not see that transitional fossils should show a very slow, gradual change over time, and not the great leaps that leave great gaps inbetween…….I think they call them ‘missing links’!!

  282. Maz said

    F.L.A: As we are on opposite sides, we are obviously going to say that the other side does not understand, it’s simply because we don’t agree.

    And I was wondering how humans would reproduce while the sexual makeup of the body of man to woman and woman to man was supposedly evolving? This is a problem with any organ in our body, how does an organ work properly while it is evolving into the organ so that it can work properly? Do you understand?

  283. abc's said

    You’re right Maz.
    I think you do understand the theory of evolution.
    What you don’t understand is what constitutes as evidence, how much evidence there is, and how the evidence lends support to the theory.

  284. Maz said

    Abc’s: Either evolutionists on here havn’t conveyed what you say I don’t understand or I see something they don’t. We’ve had enough so-called evidence from evolutionists on here to make our minds up one way or the other. But it is obvious their evidence is not enough, so they are failing in showing me the evidence that actually PROVES evolution is true……BUT….they say it CAN’T be proved!! :-/

  285. F. L. A. said

    Maz, why do you think that humans have tail bones and wisdom teeth?

    Yes, I understand.
    I shall get back to you with an answer later because I am hungry.

  286. abc's said

    Maz

    “Either evolutionists on here havn’t conveyed what you say I don’t understand or I see something they don’t.”

    I’ll say it again…

    What YOU don’t understand is what constitutes as evidence, how much evidence there is, and how the evidence lends support to the theory.

  287. Stanley said

    God made them that way.

  288. Maz said

    Abc’s: Evolutionists are so good at saying there is loads of evidence for evolution……the plain truth is I havn’t seen any. So I don’t believe in evolution. Same as I say there is plenty of evidence around us to show that there is a Creator God, but you will say you don’t see any. So, if I don’t understand evolution, it’s just as clear that YOU and others don’t understand our Creator God.

    And WHAT DOES constitute as evidence? If I don’t understand as you say, then tell me in a way I CAN understand? Because so far I see NOTHING that costitutes as REAL evidence of evolution AS A FACT.

  289. Maz said

    F.L.A: I did hear an explanation for tail bones once but I can’t remember what it was. But it explained why we had them. And it has nothing to do with tails! Wisdom teeth are at the back, that’s all I know, and I still have mine!!

  290. F. L. A. said

    It is my belief Stanley that God hath provided his people with free will and the ability to change and grow in all ways, so “passing the buck” like that can only go so far, and robs the person of personal responsibility/accountability. Like when people say “The Devil made me do it.”…….hogwash! Satan may plant the “seed” of a harmful idea within their minds, or set up a situation which COULD lead to a disastrous conclusion IF temptations are followed and IF poor choices are made, but in the end, it almost always revolves around the personal choices of an individual, at least in regards to the pursuit of knowledge.

  291. F. L. A. said

    What about when humans are born with tails, Maz? This does happen from time to time.
    Unless I am mistaken, human Wisdom Teeth are a left over from when Humans had larger/longer jaws, and thus more room in their mouths in which to hold these extra teeth, which now, since humans have become more “blunt-faced”, cause a painful overcrowding in many people which must be resolved with oral surgery to remove them.

  292. Maz said

    F.L.A: I have seen babies born with two heads but that doesn’t mean we had them in the past or that we will ever have tow heads in the future.
    My wisdom teeth are not bothering me. And you are mistaken about your theory comcerning wisdom teeth.

  293. F. L. A. said

    Being born with an extra head has a different cause than being born with a tail.
    Can you provide any evidence that I am mistaken about the origins of Wisdom Teeth?

  294. abc's said

    Maz

    Why do you think that babies are sometimes born with 2 heads?

  295. Maz said

    Abc’s: It’s a mistake in the developement of the foetus.

  296. abc's said

    Do you think it is part of God’s plan?

  297. Maz said

    Abc’s: I should have said foetus’s, as there would have been two, but one did not develope. I watched a programme last night about a man who had an undeveloped twi brother attached to his pelvis. He had an extra two legs and an arm with a shoulder and part of the chest area. Even the head which didn’t actually develope but left a small lump with hair. It is terrible what some babies are born with because of a mistake in the developement of the foetus or in the case of twins, one or other of the foetus’s.

  298. Maz said

    F.L.A: Wisdom teeth were apparently caused by a change in diet thousands of years ago not by evolution, it caused the teeth at the back to grow stronger for a tougher diet. I am still looking into it though.

  299. Maz said

    Abc’s: God doesn’t make mistakes.

  300. abc's said

    ” It is terrible what some babies are born with because of a mistake in the developement of the foetus or in the case of twins, one or other of the foetus’s.”

    So you are required to believe that it happens on purpose and for a reason.

    The point i’m trying to make is that in the case of evolution, when the evidence is supplied you deny it and say that Science is wrong.

    When we talk about babies being born with 2 heads you automatically trust the Science that provides an explanation with a real natural cause.

    Why isn’t your answer to the 2 headed babies question related directly to the “fall of man?”

  301. Maz said

    Abc’s: A mistake in the genetic makeup of a human fetus is NOT something that happens on purpose. No I am NOT required to believe that.

    The science IS wrong. Just as you would say Creation science is wrong.

    Ofcourse science can give us answers to some questions but it DOES NOT show any evidence for evolution.

    It IS related to the fall of man, because the curse, sin, sickness, disease and death came through sin.

    So, did God make man sin?

  302. F. L. A. said

    SOME Christians believe that Mankind was so corrupted by “The Fall” that,[Adam and Eve’s children had SUCH GOOD genetics that they could inbreed without harmful results, not like animals do THESE days.] as time progressed[Enter arguments concerning universal entropy.]and genetic mutations became more harmful, it eventually led to incidents such as deformed babies being born.
    So it basically all had to do with SIN entering this world.
    Is this close to what your theory is, Maz?

  303. Maz said

    F.L.A: Yes exactly. Entropy in action again.

  304. abc's said

    Maz

    “Ofcourse science can give us answers to some questions but it DOES NOT show any evidence for evolution.”

    You should say this instead:

    Of course science can give us answers to some questions, until it contradicts what I take on faith, and in those cases I don’t believe the evidence.

    The scientific method that supports a naturalistic cause for why babies sometimes have 2 heads is the same method that supports the theory of evolution.

  305. Maz said

    Abc’s: So because I believe science can give us answers for some things I’m wrong when I don’t accept their version of origins? Actually, it’s the evolutionists version, for there are scientists that do believe in creation and can show this through science.

    I could also put it this way, science can give us answers to the origins of life but to you only evolutionist ones are right, all others are wrong because you won’t accept their evidence.

    How can a mistake in genetics show evolution? Having two heads is a bad thing, it is NOT EVOLUTION IN PROGRESS.

  306. abc's said

    Maz

    Ok, you should say this:

    Of course a scientific interpretation of evidence can give us answers to some questions, until it contradicts what I take on faith, and in those cases I don’t believe the scientific interpretation of the evidence.

  307. Maz said

    Abc’s: You can put it any way you like, but I don’t believe in evolution because the evidence I am shown does not prove TO ME that IT is a fact. Likewise, you don’t believe in Creation because the evidence you are shown doesn’t prove TO YOU that IT is fact.

  308. F. L. A. said

    Abc’s, this may be why Young Earth Christian Creationists created their own custom-made version of the sciences. Have you studied up on “Creation Science” very much?
    It is actually a perfectly beautiful self satisfying answer system for the Young Earth Christian Creationists, and I cannot help but admire the creativity involved that is used to dismiss, explain away, and re-explain real science and history.

  309. Maz said

    Ferox: It’s obvious, and has been for some time that you and other evolutionists believe Creation scientists just make up explanations and create make-believe evidence for Creation. If that were the case do you really think I would be so stupid as to believe something that looks so obviously false?
    BUT THAT is exactly why I DON’T believe in evolution, because I can see through all the so-called ‘evidence’ that evolutionists concoct to try and prove their theory.

  310. F. L. A. said

    I do not think of you aa a stupid woman, Maz.
    Desperate and dense[No offence intended], but not stupid.
    Why is our evidence easier to verify and produce than yours?

  311. Maz said

    F.L.A: Desperate for what? I am content in knowing my Savior and God. My life is in His hands.
    Dense? How come I have an IQ of 138 then? That was the last time I took a proper test!
    You THINK your evidence is easier to verify, but as I have said a hundred times before, I see the holes, I see the mist, I see the fragmentation, I see the gaps, and I STILL see the missing links all down the evolutionary tree. Dotted lines inbetween the black ones where fossil evidence cannot be found….because there isn’t any.

  312. John said

    How old do you think this universe is, Maz?
    I think that you are in a form of denial, and are willing to believe almost anything in regards to the sciences as so long as it does not seem to “threaten” your theological beliefs.
    You are like a person fishing in a tidal pool with your back to the sea, you can hear it’s waves, you have heard about it’s wonders and it’s potential, and the fish that could be caught there, yet you are content to try and stare at and play with your tide pool crabs and minnows.
    And this is fine, if this is what you want.
    But this does not make the sea behind you anymore non-existant.

  313. Maz said

    John: You know exactly what I believe, so why are you asking?
    If I am wrong it won’t matter one iota to my salvation. But what about yours?
    I believe the Bible and what GOD, and not man, has said within it’s pages, INCLUDING Genesis 1.
    WHO IS REALLY in denial? You deny the God, the Only One and True God of the Universe that you say is millions of years old anyway.
    You have heard Gods Word on here many times but you are like those who listen but don’t HEAR.
    And I could not say like you that it is fine if you don’t believe in the God we believe in because of the awful destiny that awaits you without Him, and it would not make Him or Hell anymore non-existent because of what YOU want to believe.

  314. Maz said

    Here’s an interesting link…..well I think it is….about the real message evolution conveys:

    http://www.creationontheweb.com/realmessage

  315. Maz said

    I’v just found this little gem of information which I think is amazing.

    The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content. Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information.

    But it all started from ‘nothing’ right? Nothing exploded, right? And then suddenly one ‘day’ organic life popped out of inorganic rock and voila!! it all began to get more complicated SSLLOOOOOOOWLY and life became complex SSLLOOOOOOOWLY with an abundance and variey of living creatures…..then finally in only the last ‘second’ so to speak of earths history, Man turns up….WITH INTELLIGENCE!

    As Louie Armstrong use to sing ”What a wonderful world!”

  316. John said

    And this link you have provided disproves the evidences that support the evolutionary sciences HOW? If it looks misty to you, then get some clean glasses to wear[grin].
    I’ve been over the topic of salvation and the afterlife with you befor Maz. Remember how that discussion went? As for your belief in your deity being the one and only deity, ever, this would be a little easier to accept if history did not keep popping up to remind us that there were a multitude of theological belief systems and deities in existence befor yours. Although this may hurt you pride as a Christian, there is no way to get around this historical fact. Unless you are in some form of denial and turned to alternative forms of “scientific” sources that supported your personal views. I asked you about your belief in a six thousand year old universe to help prove the point that you have a faulty understanding of what history and the sciences teach.
    This of course makes it easier to doubt your ideas in regards to which sources of information are reliable.
    Enjoy that tide pool Maz.
    As for me, I prefer the ocean.

  317. Maz said

    John: I didn’t put the link on to disprove the whole of evolution because it was not meant to do that it was meant to do what it was headlined to do…..tell you the real message behind evolution. And my glasses are fine thanks.

    Ofcourse it all depends what ocean your in doesn’t it?

    Yes, we’ve been here before, done that, bought the t-shirt, but my pride is certainly not hurt because I don’t need any pride to know that my God is Bigger than I am, and He has told me why I am here and what my purpose is in life. You see, with evolution, there is no purpose behind why we are here, we were and are an accident just waiting to see how we will change in another million years….if we could live that long….. and ofcourse they are trying to find a way of combatting death and disease so that we can. I don’t really relish another million years of living on this earth actually. God has promised me something far better.

    So, evolutions message is (if you didn’t get it the first time) that we came by accident, for no purpose, live a few possibly short and troubled years, and if were lucky longer happier years and then annihilation. And then our children go through the whole process without any purpose to life whatsoever but to grow up, reproduce and grow old, trying to duck the sicknsses and diseases that are common to earthbound mankind. Ofcourse, we could find a way to leave this planet because the sun will one day force us to leave and maybe we can populate Mars.
    I’v heard all this from the science programmes that come on History and Nat. Geog. channels!!

    So I would rather believe the facts told me from God Himself Who was there in the beginning and knows the future from the beginning.

    Job 38 v 4-6 says (the LORD speaking), ”Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if you have understanding. Who has laid the measures of it, if you know? Or who has stretched the line upon it? Whereupon is it’s foundations fastened? Or who laid it’s cornerstone….”, v 18-19, ”Have you perceived the breadth of the earth? Declare, if you know it all? Where is the way where light dwells? And as for darkness, where is it’s place?” v 31-32, ”Can you bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in it’s season? Or can you guide Arcturus with his sons?” And ch 40 v 2 says, ”Shall he that contends with the Almighty God instruct Him? He that reproves God, let him answer it.” Read all of ch 38-41. And also note Jobs response in Ch 40 v 4.

    Until you see your true place in the scheme of things you will continue to go on in the blindness of mans scientific ignorance.

  318. F. L. A. said

    How I would love to meet you and shake one of your soft little hands and hear you try and talk to me about what you think MY true place is in the scheme of things.I’ll even lean back so my drool doesn’t drip on you.

    Things are much more complex for us[Not all of humanity “us” that is, just US down here, if you know what I mean.]than you can seriously imagine, Maz.
    What you described as the true message behind evolution sounds like the Atheistic[As well as pessimistic]idea of the meaning of evolution. We have a different view, one in which the evolutionary processes are a beautifully unifying process, bonding all of humanity and “creation” together into a gigantic[abet highly competitive], diverse, cosmic family.

    It is only as degrading and senseless as one wishes to make it out to be.

  319. Maz said

    F.L.A: The fact is, it IS degrading and senseless. God, nor any other ‘god’ that man invented, used evolution to ‘create’ everything. Most other religions is just one chance happening after another which brought us to what we have today. No purpose. No reason. We just ARE. THAT IS the message evolution conveys.

    When there’s no God, there’s no Hope in the world. (Ephesians 2 12.)

  320. F. L. A. said

    Whatever helps you get to sleep at night and look forward to the coming dawn, Maz…..[Huge sharp-toothed grin].

  321. Bob Griffin said

    Back from Florida. I saw so many transitional looking thingies at Disney that I just might be swayed to become an evolutionist.

    I thought all mammals came from reptiles and amphibians, which all came from fish. In that case, wouldnt Ariel at Disney be an apt example?

    Heard a good one today on the radio for all you believers in SCIENCE. The last 100 or so years have had 4 phases of SCIENTIFIC thought. Global cooling, global warming, global cooling and now global warming. And each time it was agreed upon by all reputable SCIENTISTS. Could we not apply this to evolutionist SCIENTISTS?

  322. abc's said

    Bob

    Same response as in post 203

    “The existence of a real mermaid would be solid evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong.

    There are no mermaids because fish and hominids don’t share a recent common ancestor. They are separated by all of the amphibians, reptiles and most mammals.”

    “Could we not apply this to evolutionist SCIENTISTS?”

    I’m sure you will make the comparison but that is a straw man argument. Varying scientific opinion on climate change does not have any bearing on all of the evidence for evolution.

  323. John said

    In mythology, “real” Merpeople were not thought of as a half human/half fish type of a creature, but were instead something else, a seperate species, if you will.
    Why do these mythological examples keep getting picked in a discussion on science? First Dragons, now Mermaids….

  324. Bob Griffin said

    Oh well, Ill never get past the mermaid.

    Every objection is a straw man? You keep hammering on science, and I just point out that scientists obviously arent always right. But they sure always stick to their line and abuse anyone who disagrees.

  325. abc's said

    Bob

    In your own words, explain why mermaids don’t exist.

  326. Bob Griffin said

    Id love to do that. I will do it after you complete my thought experiment in your own words.

  327. Maz said

    Bob: The evolutionist is good at bringing out that straw man isn’t he? They call them scare crows over here.

    And Abc’s: why are there scientists that are rethinking the Big Bang, or questioning evolution, or changing their mind about how the solar system was formed because of new discoveries??

  328. Bob Griffin said

    FLA 308

    One word for you: punctuated equilibrium.

  329. Maz said

    F.L.A: I would question WHO in fact ‘created their own custom-made version of the sciences’.

    We havn’t any missing links.
    We do not need hoaxes to try and prove our belief in creation.
    We have no questions about our origins and how life came to this earth.
    We don’t have to say God ‘probably’ created the heavens and the earth.
    We KNOW WHO, WHAT, HOW, and WHEN. And we also know the purpose of life and where we are going when it is over.

  330. abc's said

    Maz

    “why are there scientists that are rethinking the Big Bang, or questioning evolution, or changing their mind about how the solar system was formed because of new discoveries??”

    Because that’s what Science does. It asks questions about the natural world and seeks to find a naturalistic explanation.

  331. Maz said

    Abc’s: It seems to me, that is another way of saying that they get it wrong some…..or maybe a lot of the time. So doesn’t that mean they could be wrong about evolution?? Mmmm?

  332. abc's said

    Maz

    We’ve talked about this before.

    Yes, the possibility exists that the theory of evolution could be wrong….BUT for the last 140 years we haven’t found evidence that contradicts the theory… SO it is very unlikely that the theory of evolution is wrong.

  333. Maz said

    Abc’sL Yes we hav e talked about this before but you still don’t see that science is very changeable….and that means so could the theory of evolution change. It is NOT ROCK SOLID FACT.

  334. F. L. A. said

    Maz, of course the sciences are changeable, and therein is one of it’s greatest strengths, because unlike the dogmatic versions of some theological belief systems, science can correct mistakes that have been made[instead of pretending that there never were any] and improve itself into something more accurate and factual as new evidences come forth and old outdated, obsolete/knowledge is used as examples to help us not make the same mistakes.
    You have no “missing links” because you do not have a good understanding of the Evolutionary Sciences or the ages of history were the evidences for evloution are found.
    We do not need hoaxes either, which is why scientists exposed them for what they were.We did not have to invent an alternate version of history and young earth “sciences”. Real history and science work well for us.
    You have no questions about such things because you probably believe it to be to heretical to ask such questions.Your method of study grows stagnate and self serving.
    You know what you believe…..but this does not always mean that what we believe is true.

    Bob Griffin, two words: wishful thinking.

  335. Maz said

    F.L.A: We are dogmatic about what we believe because Gods Word never changes, Gods truth never changes, in fact, GOD never changes. So we can’t chop and change what we believe either.
    But science does because they never seem to get it completely right. They can correct mistakes because THEY MAKE SO MANY!!

    I am always accused of not understanding evolution science. Since I was indoctrinated with it from an early age and read a lot about it (secular stuff), I think I have a good understanding of what evolution is all about.

    You don’t need hoaxes but they were made anyway….Oh and you expose them after they have been found out!

  336. F. L. A. said

    Of course you do not chop and change what you believe,….you instead chop and change history and the sciences to support your beliefs. It would almost be better for you to just say that you “don’t know” and leave it at that, unless you are willing to become someone like MattF. We love it when you use that word “indoctrinated”. The irony of the situation is positively delicious.
    I also get the amusing impression that you may have the idea that scientists are only willing to help expose hoaxes AFTER they have been discovered[And who do you think discovered the hoaxes for what they were, anyway? Some Christian anti-evolutionist who just happen to be in the right place at the right time? I think not.].
    Keep studying Maz.

  337. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”…you instead chop and change history and the sciences to support your beliefs.”

    I do not chop and change the history told us in the Bible like evolutionist scientists like to do. They are the ones trying to fit the science into their beliefs.

    A hoax is still a hoax whoever discovers it, and it shows that they have no real evidence in the first place.

  338. F. L. A. said

    Maz, post#320.

  339. Maz said

    F.L.A: The only thing that really helps me sleep at night is the Peace of God that passes all understanding.

  340. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs,

    Since you wont respond to my experiment, Ill respond to yours. Why dont mermaids exist? It goes back to what they asked Darwin – how could a species exist in its transitional state? Very good question. The world record for breath holding is about 15 minutes – how does that jibe with a sloooooooooooow transitioning process?

  341. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    Punctuated equilibrium hurts, doesnt it? You accuse YEC people of something and your evolutionist buddies do the same thing.

  342. Stanley said

    Lol Bob. Good effort, but you might want to make an attempt to understand evolution before criticizing it. Everything is in a transitional state.

  343. Stanley said

    Except for things that are going to go extinct in the near future. They’ve advanced as far as they’re going to get.

  344. Maz said

    Bob #340. That is something THEY don’t seem to understand. They accuse us of not understandinng evolution…it’s the best way they can lamely come against what we say.

    Stanley: The fact is, things that are ‘inbetween’ developement cannot possibly survive if the vital structures of the body are not fully formed. Can you not see this? Can any evolutionist explain how a transitional form between, say, a fish (with gills) …..amphibia (with vital organs to be in water and out of water) become a fully air breathing mammal? The animal in the first stage would not survive let alone the final stage of ‘so-called’ evolution. How does a fish with fully formed gills even slooooooooooowwwwly change into an air breathing animal without drowning with the attempt? How do the lungs develop while in the water….for they cannot work outside UNTIL they are fully formed. This is what YOU and other evolutionists cannot get to grips with.
    Half formed anything DOES NOT WORK. So how does it form in the first place when the animal already has a fully formed function that WORKS in the environment they live in? Why should fish COME OUT of the water to start with? Why should fish ATTEMPT to come out onto land and try breathing thus attempting to create lungs in it’s fishy body (and nearly asphyxiate themselves before having to jump back in!?)…..ha ha ha that is ludicrous!
    How else can I explain the impossibility of such a tranformation.
    This goes for all ‘so-called’ transitions in animals that supposedly took place over millions of years.
    The evolutionist has to have that time to try and give his idea ANY credibility….yet….it doesn’t, it is an idea as dead as the Dodo.
    Half formed organs just DON’T WORK.

    Here’s a question…..we humans have been around, so the evolutionists say, a very long time, and in that time, though we can swim in the sea, we, as intelligent beings, have yet to begin to form any kind of gill-like structure in our body so we can swim under water.
    And we fly in aeroplanes, but we, as intelligent beings, still have not been able to develop wings of any shape or form on our backs. Not even a tiny-weeny feather!

    SO WHO chooses what animals will transform into? Well, ofcourse there is no WHO in evolution, so there isn’t any intelligence involved. It’s just mindless. Mmmmmmmmm.
    SO HOW do these transitions into something entirely new to the creature take place if the DNA information is not present to start with? What developes first, the DNA information or the structure? Ofcourse the DNA HAS TO BE THERE FIRST, but how does that come about before the animal actually needs the transition for the information? Do you UNDERSTAND the problem with transitinal forms now?

    (Probably not) (BIG SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH!!)

  345. F. L. A. said

    Hurts, Bob?
    Explain to me how you believe that punctuated Equlibrium is supposed to down on modern Evolutionary Sciences.
    We have been over this before. You must have a very poor memory.

    Maz, no offence, but your post sounds like something I would type if I were trying to make fun of a Young Earth Christian Creationist. I thought that you would understand the Evolutionary Sciences better by now.

  346. Maz said

    F.L.A: I DO UNDERSTAND THE EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCES………but you and other evolutionists don’t see how IMPOSSIBLE these so-called evolutionary changes are even over millions of years. SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE IT ABSOLUTELY and DOESN’T CLAIM TO EITHER!
    I’m not shouting (really) just emphasizing my point because you don’t seem to get it.

  347. abc's said

    Maz

    “Here’s a question…..we humans have been around, so the evolutionists say, a very long time, and in that time, though we can swim in the sea, we, as intelligent beings, have yet to begin to form any kind of gill-like structure in our body so we can swim under water.
    And we fly in aeroplanes, but we, as intelligent beings, still have not been able to develop wings of any shape or form on our backs. Not even a tiny-weeny feather!”

    Bob

    “The world record for breath holding is about 15 minutes – how does that jibe with a sloooooooooooow transitioning process?”

    I’m going to call it quits here as far as any evolutionary topics are concerned. I’ve said my piece and you understand my point of view.

    If after all of these posts you still have these very basic misunderstandings about evolution then I really don’t have any reason to continue the conversation, because we really aren’t discussing the same topic.

  348. Maz said

    Abc’s: Fair enough. I find myself in the same boat.

  349. Bob Griffin said

    342

    Stanley, youre killing me. Were all in a transitional state. Thats one of my favorite funny evolutionist lines.

  350. Stanley said

    Why is that so funny? Because you can’t quite understand it?

  351. F. L. A. said

    Mr.Griffin has a different concept of what a transitional state is, Stanley.
    For example, on the topic of avian evolution, I have gotten the impression in the past that he expected evidence of a creature that looked like an iguana with a pair of chicken wings in the place of it’s forelegs as evidence of a transitional form from reptile to bird.
    I probably SHOULD call it quits as Abc’s has, but I am….”stubborn” and playful.

  352. Maz said

    F.L.A: Didn’t anything in my post #344 make sense to you? I mean HOW do lungs form in an animal who lives in the sea? Why should it want to come out into an environment that is totally alien to it? All I can imagine is a fish flopping about on the sandy shore and then flopping back because he can’t breathe, then the next generation does the same thing…still can’t breathe…and so each successive generation of fish flop in and out until suddenly after a few thousand years of flopping in and out, lungs start miraclulously forming within it’s body…..where it had no DNA for lungs, suddenly it has that information…from somewhere, no one knows, to give the cells the instructions on how to make lungs…..which the fish can’t use until they are actually fully formed. Then…he has to get rid of the gills…..and so on and so on……la la la la.

    Oh and then he has to make sure he gets some legs and feet so he can walk aswell! More miraculous DNA information comes from somewhere…no one knows….la la la la la.

  353. Stanley said

    Yeah, and he thinks a mermaid would be a transitional form for human and fish. Lol.

  354. Maz said

    Stanley: If evolution really happened, why wouldn’t it have been possible for fish to human to have taken place? I mean, any kind of transition would have been possible right? All chance happenings right?

  355. Bob Griffin said

    Maz is right and you evolutionists are tripping. Here’s a very easy exercise for any of you to take on. Lets say the first animal is a flounder. The second is a cat. Take me through the steps to get from one to another.

  356. Maz said

    Bob: They can’t do it. They can’t even tell you how a real transition would take place let alone a hypothetical one.

  357. F. L. A. said

    We cannot do it because you are giving us a poor example of lifeforms to start off with in your exercise[And I seriously doubt that you understand WHY the provided example is poor], which either proves that you STILL do not understand ANYTHING, or you are just joking and not taking any of this seriously[But I can appreciate your humorous display of imagination].
    It took millions of years for Flounders to evolve into Flounders and Cats to evolve into Cats.
    Do you understand why you cannot just grab two modern species out of nature for your little exercise?

  358. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”It took millions of years for Flounders to evolve into Flounders and Cats to evolve into Cats”.

    Read this again, it doesn’t make sense.

    If you understand evolution atall you must understand how transitions occur. If there is enough evidence in the fossil record, you only have to explain the changes. A list of names which we have been given before on these sites is not enough.

    The fish to land animal is something evolution says happened, so why do you think I’m joking about it? Well….it is a joke I suppose…..fish trying to come to land…..what made them decide to come out of the water? All these questions that I’v posed are quite genuine, and if evolution is true there should be a genuine answer. Havn’t received one yet though.

  359. Bob Griffin said

    Once again Maz is right. FLA, please enlighten me. YOU pick the first example, then go to the second. Or are you assuming we all didnt come from ONE original animal?

  360. Maz said

    I watched a really good programme about birds feathers the other day. They are so intricately made and specialized for flight, there are different feathers for different purposes on a wing. The engineers that build our planes had to take their blueprints from bird wings……..something that supposedly just came by chance mutations. Another miracle, since mutations don’t usually improve an animal, but….(sigh)…we’ve been down this alley before havn’t we.

  361. F. L. A. said

    Maz, Bob did not say “a fish evolving into a mammal”, he picked a Flounder and a Cat.
    Do you understand why this makes for a poor beginning to this scenario?
    And we have given you examples and answers.
    Would you like for me to go back to older posts and compile a collection of post listings so that you may see how this has already been covered, again and again, and rejected/misunderstood by you and other Young Earth Christian Creationists again and again?
    I would recommend you trying another approach, but I do not know if any other approach to this topic would be any more enlightening for you.

  362. Maz said

    F.L.A: I have never heard an explanation of how a fish developes lungs while still possessing gills so it can still swim in water while learning how to breathe air…..which it can’t until the lungs are 100% made!

    I said that lists of names aren’t enough. What is the mechanics involved in creating lungs and keeping gills until the lungs are developed and the gills are then discarded….how?…… who knows!

  363. Maz said

    Have to go now, it’s 1 a.m. here now! Be back tomorrow!

  364. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    What is the first animal?

  365. F. L. A. said

    Bob, you would think that Maz is right.
    Tell me Bob, why will completing your little exercise[again] have different results for you THIS time considering that you were unsatisfied with the most excellent posts#209 and #224 provided by Abc’s the last time you presented us with this form of an exercise?
    Why ask questions that you do not, or can not, or will not want the answers to?

    Maz, why are you awake so late into the night?
    More back pain?

  366. F. L. A. said

    Are you asking about simple celled sea-life now, Bob?
    I’m going off to hunt.
    I’ll play with you some more tomorrow, eventually.

  367. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    Maz and I are trying to get you to use logic and really think about how this may have happened, instead of swallowing evolutionist dogma. Why is my simple question so hard for such an excellent hunter? I didnt ask for a recap of your list, just a simple question. What was the first animal, and how did we get to the second?

  368. Stanley said

    “If evolution really happened, why wouldn’t it have been possible for fish to human to have taken place? I mean, any kind of transition would have been possible right? All chance happenings right?”

    “Maz is right and you evolutionists are tripping. Here’s a very easy exercise for any of you to take on. Lets say the first animal is a flounder. The second is a cat. Take me through the steps to get from one to another.”

    Proof you guys know nothing about evolution.

  369. Maz said

    F.L.A: #365. No back pain. I only had a bad back some time ago when I decided to cut down some bushes and a tree in my garden……not something a woman of my age should do, but I felt very industrious that day.

    I just couldn’t sleep, things on my mind.

  370. Maz said

    F.L.A: You still won’t answer the question…….with an explanation of HOW things changed JUST BY CHANCE over millions of years. How a fish, with all the fishy DNA within it, could, even over millions of years, change from being a fish living in the sea with gills and all that fish need in that environement, to an animal that would need DNA information that it didn’t have before, within it’s cells, (where on earth did THAT come from?) to create lungs so it could come on land and breathe air.
    Lungs and gills are separate mechanisms completely different from each other…..explain to me how the gills would have been destroyed while the lungs were created….and how the fish would survive such a transformation? And you also have the need for the eyes to change and all the other systems of the body to live in an air/land environment instead of a totally watery……sea watery in some cases, environment.

    Lists of supposed transitions are not evidence for transitions as they can be interpreted wrongly. And in any case, the transition from fish to mammal…….warm blooded aswell….is so LARGE, it really doesn’t make sense when you really THINK about it logically.
    And then you have all the other types of animals needing the DNA within it’s cells BEFORE they can ever ‘think’ of changing from one species into another.

  371. Maz said

    Stanley: YOU explain it to us then.

  372. abc's said

    Maz and Bob

    When fish are taken out of the water, they suffocate. This is not because they cannot breathe the oxygen available in the air, but because their gill arches collapse and there is not enough surface area for diffusion to take place. There are actually some fish that can survive out of the water, such as the walking catfish which have modified lamellae allowing them to breathe air.
    The theory of evolution would predict that this modification came about by chance mutations during reproduction of ancestor fish. These fish are able to breathe oxygen from both water and air with the same gills.
    Fish that have adapted to be able to take in oxygen from both water and air have an evolutionary advantage in that they can survive in both environments. Early fish that could survive even for short periods of time on land had the advantage of being able to escape predators and/or monopolize a new foodsouce.
    Offspring of these fish that had carried the same traits as their parents and also gained newer genetic mutations that caused them to have slightly stronger fins for moving around on land, or slightly better air breathing gills were selected for because they had an even better chance of surviving and producing offspring.
    Some of these fish still exist today. Some groups of them slowly adapted their gills to only breath air and they evolved into amphibians. Other groups of these fish likely moved back into the water as competition eased when some of the fish moved to land.
    This is the evolutionary prediction and explanation for why fish exist that live only in water and amphibians which live both in and out of water.

  373. Maz said

    Abc’s: Thanks for that explanation, but it doesn’t really tell me how the new DNA came about, only that mutations happened, which would usually be detrimental rather than advantageous to a creature. These mutations would have to make fundemental changes to a creatures body in many areas to make it fit for another environment other than the one they originated in (that means not just gills to lungs) the changes would be fr more complex and have to change all at the same time to work together.
    There are many creatures that are like you said, amphibian, aswell as fish and other creatures that have the structures already there to live in their environements. I do not accept that this came about by evolution. The DNA as I said before, HAD TO BE THERE TO START WITH TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES.

  374. abc's said

    Maz

    That’s ok with me. I understand that you don’t accept the answer, I just felt the need to provide a basic scientific explanation. You can disagree with it, but at least you know exactly what you’re disagreeing with.

    When we talk about a genetic mutation in a fish’s gills that allowed for easier respiration in open air, we’re not talking about a huge change all at once. We’re talking about a tiny mutation that made the cell walls of the lamellae a little larger, or a little thicker.
    This would give the fish a small fraction more survivability outside of the water. Natural selection would work to ensure that the fish with the best air breathing gills would have the easiest time surviving to reproduce. Each successive generation would have slightly better lamellae for air breathing and so on. This is where time comes in.

  375. abc's said

    Maz

    “These mutations would have to make fundemental changes to a creatures body in many areas to make it fit for another environment other than the one they originated in (that means not just gills to lungs) the changes would be fr more complex and have to change all at the same time to work together.”

    Also, please remember that at the time when fish were first moving onto land there was no other competition on land. The fish didn’t need to be able to run quickly on land to escape predators, or hide under rocks etc. Their ability to even go onto land for even a few moments gave them a huge leg up on the competition.

  376. Maz said

    Abc’s: I guess I want a detailed account of the changes which would occur, and would have to occur to make a fish with gills into a land animal with lungs and all the accompanying structures within it’s body to live on land, apart from the fact that the eggs they layed in water would now have to also survive on land. I just can’t see so much change happening with chance mutations.

  377. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”Also, please remember that at the time when fish were first moving onto land there was no other competition on land. The fish didn’t need to be able to run quickly on land to escape predators, or hide under rocks etc. Their ability to even go onto land for even a few moments gave them a huge leg up on the competition.”

    This is all assumed by the scientists. I can just see the first fish trying to get a ‘leg up’!!

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…I’m sorry but that sounded really funny!

  378. abc's said

    Maz

    It’s unfortunate, but I can’t provide you with a detailed list of all the transitional species between fish and land dwelling animals.
    I could point to the fossil record and show many of the intermediates that we find in the right geographical regions and in the correct time in the geologic record that show characteristics that are part fish and part land dwelling animal, but you don’t accept the fossil record as evidence.

    All I hope to do is show you that the theory of evolution is plausible and follows a logical progression and has lots of evidence to support of it. I’ve given a very basic scenario of why and how fish might have evolved to begin the path to living on land. That’s the best I can do.

  379. abc's said

    Maz

    I’m glad you got the “leg up” joke.

  380. F. L. A. said

    Maz, I almost get the impression that you believe that DNA and genes are unable to change, ever.
    Tiny changes all add up to form big changes over time, and you cannot believe the ocean of time that has been available to help make such changes a reality.
    I could of course use a better, more detailed example, but that has been tried before with poor results. Why ask me[Whom you disbelieve anyway] when you could just do your own research into the matter and disagree with that? This information, and that requested by Bob is WIDELY available.
    You say that a list of examples does not satisfy you because you don’t trust the order that they are provided in and the sciences used to date the evidences.
    So….if excellent information from the best scientific minds in the world does not satisfy you, what exactly is it that you think a bibliophile beast with no formal education like me can do to enlighten you?
    Bob,and exactly how is it that your question has not already been answered to your satisfaction?
    If you are just waiting/expecting me to tell you what you think is the truth[In other words, agree with you that you are right] then you will never be satisfied, because you are wrong.
    You are a Young Earth Christian Creationists.
    I think that your concept of “logic” is much like your concept of history and scientific evidence, custom-made and self serving. And this is fine, of course, however it does not make it possible for me to give you an answer that you will ever allow yourself as a theologian to accept.
    You seem to have created for yourself a powerful psychological barrier that effectively filters out any form of enlightenment that is incompatible with your personal theological views.

  381. F. L. A. said

    By the way, thank you for all of your helpful posts, Abc’s.

  382. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”Maz, I almost get the impression that you believe that DNA and genes are unable to change, ever.
    Tiny changes all add up to form big changes over time, and you cannot believe the ocean of time that has been available to help make such changes a reality.”

    I do not believe it can change to the extent that evolution actually needs it to change.
    And the long ages are in question. The only reason evolutionists believe in millions of years is because they need that amount of time to make evolution appear feasable.
    But no matter how many noughts you put on the end of a number of years, evolution cannot happen, not the way they say it was supposed to.

    And when you think that a single cell is so complex in it’s own right, even intelligent beings like us cannot make such a mechanism that would work like a cell does. Have you ever seen or read about the amazing properties and abilities of a single cell? You should, then maybe you wouldn’t believe so easily in the large changes that are suppose to occur in an animal over however much time you give it to do so.

  383. F. L. A. said

    I know that you do not believe that DNA can change so much, but this puts us at a “dead end” in this debate if you are looking for more information on this topic.
    We evolutionists do not believe in a longer span of time than you simply because we think that this is what it takes to support Evolutionary Science.
    Yes Maz, I have read up on the topic. John has some books on the topic of cellular evolution. We have the text book “The Cell..A molecular approach[second addition], by Geoffrey M. Cooper.

  384. Maz said

    F.L.A: I won’t find any more information on the subject of evolving DNA because it doesn’t actually exist and never did. And did Mr. Cooper express his amazement at the complexity of the cell and have questions as to it’s origins from the primordial soup?

  385. Ed said

    In the last 2000 years, show me one new genus or species that has evolved to that state in the last 2000 years.

  386. John said

    As Ed told you on the newest site Maz, “Facts ignored are still facts.”
    Ed!
    Welcome back! We have missed hearing from you.
    Ed, are you a Young Earth Christian Creationists too?
    If so, then we are wondering what it is worth us to represent this kind of evidence yet again. Why not simply read all of the posts within all of the sites concerning this topic so you can get a good understanding about where everyone is in regards to this topic[something I heartily recommend everyone interested in this topic do regardless of their theological views, or lack of.],and this way you won’t waste time asking about old material that’s already been well covered, or if you don’t think your up to it, just the last few sites. This site here,the site “Was Darwin a Racist?”, and the sites “Was Darwin Right or Wrong?”[there are actually two of these, but only the most recent is displayed on the websites search, for some reason.].
    Try not to be put off by the number of posts.
    Good luck[smile].

  387. F. L. A. said

    John gives sound advice, Ed.
    Oh, and also….”Should a Bible believing Christian vote for Obama?” post#169.

  388. Bob Griffin said

    Stanley 368

    “It has been asked by the opponents of such views as I hold, how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one w aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted? It would be easy to show…..” That would be a statement from page 151 of the book by your hero, Charles Darwin. He thought it was possible. Any pithy retorts about how we dont get it?

  389. F. L. A. said

    Maz, post#384
    Yes it did and still does, my little clinging Army Ant head.
    Why, it seems that you would try to take advantage of the modern evidence of DNA evolution, to support your claims of cosmic entropy. If the evidence truly does not and never did exist, would this not destroy the Young Earth Christian Creationist idea that all mutations[Wich are caused by evolution] are harmful, that all of life in this world is degrading because of negative changes within it’s DNA?

  390. John said

    It is possible, Mr. Griffin.
    A study of the Cetaceans would be helpful for you.

  391. Bob Griffin said

    FLA 380

    More evasions from the Old Earth Evolutionist. You may have answered already and I missed it – what was the first animal and what were the steps to get to the second? My logic would work if there was no religion. You assume the 3 billion base pairs of DNA came together by chance. Please walk me throught just a few steps. I do have a powerful psychological barrier to believing evolution. Its called inference and logic. Theology has nothing to do with it.

  392. F. L. A. said

    [He thinks I’m evading him, as if I have nothing to tell him that can support my case. Such irony.]Ah…the old ambiogenesis grab bag argument, eh? Yes, I…we.. have answered, and I guess you did miss it. This was a long while ago, so perhaps you simply forgot? Do you recall any of the posts where I let it be known that as a theist myself I also held to a form of “creation” as far as the topic of ambiogenesis is concerned? Despite how the biological ball got to rolling on this planet, this still does nothing to cancel out all of the supporting evidence for evolution.
    “Was Darwin right or wrong?” posts#169 and #1064 by Chris C..

    “It’s called inference and logic. Theology has nothing to do with it.”-Bob
    Who do you think that you are kidding, Mr.Griffin? Your psychological barrier against evolution is supported by your Young Earth Creationists views. If not, then why not go back to the site “Was Darwin a Racist?” and pick up were Maz left off in the debate with MattF? He may still be around, and then you can discuss these things Christian to Christian. You already know what I think about your idea of logic.

    Want an example of “first life-forms”?
    Pre-Cambrian Stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation within Glacier National Park.
    Geological formations such as this possess 3.5 billion year old fossilized Cyanobacteria Microbes which COULD be the earliest forms of known life, however to even consider this, you would have to have faith in a world older than six thousand years.
    I am off now for the night.
    See you tomorrow, perhaps.

  393. Maz said

    John: ”As Ed told you on the newest site Maz, “Facts ignored are still facts.”

    And ofcourse, it all depends who’s FACTS are truly FACTS doesn’t it?

    F.L.A: ”Why, it seems that you would try to take advantage of the modern evidence of DNA evolution, to support your claims of cosmic entropy. If the evidence truly does not and never did exist, would this not destroy the Young Earth Christian Creationist idea that all mutations[Wich are caused by evolution] are harmful, that all of life in this world is degrading because of negative changes within it’s DNA?”

    I didn’t ”take advantage” of it, I simply believe DNA is information God has placed within every living thing, and it can’t EVOLVE.
    And entropy is a FACT that works AGAINST evolution.
    The evidence of DNA EVOLVING is not there, I didn’t mean mutations didn’t happen, they just didn’t happen for evolution to happen. The harmful mutations came about by sin and the curse entering into the world. In other words ENTROPY.

  394. Maz said

    F.L.A: You said to Bob ”Your psychological barrier against evolution is supported by your Young Earth Creationists views.”

    We could also say….Your psychological barrier against Creation is supported by your Evolutionistic views. You just can’t SEE or BELIEVE that they heavens and the earth could have been created 6000 years ago….because of supposed millions of years of fossil evidence. Even some of the earliest fossils show no sign of change to some of the animals and plants we see today, scientists call them ‘living fossils’….why no change if evolution happens? Did these particular animals and plants just ‘decide’ not to change, perhaps were happy with what they were and made sure they didn’t?

  395. Maz said

    Here’s an interesting bit of info I received this morning.

    Busting the big bang … again…….

    In 2004, numerous secular scientists wrote an open letter to New Scientist, effectively saying that the big bang theory of the origin of the universe was unsustainable. This in turn led to the first ‘Crisis in Cosmology’ conference in Portugal in 2005. And more recently, in September 2008, a second such conference has taken place in the US. It is quite amazing to hear these scientists, many of whom are not Christians, say that the big bang is nothing more than a myth.

  396. abc's said

    Bob
    re 388

    “It has been asked by the opponents of such views as I hold, how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one w aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted? It would be easy to show…..”

    i’m just finishing the paragraph that you quote mined

    “that there now exist carnivorous animals presenting close intermediate grades from strictly terrestrial to aquatic habits; and as each exists by a struggle for life, it is clear that each must be well adapted to its place in nature. Look at the Mustela vison of North America, which has webbed feet, and which resembles an otter in its fur, short legs, and form of tail. During the summer this animal dives for and preys on fish, but during the long winter it leaves the frozen waters and preys, like other pole-cats, on mice and land animals.”

    He then goes on to list other examples of species that exhibit intermediate traits.

  397. Maz said

    Abc’s: And how does that prove that it actually IS an intermediate and not a separate species in it’s own right, just because it LOOKS LIKE it is inbetween? What is a duck billed platypus changing into I wonder?

    What about the Kingfisher who dives into the water to catch fish…..maybe it will develope gills and be able to live in the water one day…..a million years from now?!

    Or the monkey that flies! It has skin that when it’s arms are outstretched makes it possible for it to glide from tree to tree. Maybe one day it will grow feathers instead of fur and be able to fly properly!

    And how on earth do some creatures learn how to mimic other creatures, changing it’s shape and colour. Or the chameleon who changes colour?

    And what of the creatures in the depths of the sea that have LIGHTS on their bodies!!

    How do all these weird and wonderful creatures ever evolve (just by chance mutations!)such clever abilities!?
    Truly amazing!

  398. abc's said

    Maz

    “And how does that prove that it actually IS an intermediate and not a separate species in it’s own right, just because it LOOKS LIKE it is inbetween?”

    The only thing the post proves is that the person who tried to use a quote by Darwin to suggest that he didn’t believe the theory of evolution was being intentionally dishonest by leaving out Darwin’s own answer to the question.

    People asked Darwin how it would be possible for a mammal to make the transition from terrestrial to aquatic living. His answer: the mink exhibits the traits we would expect to find.

    Also, intermediates ARE independent species in their own right.

  399. Maz said

    Abc’s: Question: At what stage of transition does a species become another species? And how do you know it has reached the end of it’s evolution? THAT is the problem.
    Supposedly we are all continuing to evolve into something else, so how do we become another species separate from what we were before?

  400. abc's said

    Maz

    That seems to be the problem with your understanding.

    The most common marker for divergent species is when 2 populations of a species are no longer able to reproduce between each other.

    Species never reach the end of the evolutionary process.

    “Supposedly we are all continuing to evolve into something else, so how do we become another species separate from what we were before?”

    Given enough time, the tiny genetic mutations that add up in each succesive generation of one population of a species causes enough genetic divergence from another population of the same species that those 2 populations are no longer able to reproduce. They were exactly the same genetically, but they diverge and become 2 separate species.

    Granted, if they were birds to start with, they are still birds, but they are 2 different species of birds now. We observe these types of speciation events often, and they support the theory of evolution.

  401. Maz said

    Abc’s: You use the ‘understanding’ excuse again……I DO UNDERSTAND, that is the problem, I SEE EXACTLY what evolution is and I SEE the problems with it. You, somehow, do not.

    And if they get to a place where they can’t reproduce…….why don’t they die out, which would be the natural course of events when a species goes sterile? (sounds like another form of entropy to me).

    OK birds are still birds? But evolution tells us birds were once reptiles….or dinosaurs.

  402. Maz said

    PS: Abc’s: You are assuming that there would naturally be two populations in existence when evolution occurs.

  403. abc's said

    Max

    “And if they get to a place where they can’t reproduce…….why don’t they die out, which would be the natural course of events when a species goes sterile? (sounds like another form of entropy to me).”

    The species does not become sterile and die out.
    Here’s a real world example.

    A species of lizard moves to the NE side of a mountain range. Over time the population grows to where the lizards are living on all sides of the mountain. Over time, the lizards that live on the NE side of the mountain adapt differently to the slightly different environment as the lizards living on the SW side because they are now geographically distanced.

    After a few succesive generations, a lizard on the NE side of the mountain will no longer be able to interbreed with a lizard on the SW side of the mountain even though they share direct common ancestors. They began as 1 population of the same species, but now split into 2 different populations and 2 separate species.

    They did not become sterile inside their own populations and die out, the populations only become genetically different from each other because of genetic mutation and natural selection based on the differences in their habitat.

    We call these speciation events. One species of lizard diverged into 2 species of lizard. This is micro evolution. Macro evolution just takes place over a much longer period of successive generations.

    We observe speciation events often, and I can provide links to specific examples if you would like. We have reproduced this type of speciation in the lab with flies and bacteria. We have done this countless times with our cultivation of plants. We do this when we selectively breed animals, like dogs and fish.

  404. Maz said

    Abc’s: So let me get this straight….to have a species evolve into another species you have to have a species that divides into two groups and one changes while the other doesn’t. The new species carries on and the old one dies out, or we get two separate species. So is that what happened to dino’s to birds?

    So you say it is the habitat that makes the animal change? But how can outside influences in nature create new DNA within the cells of an existing animal to mutate to a completely different animal? Are you saying that is what happened to dinosaurs? They mutated into birds because of their habitat?

    Now there is natural selection…which occus in nature but only to a certain extent, and then there is evolution, one animal changing into a different animal……the dino’s to birds thing.

  405. Maz said

    Abc’s: I accept that there is change possible WITHIN a genus (or species, I can never get them right, but you know what I mean…I hope), but evolution from one animal to an entirely new animal is stretching the imagination……even one that can think in millions of years!!

  406. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    All I asked for was the first animal and then the second.

  407. abc's said

    Maz

    “So let me get this straight….to have a species evolve into another species you have to have a species that divides into two groups and one changes while the other doesn’t.”

    Not exactly, and keep in mind this one only one way that a new species arises.

    The original species could subdivide into many groups depending on the environment, and all of these groups are subject to change by genetic mutation and natural selection. It’s also possible that the groups don’t substantially diverge from each for a very long time.

    “The new species carries on and the old one dies out, or we get two separate species. So is that what happened to dino’s to birds?”

    Not exactly. Both species could die out, or they could both survive and continue to evolve into an even greater variety of species. The new and greater variety of species could all become extinct as well.

    There were a lot of different species of dinosaurs. Some of them died out, some are relatively unchanged, such as sharks and crocodiles, and others did evolve into the common ancestor that all birds share.

    “So you say it is the habitat that makes the animal change?”

    No, genetic mutations are what change the animals at the genomic level, but the habitat naturally selects for the lizards that are best suited to their environment.

    “But how can outside influences in nature create new DNA within the cells of an existing animal to mutate to a completely different animal?”

    Again, the environment does not create the dna. The changes in dna arise from random genetic mutation during reproduction. The environment only selects for the individuals that are best suited to the environment.

    “Are you saying that is what happened to dinosaurs? They mutated into birds because of their habitat?”

    Some of them did. It’s not just my personal opinion. This is a prediction of the theory of evolution, and there are many lines of evidence that support the dino’s to birds line of ancestry.

  408. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs 396

    Thanks for finishing the quote. So tell me how that eliminates the preposterous idea of a mermaid.

  409. Maz said

    Bob: The thing is, there is no first and second if evolution were true, it would just all start with a load of jelly which somehow changed it’s shape siz and added bits and different populations then divided like Abc’s said and they would all add bits to their bodies……and on one side of the earth you have the jelly stuff changing into little sea jelly things and the other side changing into land jelly things…….honestly this is rediculous!!! (And I mean the idea of evolution!!)

  410. Maz said

    Correction….siz….should be size…

  411. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”This is a prediction of the theory of evolution”

    I think you have it right there. Prediction. Telling us something that hasn’t happened yet…….and actually never will.

  412. abc's said

    Bob

    It doesn’t eliminate the idea of a mermaid. It only shows that either you, or the person who wrote the article that you took the quote from didn’t read the whole page from the book.

  413. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    Micro, micro, micro ad nauseum. We are told we all came from ONE animal. Logic would tell you there have to be some transitional forms coming from that. Since you dont like my logic, please explain it to me.

  414. Maz said

    Abc’s: Can you tell me again how DNA is created?

  415. abc's said

    Maz

    The conversation was going so well. I felt like, for once, you were honestly asking questions about the theory and that you wanted answers.

    I think I did a fair job of answering your questions. In the most recent line of questioning you haven’t asked anything that the theory of evolution doesn’t have an explanation for. I could also provide lots of links to real world examples of speciation events.

    Instead of providing some evidence that speciation events don’t occur, and that they don’t lead to macro evolution in the long term you just reverted back to restating the claim that it is impossible because you don’t believe it.

  416. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    If it doesnt eliminate the idea of a mermaid, why do you?

  417. Stanley said

    Can you tell me again how DNA is created Maz?
    God did it is not adequate.

  418. abc's said

    Bob

    Because the evidence that we have from genetics, physiology, biology, anatomy and transitional fossils show that people and fish do not share a direct line of descent.

  419. Bob Griffin said

    ABCS

    If we start with DNA, before any evolution or any other process can occur, it would make very good sense to wonder how something with 3 billion base pairs came together at the same time in the correct order.

    Got to go to ortho, eye dr and church. Ill check in tonite.

  420. Maz said

    Abc’s: My questions were not for my information….I didn’t need to know something which I believe is erroneous, I wanted you to see from you own answers the fallacy of evolution. I guess you havn’t.

    You see, the fact is that habitat makes no appreciable difference to animals physical makeup….let me allow a scientist to speak about the environment and what effect it has on animals:

    ”ENVIRONMENT: This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because she is exposed to more sunshine. Or another may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die; they are not passed on. In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’.1 In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.”

    So the environment DOES NOT get passed on to successive generations.

  421. Maz said

    I should have said….So the small changes that the environment cause DO NOT get passed on….

  422. abc's said

    Maz

    From the article you quoted.

    “You see, the fact is that habitat makes no appreciable difference to animals physical makeup….let me allow a scientist to speak about the environment and what effect it has on animals:”

    The author is correct. I specifically stated, 4 times, in different ways that the environment has no effect on the genetic makeup of an animal, especially a single organism.

    “In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited.”

    That was a popular belief, IN THE MIDDLE 1800’s, but it’s certainly not scientific consensus now, we have better information and more evidence.

  423. abc's said

    Maz

    “My questions were not for my information….I didn’t need to know something which I believe is erroneous,”

    How is this any different than

    “Instead of providing some evidence that speciation events don’t occur, and that they don’t lead to macro evolution in the long term you just reverted back to restating the claim that it is impossible because you don’t believe it.”

  424. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”you just reverted back to restating the claim that it is impossible because you don’t believe it.”

    I don’t claim it is impossible simply because I don’t believe it…..that is what evolutionists do about Creation……I read the evidence from scientists that shows it is impossible and then I believe it. Ofcourse you will say I read the wrong scientists……that’s your opinion.

    At the end of the day, there is too much against evolution EVER getting started, let alone continuing SUCCESSFULLY??? for millions of years. Mutations don’t have THAT MUCH success however much time you give it.

  425. Maz said

    Abc’s: Now I AM confused….you stated that habitat can cause changes in an animal, now you are saying that what the article said was correct…..that environement DOESN’T cause any change in an animal…????

  426. Maz said

    Abc’s: This is what you said in #403:

    ”Over time, the lizards that live on the NE side of the mountain adapt differently to the slightly different environment as the lizards living on the SW side because they are now geographically distanced.”

    ”…adapt differently to the slightly different environment..”

  427. abc's said

    Maz

    These are my exact words.

    “No, genetic mutations are what change the animals at the genomic level, but the habitat naturally selects for the lizards that are best suited to their environment.”

    “Again, the environment does not create the dna. The changes in dna arise from random genetic mutation during reproduction. The environment only selects for the individuals that are best suited to the environment.”

    The article you are quoting from is misleading. It is referring to “an animal” as a specific instance of one single animal. Like one person who gets stronger by lifting weights. The article is correct in saying that these types of physical changes made directly by the environment do not become inherited traits.

  428. abc's said

    Maz

    I should’ve said.

    ”Over time, the ANCESTOR GENERATIONS of lizards that live on the NE side of the mountain will have adapted differently to the slightly different environment as the ANCESTORS of the lizards living on the SW side because they are geographically distanced.”

  429. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”The article you are quoting from is misleading. It is referring to “an animal” as a specific instance of one single animal. Like one person who gets stronger by lifting weights. The article is correct in saying that these types of physical changes made directly by the environment do not become inherited traits.”

    But doesn’t it start with one animal…..then another…and then another….but do mutations get passed on? I don’t think so.

    I watch a lot of science programmes and I see mutations in human babies…..but they are all bad, harmful, and deadly, and they don’t get passed on…thank goodness!

  430. abc's said

    Maz

    “But doesn’t it start with one animal…..then another…and then another….but do mutations get passed on? I don’t think so.”

    I guess we’ll just leave it at that then. You are the final authority on any scientific consensus. You don’t think so, therefore it doesn’t happen.

  431. Maz said

    Abc’s: ‘I don’t think so’……..because of the information I get from scientists that know better than I do.

  432. abc's said

    One word:

    confirmation bias

  433. Maz said

    Abc’s: One word….bias.

  434. F. L. A. said

    And yet…..somehow………life goes on…[snicker].

    I commend your work and patience with the Christian Young Earthers, Abc’s.
    I apologize for not offering you more support in this matter.John has completely given up on them as one would on the hopelessly insane, and I am beginning to grow somewhat bored with the repetition and misunderstanding.
    I wonder where Ed is? Off reading all of those referred posts?

  435. Maz said

    F.L.A: I have similar feelings. 🙂

  436. F. L. A. said

    That you are dealing with the hopelessly insane, or bored by the repetition and misunderstanding?
    Both probably, eh?

  437. Maz said

    F.L.A: I wouldn’t call you ‘hopelessly insane’, I would call you hopelessly lost and deceived.

    I meant I am becoming bored by the repitition and misunderstanding.

  438. F. L. A. said

    I would call you insane, but as to whether or not you are hopelessly insane remains to be seen.
    I keep coming back because I am argumentative, meddling, stubborn, and attracted to weirdness.
    Why do you keep coming back?

  439. Maz said

    F.L.A: Stubborn perhaps……or just that I have nothing else to do at the moment. I’m waiting for a new question that has nothing to do with politics.

  440. abc's said

    F.L.A.

    I appreciate the comments.

    I have a lot of patience as I have chosen teaching as my profession, but I always take it as a failing on my part when someone doesn’t understand something that I can explain and provide evidence for.

    But, I do feel vindicated with the knowledge that at least in my experience, I very rarely meet a person or student that doesn’t accept science. I’m also confident that belief in young earth creationism is for the most part, on its way out.

  441. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”I very rarely meet a person or student that doesn’t accept science.”

    You mean evolutionary science.

    I accept science that isn’t based on assumptions and myth.

  442. abc's said

    Maz

    No, I meant Science and that’s why I wrote it.

  443. F. L. A. said

    “I accept science that isn’t based on assumptions and myth”

    Please explain to us evolutionists again what sciences support the Young Earth Creationist Christian idea that all animal[and plant]life were peaceful herbivores before the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden that lived without killing, disease, or death of any kind?

  444. Maz said

    Abc’s: So any science that doesn’t agree with the theory of evolution and the likes of Richard Dawkins is no science atall?

  445. Maz said

    F.L.A: I thot you were getting bored with repitition? I would have to repeat myself.

  446. F. L. A. said

    My point is that the only “sciences” that can be found to support your ideas are created and promoted by Young Earth Christian Creationist sources.
    Real science needs no theological support, at least not exclusively.
    Sciences should be used to help support theology, if and when possible, sciences should not be deemed “true” ONLY if they can be supported by [one version of]theology.

  447. Ed said

    Sorry if I offend. I have only started blogging here. I did not know if this was already covered.
    The science does not support old earth. The Bible can be read (loosely) to support either.
    I know that God made the earth. How he did it is for science to attempt to figure out.
    If you want to make the issue of myth or assumptions, evolution requires too many leaps of faith, unprovable assumptions and myths created daily.

  448. F. L. A. said

    It is good to hear from you once again, Ed.
    For you…”Was Darwin right or wrong?” post#169 and#178[I am feeling a little lazy, so I just present posts that go along with how I feel.].
    I cannot speak for others, but you did not offend me, if this is any consolation.
    Those are some bold claims about modern science.
    Can you please provide us with some good examples of how science does not support the existence of an ancient Earth, and how modern evolutionary science has no good evidence to support it?

  449. Ed said

    FLA
    Halflife of Hydrogen, for the ancient Earth.
    No new speicies, even in virusus and bacterium for modern evolutionary science.
    Just two. Plus the fact that in order to get what we know as life the odds are, well, rather astounding.

  450. F. L. A. said

    Thankyou for responding so quickly Ed.
    Is that all of it?

  451. Ed said

    FLA
    I have not sat and studied all the intracacies of evolution, or the denounciation as such. Too many other things vying for my time.
    Evolution as far as adaptation is well proven and proves a wise, all knowing God. If all of creation were to have been done so at Gensis, no animal would be alive today. The differences in creation due to environmental stressors (Indian and African elephants would be a perfect example of this) is not a God who is out of control either.
    Question, what effect does evolution have with Christianity? How does that change what happened 2000 years ago with Jesus Christ? How is that supposed to remove the power and authority of God. If God used evolution to create, then cool. If not, cool. I beleive that God can use anything to his will. He wrote the laws.

  452. Ed said

    BTW FLA
    How did the duck billed playapus evolve into the creature it is today? How about the bombadire beetle? Without the Genesis account, how did we as humans wear clothes while the rest of the animal kingdom does not?

  453. John said

    Ferox[F. L. A.] is out[hunting, playing around, spying on campers and alligator poachers, exploring,etc.etc.]for the night, sorry. Just me for now[smile].
    We are…”siblings”…kinda.
    Welcome back!
    For someone who feels strongly about the topic, why not study up on it some more? Did you read those other sites?
    I do not understand what you meant when you said “If all of creation were to have been done so at Genesis, no animal would be alive today.”
    What effects does evolution have with Christianity? Only those effects that we as people allow it to have, I guess. I know of some Christians that incorporate evolutionary science into their faith harmoniously, some that are apathetic about it, and some that hate and rail against it all the time because they think it is a threat to their faith.
    What about you Ed?

    How does this effect what happened over two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ? I don’t think evolution has anything to do with this event. How COULD evolution effect it?

    How does it remove the power and authority of your deity?
    I don’t think it does. But I can see how it can complicate the heck out of things for the Christian that wishes to take Biblical creation stories literally, and then get into scientific debates with skeptics and evolutionists.

    Ferox and I believe that deities use the powers of evolution to suit there needs/whims.

    The Duck Billed Platypus is a very weird animal.I can respect why Christian Creationists keep using it in their argumentation. What ABOUT the Bombadire Beetle? This defense mechanism is really not much more complicated than, say, the Spitting Cobra being able to squirt it’s venom over nine feet up into some poor mans eyes, or a BristleCone Snail being able to fire out a deadly venomous “harpoon” to help it kill and eat fish. It’s just a chemical reaction.

    Other, non-Christian theological faiths also speak of humanities first time wearing clothing, but theology aside, clothing has been a part of humanity since the times when people were just barely “human-looking”, by todays superficial standards. Other animals such as some of the “great Apes” of Africa have been seen wearing large leaves that they are using as “sun hats” and “umbrellas”, and although this may not qualify as a good example of other animals also wearing clothing, it give one ideas about the early mans ancestors origins of clothing.

  454. Ed said

    John
    The inital idea that Darwin was facing in the scientific community is that adaptation did not occur.
    As far as the apologetics of Genesis, I have studied but none of the stuff I have read is comming to the forefront of my mind. Kinda crushed by the nuke power stuff I learned in the Navy.
    As far as evolution, I could care less. God did it. How he did it is matter of speculation and science. To completely remove God from the equation would be like removing the equals sign. The sign to replace it is approxamate or the greatest possibility is.
    Sun hats and umbrellas may seem as redementary clothing, but many animals seek shelter from direct sunlight and rain, just that apes have opposable thumbs and as my pup has learned is a great advantage over just jaws.
    How did the bombadire beetle come to the simple chemical reaction? I serously doubt that it had a chemistry set to figure out the proper chemicals and balances to get the desired effect without killing itself.

  455. Bob Griffin said

    Lets see – neither of us can prove our point w no doubt. I believe something with 3 billion base pairs was created. You believe it happened by itself. And Im certifiably insane.

  456. John said

    My brother Summer is in the Navy right now.
    Anyway, this beetle exists within 500 known species divided between four genera which all use different chemical mechanisms for self defense. Would not this enormous variation be a good example of evolutionary development? Close relatives of the Bombardiers show various rudimentary versions of the Bombardiers chemical mechanism, another sign of evolutionary development.
    I have to go to bed now, but we can talk about this some more tomorrow if you like[assuming that someone else doesn’t jump in and pick it up were I left off].
    Goodnight.

  457. John said

    Well at least you have the courage to admit it Bob, and that’s a start.

  458. Anonymous said

    Bob

    “Lets see – neither of us can prove our point w no doubt. I believe something with 3 billion base pairs was created. You believe it happened by itself. And Im certifiably insane.”

    Actually, you believe in a God that exists in 3 different parts, and each part is immutable and never existed without the others, and has perfect knowledge, and loves and seeks a personal relationship with each person in order that they not be eternally punished after they die,
    created the base pairs and put them in order just a few thousand years ago.

  459. Bob Griffin said

    Read Science Illustrated at the orthodontist today. They were talking about atavisms – rare occurrences of an ancestral trait. They thought that webbed digits probably werent atavisms, but could be a throwback to the fins that our earliest ancestors possessed.

  460. Maz said

    F.L.A: #446.
    ”My point is that the only “sciences” that can be found to support your ideas are created and promoted by Young Earth Christian Creationist sources.”

    I could also say that the only sciences that can be found to support your ideas (and actually they aren’t MINE) are created and promoted by evolutionist sources. Well OFCOURSE they are!
    A creationist is nt going to see the scientific evidence the way an evolutionists interprets it anymore than an evolutionists is going to see the scientific evidence as a Creationist sees it.
    The scientific evidence is the same, it is HOW scientists interpret it….and that means it comes from a world view……yours is evolutionistic and man-made and ours is from the very Creator Himself. I’d rather trust God myself.

    And creationists do not use science to support the Bible, the Bible needs no support. In fact they find that science proves the Bible to be correct…..but then you won’t agreee with that because you don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God, or that it is true. So you are already biased AGAINST the Bible, and AGAINST Creation.

  461. Bob Griffin said

    John

    Maybe you can get some umbrellas and take some of your ape relatives to the beach.

  462. F. L. A. said

    Maz, post#101 by MattF on the site Was Darwin a Racist?” with special attention given to the crime scene scenario at the bottom end of the post.
    Maz, this is not a case of evolutionists and Christian Creationists having the same evidence and then interpreting it differently to suit each others needs.
    This is more along the lines of scientists confirming that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, and Young Earth Christian Creationists saying that yes it does, and who cares because the truth is that we all live on Saturn anyway, everyone else who disagrees is just too blind to see it.

    Bob, John’s relatives do not really care for the beach. The parking is terrible and expensive, and the saltwater hurts the eyes and makes the skin sticky[Huge sharp-toothed grin].

  463. Maz said

    Ferox: ”Maz, this is not a case of evolutionists and Christian Creationists having the same evidence and then interpreting it differently to suit each others needs.”

    But it is. The evidence we have is no different whoever looks at it.

    ”This is more along the lines of scientists confirming that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, and Young Earth Christian Creationists saying that yes it does, and who cares because the truth is that we all live on Saturn anyway, everyone else who disagrees is just too blind to see it.”

    And now you are just being silly.

  464. Anonymous said

    F.L.A.

    “Maz, this is not a case of evolutionists and Christian Creationists having the same evidence and then interpreting it differently to suit each others needs.”

    I agree.

    To me, accepting science but not the theory of evolution is exactly the same as someone saying,

    “I accept mathematics, but I don’t believe in subtraction.”

  465. abc's said

    464 was me

  466. Maz said

    Anon: Or perhaps it’s the same sum but someone has the answer wrong.

  467. John said

    Maz, if Y.E.Christians are looking at the same evidence, then how come we evolutionists have MORE evidences than you to work with and present to the curious public?
    In the past you have mentioned the Cambrian Layer to help back up the biblical Flood story and lend support to the creationists idea that a huge amount of lifeforms suddenly appeared all at one time, but at the same time choosing not to believe the very same science that was used to discover and date the Cambrian Layer and it’s fossils[as well as not explaining why the only animal fossils within the Cambrian Layer are…. the very animal fossils that evolutionistic scientists predicted would be there. Why are there no “modern” animal fossils, such as cows, birds, or even primitive reptiles, Maz? We evolutionists would say that they hadn’t evolved yet, as it was waaaaay to far back in history. What does your science say on this matter? Hmmmm?].
    One who is seriously trying to understand and learn about such matters cannot simply “pick and choose” out of scientific evidences what is true and false based on how good it sounds to the individual.

  468. Maz said

    John: You don’t.

    So where DID the Cambrian explosion come from?

  469. Maz said

    John: OK…here is something for you about how the Cambrian Explosion Disproves Evolution.
    It’s 23.45 p.m. and I have to go to bed….Good night!

    One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion” Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail. This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.” It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory. Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge. Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.

    Cambrian Explosion

    “Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

    Layers Above and Below

    Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.

    Darwin Knew

    Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time. Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory. They were wrong! Exactly the opposite happened. After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better. Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story. The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all.

    No Correlation

    Remember, evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed out of the primordial soup. This ancient ancestor gradually evolved. Its evolutionary progress branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly complex and divergent organic forms. The paths continued to branch out resulting in the great diversity of life we have today. Now, if this is true, what would you expect to see in the fossil record? Of course you would expect to see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a gradual increase in diversity and complexity of life as you progress to more recent layers in the geologic time scale. But what do we really find in the fossil record? We find the exact opposite. Not something ambiguous like everything found in each layer. No, you find the exact opposite of what is predicted by evolution. From a correlation perspective you do not find a factor of 1, meaning perfect correlation, or a 0, meaning no correlation, you find a -1, meaning perfectly uncorrelated to the prediction. Now I don’t know about you, but I find this compelling proof that evolution did not happen. This begs the question, how much proof do evolutionary scientists need anyway?

    Belief In Spite of Evidence

    You must be saying to yourself at this point, “How could that be? How could they speak about this theory with such surety with such strong evidence to the contrary?” The answer is simple. They believe the theory in spite of the evidence. That is why many leading creation scientists keep referring to evolution as a philosophy of science or even a religion. This belief is so strong in academic circles that scientists are chided if they even question evolution publicly. Why are they ridiculed? They are ridiculed because the only alternative to evolution is creation. Some like to pretend there are a variety of options in explaining origins. This is simply not so. The options often presented are merely shades of the two primary options, and scientists know this.

    Conclusion

    If evolution did not take place, if the natural forces at work today did not create the diversity of life we see on our little blue world, then something supernatural must be responsible. True science seeks to understand, no matter what the philosophical or metaphysical ramifications may be. That is why evolution is not science, but rather a philosophy, for it seeks to explain things within only one possible framework, whether or not this framework is true. The facts are that the scientists’ own interpretation of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that every species appeared at once suddenly and then gradually died off with the passage of time. The significance of this great body of evidence against evolutionary theory in the fossil record cannot be stressed enough. It is utterly devastating to evolutionary theory completely by itself. But in the final analysis, it is but one of a plethora of scientific facts that refute the 19th century fable that is evolution.

  470. John said

    [Grin]
    Cute Maz. I think I know where you got all of this from.
    I will pick it to pieces later, unless someone with more time than me[…”hint”,”hint”, get off your tail and do something Ferox]jumps in and beats me to it.
    Goodnight.

  471. Maz said

    John: I didn’t get it from where you THINK I got it atall!!

  472. abc's said

    Maz

    You’re forgetting that the Cambrian period lasted for at least 50 million years. During this time period, there were no plants on land anywhere in the world. We have only found sparse evidence that any animal life was moving onto land. Most life existed in shallow seas, and none of the modern day animals we have existed yet. There were no mammals, no reptiles, no birds, even the dinosaurs weren’t around yet. Trilobites were the dominant lifeform.

  473. Bob Griffin said

    John

    Go ahead and pick. This will be interesting.

  474. Maz said

    Abc’s: How can I forget something that I don’t accept and believe? You are not speaking from knowledge but from what evolutionists tell us they THINK happened.

  475. abc's said

    Maz

    If you don’t accept that the Cambrian explosion was a real period of time of natural history, then how can you use it as evidence against evolution?

  476. Maz said

    John: I’v read both sides of the argument and I would rather believe those who have God-given integrity, than biased evolutionists who deny their God-given conscience, and Divine origins.

  477. Stanley said

    Its not what you’d rather believe, it is what happened. Feelings are irrelevant.

  478. Maz said

    Abc’s: The so-called Cambrian explosion is historical…..it’s there isn’t it. But it’s the length of time that I and many scientists don’t agree with evolutionists about.

  479. Maz said

    Stanley: Where did I mention ‘feelings’?

  480. Stanley said

    How long do you think it lasted? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

  481. Stanley said

    “I would rather believe,” “than biased evolutionists”

  482. abc's said

    Maz

    You also overlook all of the other facts:

    “During this time period, there were no plants on land anywhere in the world. We have only found sparse evidence that any animal life was moving onto land. Most life existed in shallow seas, and none of the modern day animals we have existed yet. There were no mammals, no reptiles, no birds, even the dinosaurs weren’t around yet. Trilobites were the dominant life form.”

    You are claiming that the Cambrian period was a few thousand years ago, and people existed then as well as all of the present day mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. You also claim that all of these animals became extinct because of a worldwide flood just a few thousand years ago. These are all scientific claims based on false assumptions that have been falsified with an enormous amount of evidence.

    Do you see how far away from the facts you are straying?

  483. Maz said

    Abc’s: Evolutionists believe in long periods about almost everything (otherwise their theories just don’t fit!)……and ofcourse the Cambrain explosion is no different. Why couldn’t these layers have been laid down quickly? In a global flood, all sorts of animal remains can get swept around the globe and laid down together. If you deny the global flood then your theories about the layers are faulty, because you do not take this event into account.

    And who is more likely to use ‘assumptions’!!!?

  484. Maz said

    Stanley: Maybe if you answer my posts I will answer yours.

  485. abc's said

    Maz

    “And who is more likely to use ‘assumptions’!!!?”

    The Young Earth Creationist.

  486. Maz said

    Abc’s: ‘Probably’ ‘possibly’ ‘maybe’ ‘might have been’ ‘could be’ ‘thought to be’…….by evolutionist.

  487. Stanley said

    The thing is though, the evolutionists know that you can’t necessarily observe what happened in the past, you can only make good assumptions with the factual evidence. Unlike creationists, who just assume their book is right and so their theory is right.

  488. Mike S. said

    So you’re saying that evolutionists realize that they are making assumptions… So why don’t they act like it? They too assume that evolution is right… They come with a priori conclusions too.

  489. Maz said

    Stanley: We look at the evidence, aswell as the Bible. In other words we have the Bible that agrees with what we see in the evidence, what have you got besides?

  490. Maz said

    Stanley: ACtually I don’t ‘assume’ the Bible is right, I believe it is right.

  491. Stanley said

    I get it, you guys won’t believe in evolution. How much factual evidence do you need? And since we have sufficient evidence, do you just ignore it, or not understand it?

  492. Maz said

    Stanley: Mmmmmmm. I get it too, you WON’T believe in God and His creation. How much factual evidence do YOU need? And since we have sufficient evidence of Creation, do YOU just igore it, or do YOU not understand it?

  493. Stanley said

    What evidence? The fact that there is a world is not evidence. The bible is not evidence. Personal testimony is not evidence.

  494. Mike S. said

    Big bang presupposes a “Big Banger”
    Design presupposes a “Designer”
    Moral law presupposes a “Moral Law Giver”

  495. Maz said

    Stanley: The Bible ITSELF is not evidence, but you don’t seem to SEE what is in the world around you. The butterfly that alights on a flower, the robin that sings sweetly in the tree, the beautiful abundance of colourful flowers, exquisite shades of differing hues. The vast array of animals from insects to elephants and whales. The beautiful clours on fish aswell as birds in tropical countries, I could go on…..LOOK AT IT…..honestly, can you not SEE the Creators work in every petal and every feather? Are you so blind not to see this? And accidental evolution is man’s explanation for it all. Incredulous!
    As the saying goes, there is none so blind than those who will not see.

  496. Stanley said

    Wrong, wrong, aaaand wrong.

  497. Bob Griffin said

    4 feet of snow today. I guess your SCIENCE of global warming may be a little off.

  498. Mike S. said

    The omniscient Stanley speaks!! Ha

  499. Maz said

    I should have said, ‘the Bible BY ITSELF is not evidence’…..altho I would say the Bible is enough to believe what God says even without the evidence.

  500. Maz said

    Stanley: I’m not sure I go along with this ‘global warming’, some scientists are talking about a global cooling.

  501. Maz said

    Sorry that was not Stanleys post….(#497)

  502. Stanley said

    I don’t buy into global warming. I do think we need to reduce our emissions, because the Earth is much more delicate than how we treat it.

  503. Mike S. said

    It’s a first! (well maybe a WFU 2nd), I agree with Stanley.

  504. Maz said

    Stanley: I AGREE!! But I really think it is getting a bit late to start reducing emissions, the damage has already been done. I was watching a programme about it the other day actually.
    Afcourse, we MUST reduce the emissions anyway….and America is one of the worst culprits!!

  505. Stanley said

    Agreed

  506. Stanley said

    Agreed

  507. Bob Griffin said

    Going to the National Apologetics Conference this weekend. Ill check in Sunday with more topics for discussion. I wish ABCS and FLA could be there.

  508. Mike S. said

    Soak it up Bob. Some great minds will be there. Weekends like that are like drinking from a fire hose. Bring your funnel!!

  509. Stanley said

    Or your beer bong.

  510. Mike S. said

    Spoken like a true college student!!

  511. Stanley said

    😀

  512. F. L. A. said

    …[Huge sharp-toothed grin]…
    Maz, Abc’s asked a good question within post#475. The very sciences that date periods of the ancient Earth are the very sciences that are used to support biblical historical facts. As Abc’s said, it is like one claiming to believe in mathmatics but not believing in subtraction. This is an example of some of that scientific biasness that John was talking about within post#467.
    Your responding quote/post sounded good, until an educated person stopped to think about it for a moment. As mentioned by Abc’s and John, this period, the Cambrian Period[That you turn to for help but shouldn’t believe in because it is too old to exist in your version of the universe.]ONLY contains those remains of lifeforms that Evolutionary Scientists predict should be there, and none of them are lifeforms that existed before six thousand, twenty thousand, a hundred thousand, one million years ago. Your posts quote claimed that it contained “every phyla known to man” but this is not what you think it means. There is a huge difference between the words phyla and species. And so what of the mass extinctions that occurred after the Cambrian period? This happens throughout the Earths history for various reasons, and seems to be a big stumbling block against the idea of Jehovah either not allowing “DEATH” to exist before the Fall of MAN or the idea that everything all died together in a world wide flood. You DO realize that almost everything alive within the Cambrian Period was aquatic/sea dwelling, yes? So…how would something like a short global flood have killed all of this aquatic life off? And where are all of those “more modern” plant and animal fossils that are supposed to be mixed in with the Trilobites and worms? What about the humanity? Why are no bones, man-made works of metal,pottery, or footprints found?
    I am going out to kill stuff for lunch, so you and Bob can think about this for now. John or I will be back later to pick your evidence and logic apart some more.
    Good luck.

  513. F. L. A. said

    Post#507, thankyou Bob, and I would enjoy being able to go, but it is too cold up there and trust me, you REALLY do not want me to try and come into your conference building.People might have accidents in their pants.

  514. Maz said

    Ferox: Did you not read what I said in #478.
    It is the time in history and the length of time that we do not agree with.

    Phyla….the plural of phylum….a major taxonomic division of the animals and plant that contain one or more classes.

  515. Maz said

    Ferox: And…it wasn’t a ‘short global flood’…it was about a year long, and the flood would have done some geological damage, so it was not a simple raising of the water level….”all the fountains of the great deep (were) broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” ”…and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” Gen: 7 v 11, 12, 18-20.

  516. Maz said

    Ferox: As far as the timeline goes in the Bible, Noah lived about 1100 years after Adam was created, infact his father Lamech was born just before Adam died (just out of interest), and Noah lived 950 years.

  517. abc's said

    Maz

    What evidence do young earth creationists have that supports a human lifespan of 1100 years?

    What evidence is there in the geologic record to support the idea that a worldwide flood lasted for “about a year.”?

    What are the “fountains of the deep?”

    What are the “windows of heaven”?

    *and for the record, do a google search for the phylum chordata that humans are grouped into. Check out some of the other wide variety of lifeforms that are also chordates.
    The Cambrian period in which most of the phylum first appeared doesn’t mean what you think it does.

  518. Maz said

    Abc’s: And maybe you could tell me what evidence evolutionists have that supports an ape-human lifespan of millions of years?

    I’v never looked into the actual length of the flood so I can’t tell you that.

    Fountains of the deep are the waters that actually came up from beneath the earth.

    Windows of heaven is obviously not real windows!!! But rain that came down….(sigh).

  519. John said

    Thank you Abc’s for the help, and I like what Ferox added too[smile].
    “I’ve never looked into the actual length of the flood so I can’t tell you that.”-Maz
    What about your Bible quote within post#515? That sounded rather accurate to me. That amount of time would still have not had time to create all of the geological formations that are attributed to the Christian Flood story. And where did all of the water drain off to? And what about all of the other cultural flood myths[or lack of]that do not agree with the Christian Flood story? And the lack of plant and animal fossils and human artifacts that should be present within the Cambrian time periods fossils?
    Perhaps you should try to get away from this topic to prove your point?

  520. Maz said

    John: ”What about your Bible quote within post#515? That sounded rather accurate to me. That amount of time would still have not had time to create all of the geological formations that are attributed to the Christian Flood story.”

    The Bible shows us that it was about a year that that flood was on the face of the earth, but Abc’s wants geologial proof. As yet I have to read up and find this specific information as I said, I can’t answer that yet.

    And you are assuming like all rvolutionists that it had to take a long time. Actually it doesn’t. I watched a programme the other day that shoed how quickly water can carve out rock, sorry havn’t any details so you will just have to accept what I said….or not.

    If the water came from somewhere, it could easily go back…no???

    There are many stories from around the world that have differences but you know how stories can get changed when passed down through time…..but the stories still speak of a great flood. Why, if it did not happen atall?

  521. Maz said

    John: By the way, have you heard of the very deep trench in the Pacific? Can’t remember it’s name offhand…starts with ‘M’. This was obviously caused by some upheavel in the earth at some time in the past, earthquake activity etc…..caused by a global catastrophe? I have some reading to do, so will be back on this later.

  522. Maz said

    John: You may be interested in watching this.

    http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/startling_evidence_of_flood.html

    This video file is a 59 minute seminar by Michael Oard that was recorded during the Seattle Creation Conference July 2004 at Mill Creek Foursquare Church.

    Geological evidence for Noah’s Flood will be presented, mainly for the last stage of the Flood as the water retreated off the continents. The Flood has left some startling traces on the surface of the earth in the form of erosional remnants, continental shelves, large-scale planation surfaces, quartzite rocks transported by water hundreds of miles from their nearest source, water gaps, pediments, and submarine canyons. All these geomorphic features are very difficult, if not impossible, to explain by the “slow processes over millions of years” alternative model.

    Michael Oard has a Masters of Science degree in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington. He worked as a meteorologist/weather forecaster for the (US) National Weather Service, and has published several papers in his field in widely recognized journals on topics such as the world wide flood as a cause for the ice age and the mass extinction of the woolly mammoth.

  523. Maz said

    PS John: Psalm 104 v 6-9 may answer your question as to where all the water went aferwards.

  524. abc's said

    Maz

    You haven’t provided evidence for you flood theory. You are taking it purely on faith. You said yourself that you haven’t looked into it.

    Michael Oard is a retired meteorologist. His degree and expertise are related to weather research.

    His theories related to the geologic record are in direct contradiction to established research by scientists who have been studying geology for their entire careers.

  525. Maz said

    Abc’s: I can assure you that I take the flood theory as much on faith as you do evolution.

    I hadn’t looked into the geological evidence for the LENGTH OF TIME it was on the earth, not the whole flood story.

    And there are enough geologists that would disagree with what evolutionistic geologists have to say about the matter.
    It’s all to do with time. Evolution and everything associated with it NEEDS LOTS OF TIME to make it credible. So they interpret all the evidence with this millions-of-years worldview.

    There is enough geological evidence to support a quick and cataclysmic event only a few thousand years ago.

  526. F. L. A. said

    Not all of evolution needs lots of time Maz.We have provided you with such “short”[within a few centuries] time period examples in the past involving Goatsbeards plants, Wallabies, and birds, to name a few, remember?
    Here is something for you to ponder Maz. If the world was somehow so covered with water that even the very mountains were completely covered, were would there be for the water to run off and recede to after the forty days and nights? There would have been nowhere for it to have receded to. Science teaches that there is roughly the very same amount of water on this planet in circulation as there has ever been. Did you know this?

  527. Ed said

    The flood lasted a year. Please re-read the Genesis account of the flood. It rained 40 days and 40 nights.

  528. Maz said

    F.L.A: If the earth were completely flat that would be a problem wouldn’t it? But there was such upheaval at the time of the flood, apart from precipitation due to vulcanic activity underneath the ocean, you had earthquakes, and the techtonic plates that have a habit of moving, throwing up mountains and digging out huge valleys. The trench that I mentioned to John, I think it is called the Marinas trench (sounds something like that anyway) in the middle of the Pacific was opened up at one point, so there would have been somewhere for all that water to go. Interesting enough, there is enough water on this earth (and don’t forget 75% of the earth is covered by water) if it were flat, for the water to cover it completely and probably just above the mountain tops just as Genesis says.

  529. Maz said

    F.L.A: Yes I was right, it was the Marinas Trench in the Pacific, where a sounding of 11,040 metres has been made, and is believed to be the deepest part of the ocean. I am not good at converting meters to miles but I think that would be several miles deep!!

  530. Maz said

    There is a new book out, written by Dr.Don De Young, called ”Thousands not Billions”. This book destroys one of the major barriers for sceptics – the alleged long ages for the earth. Dr DeYoung provides scientific evidences that correlate to biblical history and give proof of the young age of the earth. A powerful book written in plain language, ‘Thousands Not Billions’ shatters the famed dating methods employed by evolutionists to cast doubt on the veracity of the Bible and its chronology of earth history. When people are told that a dinosaur bone is tens of millions of years old, that obviously doesn’t square with the biblical record of man being created on day 6 with the land animals. But DeYoung demonstrates that Christians no longer have to puzzle over this ‘problem’.

    I recommmend those skeptics, and believers in millions and billions of years, to read it and then maybe you can come back and tell me you still believe in evolution…….and WHY.

  531. Barney said

    Anyone can study real science. It’s in your local public library. Ask the librarian for some books on Biology, Geology, Astronomy, etc.

    Leave the silly science to the young earthers.

  532. Maz said

    Barney: Yes, I’v seen some of their ‘science’! Some textbooks for students still show the fraudulent pictures of embryonic developement by Haeckel, and the pepper moth fraud. Funny how they don’t make a point of taking these out of schools and colleges. They don’t seem particularly honest enough to even put a correction in the pages….mmmmmmm. But as we know, it took them 40 years to come around to admitting the Piltdown man was a hoaxe!

  533. abc's said

    Maz

    (just one of the book reviews from Amazon)

    Apologetics is a branch of theology devoted to defending the divine origin and authority of Christianity. Religions base absolute and immutable ‘truth claims’ on special revelation and divine authority – none of which is observable, empirical, or measurable. The resulting beliefs and dogmas are essentially divorced from the laws of reason. Faith alone is required. Faith, in the religious sense, can never be falsified, it can only be abandoned.

    Science is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to the laws of reason. Scientific facts (along with hypothesis and theories) are always provisional and subject to scrutiny as new information becomes available.

    The differences between these two disciplines explains why “Thousands not Billions” by Donald DeYoung is such a mess.

    Faith has informed the author that the earth is only a few thousand years old. All the scientific evidence argues for an earth that is several billion years old. How does he pound this square peg into a round hole? The same way creationists always do – invoke sophistry under the guise of apologetics, dispense with reason, ignore mountains of objective and verifiable evidence, invent evil ‘Darwinian’ bogeymen, and dress up the result (in drag) with a seemingly impressive veneer of scientific sounding techno-babble.

    The painfully contrived ‘evidence’ referenced in this book is a rehash of erroneous hypothesis and junk findings wished into existence by the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) group – a collective of various crank-science Young Earth Creationists whose shallow litany of fallacious non-peer reviewed arguments includes: Helium diffusion in zircon crystals, Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds, and my personal favorite – Polonium halos. Although this drivel occasionally hoodwinks unwary reviewers (you know who you are – and yes I read the book), the scientific community at large remains unimpressed.

    John Baumgardner, one of the faith/fantasy-based RATE researchers was reduced to blubbering when asked, at a recent RATE conference, to justify his publication of old earth and moon papers in mainstream scientific journals, given his strident YEC alter ego. His schizophrenic factual and moral relativism typifies creationist antics. Geology and geochronology, as scientific disciplines, are not subject to ‘Darwinist thought police’ – they are patrolled by a far sterner and more pitiless enforcer called evidence. And the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a 4.54 billion year old earth.

    After years of dumpster-diving scientific literature for quote mines, staring mindlessly at their belly buttons, and thumping their bibles the RATE reprobates posit a ‘cosmic-scale event’ (a miracle in other words) that accelerated radioactive decay by a factor of a billion-fold during a single year (Noah’s fictional flood) to account for the dogma of ‘creationist geochronology.’ This is a serious problem for RATE and “Thousands not Billions.” Radioisotope decay generates heat. If you compress 4.54 billion years on decay into 6,000 years you’ve got a hellacious (for lack of a better term) heat problem. But this isn’t the only one:

    Magma – the geologic record includes roughly 8 x 10^24 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 10^27 joules while cooling 1,100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.

    Limestone formation – there are roughly 5 x 10^23 grams of limestone in the earth’s sediments, and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during Noah’s fictitious flood, the 5.6 x 10^26 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters and poach Noah – along with everything else on his leaky tub.

    Meteorite impacts – erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung simply assert that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah’s purported flood (aka ghastly global genocide). The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3.7 x 10^27 joules – the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy.

    5.6 x 10^26 joules is enough to heat boil the oceans. 3.7 x 10^27 joules would vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released would quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1,000 decrees C. At these temperatures much of the atmosphere would boil off the earth.

    RATE and DeYoung can only resolve this problem by invoking a miracle. The sky-fairy of Abraham just magically zapped away the heat. An infinite regress of miraculous contortions are required to prop up the asinine assertions that infest “Thousands not Billions” – the product of a ‘Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry’ worldview – where things do go bump in the night, the universe is demon haunted, donkeys can talk, people can fly, and a triune spook lives up in the sky.

    Does the ‘science’ in this book justify overturning two hundred years of spectacular advances in cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, chemistry, and biology? Absolutely not! There is no science in this book – only DeYoung’s apologetics fueled diatribe based on fallacious arguments from authority, fundamentalist dogma, and an odiferous pile of crank creationist pseudo-science courtesy of the RATE group. An uneasy faith conjured this book into existence, not science.

    Ultimately DeYoung’s mendacious and tedious tome fails to justify a medieval hocus-pocus worldview based on the author’s cherished set of bronze-age myths and fables.

    If you are interested in how old the Earth really is (approximately 4.54 billion years), and the multiple lines of scientific evidence that support this conclusion, try Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings or The Age of Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple.

  534. Maz said

    Stanley: Talking about science books, and particularly the pictures drawn very nicely for us to show us how ‘ape-man’ looked:

    DECEPTIVE FOSSIL INTERPRETATIONS OF EVOLUTIONISTS

    Before going into the details of the myth of human evolution, we need to mention the propaganda method that has convinced the general public of the idea that half-man half-ape creatures once lived in the past. This propaganda method makes use of “reconstructions” made in reference to fossils. Reconstruction can be explained as drawing a picture or constructing a model of a living thing based on a single bone-sometimes only a fragment-that has been unearthed. The “ape-men” we see in newspapers, magazines, or films are all reconstructions.

    Since fossils are usually fragmented and incomplete, any conjecture based on them is likely to be completely speculative. As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by the evolutionists based on fossil remains are prepared speculatively precisely to validate the evolutionary thesis. David R. Pilbeam, an eminent anthropologist from Harvard, stresses this fact when he says: “At least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data”. Since people are highly affected by visual information, these reconstructions best serve the purpose of evolutionists, which is to convince people that these reconstructed creatures really existed in the past.

  535. Maz said

    My my Abc’s: Did you write that yourself? All those long words, abusive statements, and abrasive tones? I hardly know how to answer such biased eloquence.

  536. Maz said

    The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part 1
    by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

    Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past.

    Evolution Is Not Happening Now
    First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many “transitional” forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct “kinds” of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear—and apparently—unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true “vertical” evolution.

    Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new “basic kind.”

    A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

    . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1
    The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

    Evolution Never Happened in the Past

    Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

    “Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
    Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct “kind” to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils (after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there!). But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales) they are not there.

    Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

    The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

    With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, has said after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes

    And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
    Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

    The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
    Translation: “There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically.” Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

    Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

    Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

    The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8
    Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate—that is, the first fish—with its hard parts all on the inside.

    Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9
    Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

    It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10
    So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn’t change during their durations?

    Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner—new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.11
    As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

    All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. 12
    Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either, for it contradicts the fossil evidence.

    The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13
    Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

    Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14
    Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

    This article was originally published December, 2000. “The Scientific Case Against Evolution: A Summary Part 1”, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/457/ (accessed November 09, 2008).

  537. Maz said

    Here is another interesting little snippet of inormtion I have found.

    Computer Simulations of Eye Evolution

    Richard Dawkins, well-known evolutionist, claimed in his book River Out of Eden that computer models exist that can simulate or recreate the evolution of the eye.
    However, the senior author of the study on which Dawkins based his claim, Dan E. Nilsson, has explicitly rejected the idea that his laboratory has ever produced a computer simulation of the eye’s development.

    So apart from the frauds, the hoaxes, the deceitful pictures, we have people like Richard Dawkings actually lying…….mmmmmmm. And we are the ones supposedly making things up eh?

  538. Maz said

    Oh…… and Richard Dawkins also stated himself that evolution hasn’t actually been observed while it is happening. Yet we have had people on here telling us it has…….I guess they know better than Richard Dawkins. He needs to be told.

  539. F. L. A. said

    Thank you for the book title within your post#530, Maz.
    It seemed a book that we would delight in reading, and John shall go hunting for it someday.

  540. John said

    Maz, I like your work, and reading that long post#536 was enjoyable, but it contains information that can be used against your argument. For example, we have been looking up the names of all of the people that are quoted and have supplied information for your post[all one needs to do is type in their names into the search, unless you have their books] and have discovered that they are not as they have been portrayed by your adopted Christian Creationist hero Henry Morris ph.D.
    Would you like for us to point out to you some examples, Maz?

  541. Bob Griffin said

    FLA Science that proves things in the bible in our time of recorded history is much different than coming up with 4.5 billion years. You dont have to assume the first, but you do the second. You might have had some accidents in your pants if you heard all these SCIENTISTS comments at the conference.

    Since the earth is 70% covered with water, do you think there may have been a flood?

  542. Maz said

    Ferox: I’ll be interested in your feedback.

  543. Maz said

    John: No, I’ll do my own investigation.

  544. Maz said

    I heard something yesterday that entered my brain cells, and I thot…Yes…..the fact that the Millions of years that evolutionists believe in so adamantly were part of evolutionary thinking BEFORE radiometric dating. How did they come to this conclusion……..scientifically speaking……..before they had the scientific ability to date anything?

  545. Maz said

    John #540. I have looked up 5 of the names of the people named in my post, and I do not find any discrepencies. Are you talking about what they believe? Apparently they are all evolutionists, from what I have read from the web sites I found.

  546. Barney said

    Remember: real science is reviewed by peers and published in scientific journals. Young earth science is published by fundamentalist Christians who avoid such review.

  547. abc's said

    Maz

    (Everything below is taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution.
    When you have the chance you should go there and take a look at the rest of the article and click on some of the links. I know that you don’t accept evolution, but I want to give you a good idea of just how much support there is for it, and how overwhelmingly small the minority of scientists are that even have a small disagreement with evolutionary theory.)

    Recent scientific trends

    The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001.[130] The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of ‘Darwinism’ (and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.[131] By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is “a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences,” has 868 Steves as of March 18, 2008. People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

    The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[132] The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[133]

    Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.[134] Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists, overestimating the number of US scientists that do not accept evolution.[135] , according to the Discovery Institute, a known creationist lobby institution. Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, proportionately the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing, despite an increase in public support.

  548. Maz said

    Barney: ”Remember: real science is reviewed by peers and published in scientific journals.”

    That’s because they are prejudice against any Creation science.

    ”Young earth science is published by fundamentalist Christians who avoid such review.”

    That’s because evolutionist publishers are prejudice against any Creation science.

  549. Maz said

    Abc’s: SO, because a certain group of people are in the minority, they are judged to be wrong from the outset? MAJORITY RULES OK! A slogan that used to be found daubed on many a wall in times past. Very arrogant to say the least.

    SO, what do all these statistics really show? Does it prove that all Creation scientists are wrong, and all evolutionist scientists are right?

    Noah was a minority in his day….look what God thot of the rest of mankind (apart from Noahs wife, his three sons and their wives), but ofcourse you don’t even believe in Noah and the flood do you?

  550. Maz said

    John: Did you know that Darwin believed we came from apes……it is stated in his book, ”The Descent of Man.” He believed there were apes/monkeys in our distant past that branched off into two, and one evolved into other types of apes, and the other branch brought forth the human race.

  551. Barney said

    Remember: the young earthers imagine there is a vast conspiracy to keep their “science” out of the science journals. It’s the only way they can explain their total lack of acceptance amongst the scientific communities.

    When do the conspirators meet? Where do they meet? A conspiracy that vast would involve thousands of people constantly on the look out for “Creation Scientists”. Is every Biology Professor in every fully accredited University in the world part of that conspiracy? Do they email each other: “watch out for this guy, he’s a Christian”.

    Real science is taught in the Universities and Creation Science is taught at the Bible Schools. There you have it.

    So, no, there is no prejudice other than the Creationists don’t pass muster in the real science world.

  552. Maz said

    Barney: I did not say conspiracy…..just plain old prejudice and bias.

    ”Real science is taught in the Universities and Creation Science is taught at the Bible Schools. There you have it.”

    That’s because they won’t allow Creation science taught in Universities….more bias and prejudice. Students who are Christians aren’t even allowed to question evolution science, and if they do they get laughed at. And there you have it.

  553. Barney said

    Remember: real science is open to the peer review for good reason. Is the Noah’s Ark story or the Genesis story open to peer review? That’s the difference between religious dogma and natural philosophy.

    Of course any prejudice is the side of the Creationists. The reason Creation Science is not taught in the Universities is because it’s bad science.

    So, don’t listen to the misleading comments by the few (.054 %) of the folks who need to imagine vast conspiracies; the real science is there anywhere there is a public library or a (accredited) school.

  554. Maz said

    Barney: And you are as biased and prejudice against any SCIENCE that shows a global flood. All you can call it is ‘religious dogma’. And I thot you said you were a Christian……or was that a joke you told us?

    It is ‘bad science’ because you don’t accept what it reveals. Prejudice.

    Did you read what I said in my last post?…..I never mentioned ‘conspiracies’, you are the one that keeps on about conspiracies. The REAL science is out there if people are willing to look at it instead of treating it like some kind of…….’religious dogma’.

  555. Barney said

    Remember: The scientists who have their work reviewed and published are eager for new discoveries and new ways to explain things. If the scientific view of the data leads to a young earth theory that passes muster that view will prevail eventually; it must prevail. The review process is biased, yes, biased against faulty conclusions and incorrect hypotheses.

    Ask yourselves: Why are there no young earth creation theories being published by the real scientists?

    So, no, there is no bias or prejudice other than that the review process weeds out the impostors.

  556. Maz said

    Barney: Evolutionistic scientists are always looking for more proof of their theory…..no matter what the evidence may show.

    Really? You think a young earth theory will ever get off the ground with evolution scientists? So if it did, then what is the logical outcome of this discovery?….that maybe there IS a God after all, who created the heavens and the earth 6000 years ago?? Mmmmmmm.

    ”The review process is biased, yes, biased against faulty conclusions and incorrect hypotheses.”

    No, biased against the real scientific evidence…..which you call ‘religious dogma’….(chuckle)…you prove my point so succinctly. Bias. Bias. Prejudice.

    Your last line makes me………smile…..Mmm.

  557. Barney said

    Remember: there is no attempt to obfuscate by the biologists and geologists of the world. Only the young earth ‘scientists’ need to avoid peer review.

  558. John said

    Hello again Maz.
    I admire your display of theological fortitude, and it seems a shame to me that the only other person here to try and back you up on a regular basis is Bob Griffin[What a guy…[grin].]
    I guess it’s just not a topic everyone’s up to tackling.
    Maz, you have to realize why the majority of those within the academic fields are opposed to Creationism, especially Christian Young Earth Creationism. Calling them unjustly biased is akin to someone discovering that I am opposed to Flat Earth theorists and accusing me of being unjustly biased against THEM.
    Seems rather justifiable to me and everyone else with good sense….
    This is not a debate about what the best recipe for cooking chicken is, which actually WOULD be based purely on speculation and opinions. These are the SCIENCES we are discussing here, and Creation Sciences just don’t have what it takes to stand up to and against what the majority of brains within the academic world would consider to be real science. You guys almost had a shot at it when you reintroduced Creationism as Intelligent Design, until people smarter than us realized that you were still just talking about Christian Creationism[smile, head turned to the side,shrugging my shoulders].
    Sometimes the majority really IS RIGHT, at least until proven wrong.And the Christian Creation Sciences are not fulfilling your expectations like they should/could if they were true. Perhaps in time things will change for all of us….let’s all just wait and see, eh?

    Post545-The Evolutionists quotes within post536 were used out of context, what Henry Morris did was display a little piece of someones quote[it ends at the little number at the end of the sentence[smile]] without displaying the parts of or the quotes from the VERY SAME PERSON that would have spoken or displayed information opposed to Henry Morris’s views. He then adds his own unscientific opinionated versions of “what exactly the scientist meant” right beside the persons quote. The casual reader not paying attention[or hoping to disprove evolution?]be led to assume that all of this was the same quote. These parts are just HIS OPINIONS, not scientific facts. Why, I could do the very same thing on any topic I chose, but if it was coming from ME, and people discovered that I had no formal training on the topic, education, experience in the field, experience doing the job, and was in fact working for the opposition of said chosen topic of interest, then people would know that I was full of crap and just being opinionated. And they would be correct. Why are people like Henry Morris and Ken Ham different to people like you Maz?
    Is the worth of an opinion or wisdom and facts ONLY judged as valuable as so long as it comes from “the right kind of a Christian”? Sometimes it sure seems that way, Maz.

    Post550- Yes, so?
    We have learned MANY NEW things since the time of Darwin, and Evolutionary Sciences ARE VERY DIFFERENT compared to what it was like at it’s beginnings. So knowing this, what were you trying to say? That Darwin was wrong about that? Yes, we know. Does this discredit Modern Evolutionary Sciences? I think not at all. If you disagree, then please tell us…how?

    Bob, post541-I can’t believe you said that, hold on…
    Greetings Mr.Griffin. Guess who[Huge sharp-toothed grin].
    It is an easy thing for you to simply accuse us ancient Earth evolutionists of “assuming about the ancient past” because you refuse to acknowledge any of the science and evidences used to prove you wrong.
    And so you know for the future, I never wear pants, or any other article of clothing, ever.
    Is there some method that I could use TO hear or read about the goings-ons within that conference of yours? You make it sound interesting/amusing.
    As for your comment about the Earth being mainly water and do I think there was a flood?; are you kidding?
    I do hope so, for if you think that this worlds modern water mass is a result of the Biblical Flood, then you have my pity, for your comments help our case more than they do yours. Considering that the Biblical Flood account describes the water as being deep enough to cover the highest mountains[and of course it would have to, to assure that every thing died[but the plant life and animal life that naturally cannot survive the mixing of fresh and salt water[?!]] on Earth, WHERE would it have run off to if the words oceans were ALREADY FULL? Even if the words oceans were ridiculously shallow[can you imagine?] and the worlds mountains ridiculously small when this event supposedly occurred[About, what is it…a mere four thousand years ago by Y.E.Christian Creationist standards?] this would have changed nothing.
    It is disturbing to think that one such as myself with no formal schooling and such minimal contact with society knows more about history and science than you do.

  559. bobxxxx said

    “That’s because they are prejudice against any Creation science.”

    Your magical creation is not science. Grow up moron.

  560. Hi Bobxxxx,

    We have a couple of rules we enforce here.

    1 – No profanity or obscenity and no links to sites containing such.
    2 – No personal attacks or threats and no name-calling.
    3 – Respect for your fellow blogger regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

    Calling someone a moron is not something we can let slide. Everyone gets 2 warnings and the 3rd warning gets you kicked off the site.

    In 2 years we’ve only kicked off 3 people, which is pretty good considering all the many different types of faiths and people we have represented on this site.

    We have to issue warning #1 to you.

    Thanks,
    Moderator (not Stu)

  561. Jeff42 said

    “Your magical creation is not science. Grow up moron.” – Bobxxxx

    Wow, that’s a powerful argument! Maz, you might as well give up since you have been dealt such a devastating intellectual blow! 🙂

    Honestly, what more could there be for you guys to say on this topic? I am amazed that another thread on evolution has gone this far.

  562. Tripp said

    The evolution conversations are piling up, yes. Too many posts are getting hi-jacked!

    How does this keep happening, Mr. Moderator?

    Can it not be controlled?

  563. Bob Griffin said

    John 558

    Are you really Richard from the first Survivor?

    We can prove things in our recorded history of about 6000 years very easily. Anything over a million or billion is assumption at best.

    You can get the tapes of the conference, but you have to pay. I doubt youd be willing to do that.

    Im glad you have a scientific reasoning for the flood. I aspire to reach your heights some day.

  564. bobxxxx said

    Anyone who still believes in magical creation in the 21st century is a total moron. That’s a fact. If you have a problem with facts, Mr. Moderator, then throw me out.

  565. bobxxxx said

    Creationists believe a magic fairy said abracadabra and then poof, people appear out of nothing. It’s impossible to be more stupid than a creationist.

  566. Stanley said

    Hey, its the ONLY magical fairy. Good your facts straight

  567. Maz said

    Barney: #557….They DO NOT AVOID IT…..they CAN’T GET INTO THE ELITIST EVOLUTIONISTIC WORLD THAT THINKS THEY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO LIFE WHEN THEY DON’T.

  568. Maz said

    Barney: And let me ask you something…….Do you REALLY think National Geographic or the New Scientist is going to let the scientists that have to publish their findings in Creation magazines, publish them in THEIR evolutionistically dominated magazines? OFCOURSE NOT!

  569. Maz said

    John #558 ”Calling them unjustly biased is akin to someone discovering that I am opposed to Flat Earth theorists and accusing me of being unjustly biased against THEM.”

    It is not unjust in many cases, OK some people are just ignorant of the facts or they choose to believe in evolution, or like you, in deities other than Yahweh the Only True and Living God. But make no mistake, THERE IS a lot of prejudice out there, and THERE IS a lot of bias.

    ”These are the SCIENCES we are discussing here, and Creation Sciences just don’t have what it takes to stand up to and against what the majority of brains within the academic world would consider to be real science.”

    You see, it’s the same ol’ story, THEIR science isn’t REAL science. By REAL science they mean evolutionistic science, for no other science will ever be science to them (PREJUDICE!!!), because they WILL NOT allow God a foothold in the door……..have I read that somewhere before?????? MMMMMMMM.

    ”You guys almost had a shot at it when you reintroduced Creationism as Intelligent Design, until people smarter than us realized that you were still just talking about Christian Creationism[smile, head turned to the side,shrugging my shoulders].”

    Ha ha ha! I have to chuckle sometimes……..’us guys’,we believe in a Designer and a Creator who is God, but WHO on earth Intelligently Designed and Created this Universe if NOT a Supreme Omnipotent God? Mmmmmmm again!!

    ”Sometimes the majority really IS RIGHT, at least until proven wrong.And the Christian Creation Sciences are not fulfilling your expectations like they should/could if they were true. Perhaps in time things will change for all of us….let’s all just wait and see, eh.”

    ‘Sometimes’….yes…..’atleast until proven wrong’ is the key. The thing is hardly anyone who is a devoted evolutionist will even question whether they are wrong……can you see Richard Dawkins ever allowing himself the slightest doubt to enter his brain? He is a devoted Atheist and will fight to the death for what he believes in. He certainly doesn’t want God, he has made that quite clear!!

    And Creation Sciences ARE fulfilling my expectations, because I can SEE that they are true when I look in the world around me. I DO NOT see evolution whatsoever. And I don’t just mean it actually happening, I see no incling of it with any stretch of the imagination. Whereas evolutionists have a whole lot of that……imagination I mean!

    As far as Henry Morris’s quotes…. you said ”These parts are just HIS OPINIONS, not scientific facts.” OK, and evolutionists have no opinions just facts?

    ”Post550- Yes, so? We have learned MANY NEW things since the time of Darwin, and Evolutionary Sciences ARE VERY DIFFERENT compared to what it was like at it’s beginnings. So knowing this, what were you trying to say? That Darwin was wrong about that? Yes, we know. Does this discredit Modern Evolutionary Sciences? I think not at all. If you disagree, then please tell us…how?”

    So why is it still taught in our schools? Why is it still in many textbooks today? If you were to ask anybody in the street where we came from, apart from Christians and the like, you would get the same answer…..from apes or monkeys….isn’t that true? And WHY would we get that answer? Because people are still reading, still being told, still being taught in colleges that we came from apes.
    SO JOHN…..WHERE DID WE COME FROM IF NOT FROM APES????

    Ferox #558. ”I do hope so, for if you think that this worlds modern water mass is a result of the Biblical Flood, then you have my pity, for your comments help our case more than they do yours. Considering that the Biblical Flood account describes the water as being deep enough to cover the highest mountains[and of course it would have to, to assure that every thing died[but the plant life and animal life that naturally cannot survive the mixing of fresh and salt water[?!]] on Earth, WHERE would it have run off to if the words oceans were ALREADY FULL?”

    Did you not read, or perhaps ignored what I said about this?
    We havn’t got MORE water on the earth, it was redistributed when the flood occurred, by the changing geology of the earth being involved in a collosal upheavel, also, something I didn’t mention before, there is enough ice at the poles to add towards a global flood along with all the other causes I mentioned.

    You said to Bob: ”It is disturbing to think that one such as myself with no formal schooling and such minimal contact with society knows more about history and science than you do.”

    Anybody can get hold of a load of books etc…..like I have, and read about it….I have no qualifications or degrees but I KNOW A LOT from reading and science programmes etc.

    HAPPY DAY Y’ALL!

  570. Maz said

    Jeff42 #561: I quote your whole post….

    ”“Your magical creation is not science. Grow up moron.” – Bobxxxx

    Wow, that’s a powerful argument! Maz, you might as well give up since you have been dealt such a devastating intellectual blow!

    Honestly, what more could there be for you guys to say on this topic? I am amazed that another thread on evolution has gone this.”

    What intellectual blow????? 🙂 It is kept going by both sides….otherwise there’s no debate is there? Evolutionists against Creationists. If the Evolutionists would give up, we would have nothing to say!

  571. Maz said

    Tripp #562. Maybe the Moderator should open up another question on evolution/creation to accomodate……..we’ve had a few but not as many as we had on the election!!!! Boy, that broke all the records!!

  572. Maz said

    Bobxxxx: ”Creationists believe a magic fairy said abracadabra and then poof, people appear out of nothing. It’s impossible to be more stupid than a creationist.”

    Hi Bobxxxx…..ACCCCTUUUUALLLLLY…..I don’t believe in fairies….I don’t believe they said abracadabra…..and I don’t believe……’poof!’ That would be silly wouldn’t it?

    However, evolutionists are the ones saying something came from nothing. And I could repeat your last line and replace creationist with evolutionist, but that would be rude wouldn’t it?

  573. Maz said

    Hey John: Have you ever heard that ‘one with God is a majority!’ Praise His Name forever!

  574. Maz said

    That last post is for Abc’s aswell seeing as he brought up the minority/majority issue.

  575. Bobxxxx – It’s America. You have the right to express your opinion, as do others.

    The only way you’ll get thrown out is if you break the rules 2 more times.

    Moderator (not Stu)

  576. Chris C. said

    Got your popcorn Barney?

    Its like deja vous all over again.

  577. Chris C. said

    Maz, post 220:

    “The most notable hoax was Piltdown Man, ‘discovered’ in England from 1908 to 1912.”

    Do you recall who exposed the piltdown hoax? A professor of anthropology from Oxford (with the help of other scientific collegues). In fact there was considerable doubt regardnig the piltdown artifacts for some time leading up to their debunking. Tell me, why would scientists expose a hoax that would have seemingly strengthened their theory? Seems self-sabotaging. Or maybe it is because they know the evidence is strong and they don’t need to make it up.

  578. Bob Griffin said

    Bobxxx

    I look at something complex and think it was created. You look at something complex and think that it arose by spontaneous combustion or some other similar means ( cooked in a primordial soup?). Your theory has poof in it.

  579. Bob Griffin said

    Chris C

    You must have missed the radio show. We talked about the several instances of false evolutionary bunk that is still in the textbooks. I read the books – the “science is self correcting” line is getting old.

  580. Maz said

    Chris: I’v dealt with this before. It took 40 YEARS….a whole generation, for them to ‘discover’ it was a hoax…..no doubt they HAD to ‘discover’ it eventually because the evidence was too strong not to. But anyway, I know there are honest men among the science community even evolutionists, it’s the dishonest ones I mention, because they purposefully created this hoax to remain undiscovered….or else they would have owned up a long time before. And why on earth create a hoax when there was SO MUCH evidence of ape-man…..which some seem to be denying now….is it because there isn’t as much evidence as they once thot.

    You know, the more evidence that is found and the more science progresses, the more the old ideas and theories fall to pieces. The Big Bang for one is being questioned, along with other astronomical puzzles since Hubble was put into orbit. Also since DNA was discovered, that has also created a few problems for chance-mutation-evolution to have happened.

    Design and complexity go against chance-mutation-evolution, the ‘nothing-works-unless-it-is-complete’ destroys a jelly-to-Kelly evolution. I just can’t understand why a healthily educated person can’t see it. But then we have all been indoctrinated since our childhood days that evolution is a fact and shouldn’t be questioned. Creation has been relegated to the religious class, when time and time again, we have qualified scientists showing us that evolution is a lie and Creation is not only possible, but the only way the heavens and earth and all life on the earth came to be in the beginning.
    Again, this is far more believable in any case, than scientists saying NOTHING CAME FROM SOMETHING AND THEN SUDDENLY EXPLODED…..ALL BY ITSELF. ALL the galaxies, ALL the stars within the galaxies, ALL the planets, ALL that we see in this VAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTT Universe….came from NOTHING!!!!!!!(Laugh out loud!)

  581. F. L. A. said

    Maz and Bob, did you know that in MANY books old obsolete scientific theories and information is displayed simply for comparision to the newer, acurrate information? To show how more advanced knowledge has become? That is why many school books still have such old information. Aside from this, most people are apathetic and ignorant in regards to this topic[or any of the sciences, really] and never even really paid attention to the lessions when they were in science class at school to begin with!

  582. F. L. A. said

    It is good to hear from you again Chris C.
    I have been recommending some of your quotes.

  583. Barney said

    Remember: the ones misrepresenting the facts are the young earthers. Why?

  584. Bob Griffin said

    FLA 581

    IF they do that, why do they not disclose it?

  585. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”Maz and Bob, did you know that in MANY books old obsolete scientific theories and information is displayed simply for comparision to the newer, acurrate information?”

    It’s a shame they don’t enlighten those reading some of these books that it IS obselete and show comparisons with newer science isn’t it?

    ”Aside from this, most people are apathetic and ignorant in regards to this topic[or any of the sciences, really] and never even really paid attention to the lessions when they were in science class at school to begin with!”

    What a lame excuse for letting old science go unchecked! So those who were’nt apathetic and ignorant and wanted to study it seriously just had to put up with incorrect data? Mmmmmmm.

  586. Maz said

    Barney: #583. How very strange you should say that right now! I’v just been listening to a programme about how a statue of ‘Lucy’ in the St. Louis Museum, in their Living World Exhibit, misrepresents the facts.

    The ‘Lucy’ fossil is only 40% complete, lacking nearly all hand and hardly any feet bones. The skull and jaw is primitive by even ape standards and ‘her’ knee joint has a high carrying angle.

    But in this museum, they built a statue of Lucy, fully erect, walking like a normal human being, with human hands and human feet, and mostly everything human looking except for the skull, or head.
    Remember, there were not enough hand or feet bones to make such a representation, and according to other A. afarensis specimens, which ‘she’ is, the finger bones are highly curved by ape standards. Not only that but the feet also are more suited to arboreal life, but certainly not walking upright like they represented in this statue. Apparently by the fossils of other specimens, ‘she’ would have been a knuckle walker.

    Altho the zoo where this museum was, admitted that they were aware of the misrepresentation of ‘Lucy’ when they built ‘her’, they said they did not intend to change the statue because, as they have pointed out,that it gets across the point they want to make to the audience at large! In other words they are trying to make their evolutionistic point across when it was a downright lie. The FACT is, that ‘Lucy’ was not an erect, walking…..with human feet and human hands, half ape, half woman.

  587. Maz said

    Barney: Here is some mor misrepresentation for you to mull over.

    DARWINISTS MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT HUMAN GENOME PROJECT

    THE APE-MAN SIMILARITY IS A TALE!

    The completion of human’s gene map today does not yield the result that man and ape are relatives. One need not be deceived by evolutionists’ attempts to exploit this new scientific development just as they do with all others.

    As known, the recent completion of the human gene map within the scope of the Human Genome Project has been a very important scientific improvement. However, some results of this project are being distorted in some evolutionist publications. It is claimed that the genes of chimpanzees have a similarity to human genes by 98 % and this is promoted as an evidence to the claim that apes are close to humans, and therefore, to the theory of evolution. In truth, this is a “fake” evidence put forward by evolutionists who benefit from the lack of knowledge of society about this subject.

    98 % Similarity Claim is a Misleading Propaganda

    First, it should be stated that the 98% similarity concept, frequently advanced by evolutionists about the DNAs of man and chimpanzee, is deceptive.

    In order to claim that the genetic make-ups of man and chimpanzee bear 98 % similarity, the genome of the chimpanzee also has to be mapped just as that of man’s, the two has to be compared, and the result of this comparison has to be obtained. However no such result is available, because so far, only the gene of mankind has been mapped. No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

    In reality, the 98 % similarity between the genes of man and ape, which now and then becomes an agenda item, is a propaganda oriented slogan deliberately invented years ago. This similarity is an extraordinarily exaggerated generalisation grounded on the similarity in the amino acid sequences of some 30-40 basic proteins present in man and chimpanzee. A sequence analysis has been made with a method named “DNA hybridization” on the DNA sequences that are correlated with these proteins and only those limited number of proteins have been compared.

    However there are about hundred thousand genes, and therefore 100 thousand proteins coded by these genes in humans. For that reason, there is no scientific basis for claiming that all the genes of man and ape are 98 % similar only because of the similarity in 40 out of 100.000 proteins.

    On the other hand, the DNA comparison carried out on those 40 proteins is also controversial. This comparison was made in 1987 by two biologists named Sibley and Ahlquist and published in the periodical named Journal of Molecular Evolution. (v.26 pp. 99-1212) However another scientist named Sarich who examined the data obtained by these two scientists concluded that the reliability of the method they used is controversial and that the data has been exaggeratedly interpreted. (Sarich et al, 1989, Cladisticts 5:3-32) Dr. Don Batten, another biologist, also analysed the issue in 1996 and concluded that the real similarity rate is 96.2%, not 98 %. (CEN, 19(1); 21-22 December 1996-February 1997)

    Human DNA is also similar to that of the worm, mosquito and chicken!

    Moreover, the above mentioned basic proteins are common vital molecules present in various other living beings. The structure of the same kinds of proteins present not only in chimpanzee, but also in completely different living beings, is very similar to that in the humans.

    And there is more where this came from.

  588. Barney said

    Remember: Science doubts but religion is certain. The young earthers don’t need peer review; how can they be wrong about anything? Their need to misrepresent science is telling.

  589. Barney said

    “The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.” [Catholic Church’s decision against Galileo Galilei]

    Typical young earthers!

  590. Maz said

    Barney: I know oe thing, my faith is cerain, I can trust in my Lord and Savior. Who do you trust?

    ”Their need to misrepresent science is telling.”

    The evolutionists need to do so certainly is.

    #589. And when exactly did they say that? And as a point of interest I am not Roman Catholic.

  591. Bob Griffin said

    Barney,

    We also have a new science to contend with – Intelligent Design – yet you dismiss it. Typical Old Earth Evolutionist.

    Maz – good stuff. Still waiting for the evolutionists to figure out how the 3 billion base pairs of DNA come together. Would it be a loud poof?

  592. Maz said

    Oh dear, didn’t check spelling!!….It should read (just incase you misread it) I know one thing, my faith is certain…….

  593. Maz said

    Bob: And what a POOF!!! Another Big Bang perhaps!!! Or a Big Poof!!! 🙂

  594. abc's said

    Bob

    from wikipedia

    Intelligent design is the assertion that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design’s primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10] Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12]

    The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”[17] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

    “Intelligent design” originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.[4] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[21] Several additional books on “intelligent design” were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[22] With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the “intelligent design movement” grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 “Dover trial” which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.[7]

    In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative “explanation of the origin of life.” U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” and that the school district’s promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[23]
    Contents

  595. abc's said

    Defining science

    The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow “non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design”.[158] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science.[159] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[160][161][162] it is expected to be:

    * Consistent
    * Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam’s Razor)
    * Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
    * Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
    * Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
    * Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
    * Progressive (refines previous theories)
    * Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

    For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[163] violates the principle of parsimony,[164] is not scientifically useful,[165] is not falsifiable,[166] is not empirically testable,[167] and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.[168][169][170]

    Critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[171] the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:

    * The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
    * The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    * There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
    * The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

    In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, using these criteria and others mentioned above, Judge Jones ruled that “… we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”.

  596. Maz said

    Abc’s:
    ”The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.”

    And why do they think they have the authority to make such a consensus?
    It is not science to them simply because they won’t accept it for what it is.

    It is quite clear to any thinking human being, that life presents itself in very complex and intricate design…….even the very structure of cells and DNA, reveals this complexity and design, yet their are those who call themselves scientists and yet cannot see it.

    ”U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” .”

    SO we see what is behind this charade. They CANNOT accept ID because it is RELIGIOUS IN NATURE.

    This is the fallacy that evolutionists have…….Science cannot allow God to exist……just what Richard Dawkins says, isn’t it?

  597. abc's said

    Maz

    Right. Intelligent design is religious in nature, therefore it is not Science. That’s the point I am trying to make.
    Science has nothing to say about the supernatural.

  598. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    Scientific method

    Step 1 : Observe the phenomena.

  599. Barney said

    From Talkorigins(link to follow) about more zany young earthers hoaxes!

    “Many creationists once claimed that fossilized human footprints (or “giant man tracks”) occurred alongside dinosaur tracks in Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas, allegedly providing dramatic evidence against the theory of evolution and the standard geologic timetable. However, in recent years a number of critical studies have shown that the “man tracks” are due to a variety of misidentified phenomena, incuding elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional markings, vague depressions of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored or carved specimens-” – Talkorigins

    Those crazy young earthers! They think they can get away with anything!

  600. Barney said

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html

    Link to the above metioned Talkorigins page for Maz to ignore!

  601. abc's said

    Bob

    Ok.
    Life reproduces itself and makes genetic mistakes.

    Take me to step 2.

  602. Maz said

    Abc’s:
    ”The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism.”

    You better tell Richard Dawkins that, he’s made his mind up there is nothing supernatural….especially not a Supernatural GOD!

    Is evolution consistent? Really? And who created this list? Let me guess…evolutionists?

    The Daubert Standard…..I bet they have an evolutionisic worldview too.

    All in all, this is anti-religious, anti-christian, and evolutionistically inspired. In other words completely biased against ID, Creationism and against God Himself.

  603. Barney said

    Remember: young earthers rely on misinformation to try and make their ideas seem ‘scientific’.

  604. abc's said

    Maz

    No, it is only biased against things that claim to be science and are not.

    You are the one who is equating Science with absolute truth. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural as it is inherently unscientific and untestable.

  605. Maz said

    Abc’s:
    ”Right. Intelligent design is religious in nature, therefore it is not Science. That’s the point I am trying to make. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural.”

    And what was that about before then?…..”…without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural…” ????

    You don’t get it do you? We SEE DESIGN IN NATURE….THEREFORE THERE MUST BE AN INTELLIGENCE BEHIND IT…….THUS…INTELLIGENT DESIGN. If you deny this, then you are denying the very nose on your face!!!!

  606. Barney said

    “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church…a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”
    -Martin Luther

    Another famous young earther promotes intellectual dishonesty!

    They never learn!

  607. abc's said

    Maz

    “without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural…”

    It means that Science makes no comment about the supernatural. Science has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God. I can’t say it any more plainly.

  608. Maz said

    Barney: The Paluxy footprints were misinterpreted, NOT misrepresented, or a hoax, or a fraud. Evolutionist scientists are doing this ALL THE TIME! Look at the ape-man tooth that turned out to be a pigs!!!

    Thanks Barney, I will take your advice and ignore your link. I’v read all about this anyway.

  609. Maz said

    Abc’s: We are not talking about science proving God or any supernatural entity, we are talking about PHYSICAL CREATION. And SCIENCE reveals what it is and where it came from…..therefore science can reveal that it was created and that therefore there was an Intelligent Creator.

  610. abc's said

    Maz

    No, we are talking about evolution by natural selection.

  611. Barney said

    What does a real scientist think of the intellectual dishonesty of the young earthers? In his essay “Rats in Rate”(link to follow), Dr. Kevin R. Henke writes:

    “Because radiometric dating methods utterly refute their antiquated Biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reliability of these methods. YECs realize that just quoting the Bible is not going to get geochronologists and other scientists to drop their research and stream to the church alters in repentance. Therefore, a small group of YECs with Ph.D.s have formed the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth; Vardiman et al, 2000) committee to comb the scientific literature and design laboratory “experiments” that will somehow verify what they have already concluded, namely that Genesis is “The Truth” and geochronology is “wrong”.

    The RATE committee even has a doctrinal monitor to look over their shoulders to make sure that their “science” does not conflict with the official party line. That is, a Hebrew language scholar will participate ” … to make sure the RATE Group stays on course” (Morris, 2000, p. viii).

    Everyone should be totally repulsed by the thought of a theologian or politician dictating to scientists whether their scientific data is accurate or not. However, YECs consider this type of authoritarian control to be “good science” and somehow ethical. Clearly, the YEC approach to “research” strongly resembles the dogmatic “doctrinal correctness” of Stalin’s Lysenkoism, where communist party officials told biologists what to think and what “research” was acceptable…

    Unlike the Geological Society of Australia, the American Chemical Society and other professional science associations, the Creation “Research” Society (CRS), the Institute for Creation “Research” (ICR), “Answers” in Genesis (AiG) and other YEC organizations commonly require their members, students and/or employees to sign or affirm their sectarian “statements of faith”.

    Any scientist that is willing to sign away his/her integrity and freedom to explore nature for the sake of a political and/or religious cause does not deserve to be called a scientist. These oath-takers are promising not to accept any results or perform any research that challenges the credibility of the official political and/or religious dogma. Whether atheist, YEC, Lysenkoist or whatever, those that submit to the oaths of the party line are ultimately unable to adapt to any radical paradigm shifts that may occur in our views of nature. Because the members of the RATE committee have signed away their academic freedom for the comfort of Biblical dogmatism, it’s not surprising that their “research” plans, as outlined in Vardiman et al. (2000), are crippled and full of faulty arguments and flawed experimental procedures.” – Dr. Kevin R. Henke

    WOW! Those young earthers will go to any length to spread their pseudo-science! Thanks, Dr. Henke!

  612. Barney said

    link to the above essay by Dr Henke:

    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/RATES_research_henke.htm

    Maz, don’t bother!

  613. F. L. A. said

    Bob, post#584, They did disclose it, at least within the books that John used to bring home from school. Has this changed?
    I was the one within post#558 that inquired about the conference.

    Maz, post#585, Same answer, and as for the people that I described, I was not speaking of the book publishers or the teachers, I was speaking of the common man on the street, the former students, the kind of people you interviewed on the topic.

    Bob Griffin and Maz Herman, I will be willing to seriously consider your theories of “Intelligent Design” if you are willing to seriously consider the idea that Aliens from deep space had a hand at “Creation”/ambiogenesis on this planet eons ago. What do you say?

  614. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    ID leads to a designer. That does not imply religion. You could assume aliens were the designer (like Dawkins).

    With the observation – I was getting at the observations you made of things millions and billions of years ago. Kind of hard to observe that.

  615. Maz said

    Abc’s: No, we are talking about EVOLUTION, which is not the same as natural selection atall.

  616. abc's said

    Bob

    ID assumes a supernatural designer. Science does not comment on the supernatural.

  617. Maz said

    Abc’s: I was watching something very interesting about Climate Change the other day and how scientists reports were manipulated by government. The government had scientists in meteorology publish the findings about Climate Change which the government wanted them to publish. Some scientists out of conscience sake could not do this because it meant them saying something that actually wasn’t true. I can’t be more specific because I didn’t take notes which I sometimes do, but the US government have tampered with Global Warming scientific findings for political reasons.

  618. abc's said

    Maz

    What does that have to do with evolution by natural selection?

  619. Maz said

    Barney: #612, Thanks, I won’t.

  620. Maz said

    Ferox:
    ”Bob Griffin and Maz Herman, I will be willing to seriously consider your theories of “Intelligent Design” if you are willing to seriously consider the idea that Aliens from deep space had a hand at “Creation”/ambiogenesis on this planet eons ago. What do you say?”

    NO.

  621. Maz said

    Abc’s: As I said, natural selection is NOT evolution.

  622. abc's said

    Maz

    “As I said, natural selection is NOT evolution.”

    You keep saying this. What is the point that you are trying to make?

  623. Maz said

    Abc’s: The POINT is that natural selection….and I’m taking it that you know what that is….is NOT THE SAME as evolution….which again I expect you to understand, so why are you confused at what I am saying? THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

  624. abc's said

    Maz

    I am aware that the words “evolution” and “natural selection” are different arrangements of letters and syllables that have distinct meanings.
    I’m still not sure why you keep pointing that out.

  625. F. L. A. said

    Maz, post#620
    Awwwww.
    And does Mr.Griffin feel the same way? Post#614 almost makes me wonder…

  626. Maz said

    Abc’s: I thot you understood the difference. Natural selection happens WITHIN an animal species only, it does not progress to an entirely different species of animal. Evolution is animals changing from one to another and then to another etc. for millions of years!
    Is that clear enough?

  627. Maz said

    Ferox: I would love you to consider ID, but I would be a hypocrit if I said I would consider alien creators, because I couldn’t do that…..I believe God created the Heavens and the earth and I have no doubt about that atall, so I don’t need to consider any other origins.

  628. John said

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if the person we now think of as “Jesus Christ” was actually an ancient alien?

  629. Chris C. said

    Bob, in post 614 you implied Richard Dawkins believes aliens were the ‘intelligent designers’. Dawkins believes no such thing and the quote you are misrepresenting is really quite self-explanatory.

  630. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    I would consider an alien as the designer – as soon as you show me one. That would make more sense than evolution. But that still begs the question, how did the alien arise?

  631. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs 616

    So??? Thats the direction the science takes you.

  632. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs 616

    So??? Thats the direction the science takes you.

  633. Bob Griffin said

    Chris C

    Youre back. I was thinking about one of the evolutionists interviewed by Ben Stein at the end of Expelled. Watch it and see if I was right or wrong.

  634. Ed said

    I am reposting from another, less applicable, page of this site.
    Question: If men did not evolve from apes. where did man evolve from then?
    If macro-evolution cannot be proven as law or fact but mearly thory, then why cannot other theories taught as well instead of macro-evolution alone as “fact”?

    “The strongest, most adaptive survive.” If this were true, then all of life would be simple organisms. The more complex an organizm, the easier to kill. The longer time between birth and puberty (ability to procreate) the lower the chances for that organism to adapt to the new envirionment.
    Evolution goes against itself anyway.
    A single celled organism like a bactirum or other, indipendantly viable organizm given the free range to grow and adapt (basis for evolution) and become an organism that each cell is dependant on the others for survival and not viable on its own.

  635. Ed said

    I am reposting from another, less applicable, page of this site.
    Question: If men did not evolve from apes. where did man evolve from then?
    If macro-evolution cannot be proven as law or fact but mearly thory, then why cannot other theories taught as well instead of macro-evolution alone as “fact”?

    “The strongest, most adaptive survive.” If this were true, then all of life would be simple organisms. The more complex an organizm, the easier to kill. The longer time between birth and puberty (ability to procreate) the lower the chances for that organism to adapt to the new envirionment.
    Evolution goes against itself anyway.
    A single celled organism like a bactirum or other, indipendantly viable organizm given the free range to grow and adapt (basis for evolution) and become an organism that each cell is dependant on the others for survival and not viable on its own.

  636. Maz said

    John: #628. Then everything He said would be a lie wouldn’t it?

    And how does an alien rise from the dead?

  637. Maz said

    Ed: #634. It also begs the question for evolutionists, why did insects evolve when much larger animals were around to eat them!! Especially that weird little colour changing, tongue shooting animal the chameleon!
    Surely, evolution would have done itself a favour if all the animals had evolved into large, powerful animals that could defend themselves against predators, but then I guess, they could have either starved to death or killed each other off because it would be a no win situation!

    The way life harmonizes should show there is design in nature….everything is so finely tuned together, even the plants, trees, everything that lives is in harmony….or atleast it was until man began to mess it all up. Funny that, it takes an intelligent human being to mess up what was just an accident to start with, and according to evolutionists, is still accidentally happening now! 😉

  638. Barney said

    Remember: on this thread alone there are 637 responses almost half of which are from young earthers either misrepresenting, ignoring or otherwise being intellectually dishonest about what science is and does.

  639. Maz said

    Barney: Just because you don’t agree….that is your opinion.

  640. Bob Griffin said

    Barney,

    An evolutionist being intellectually dishonest. That would be right.

  641. Mike S. said

    Joe “I don’t believe in the supernatural.”
    Sam “Why not?”
    Joe “Because there is no scientific evidence for it.”
    Sam “Then you shouldn’t believe in science either.”
    Joe “Why not?”
    Sam “Because there is no scientific evidence for it.”

    Silly huh? But true if you carry the logic out.

    You can not weigh a chicken with a tape measure.

    The materialist may say if it can’t be proven empirically then it is not real. So what about “thoughts”, do they exist? They may say that “truth claims have no basis”. What is that he just made? So by his own admission he has no basis for making such a claim. To rule out the supernatural is not reasonable. Can it be proven to exist? Maybe. Can it be proven to not exist, absolutely not. Who is more open minded? The scientist who is open to supernatural possibilities or the one who denies they exist at all?

    When looking at how life began, to rule out something supernatural takes more faith than believing that there was a supernatural beginning. That is the whole concept behind the ID movement. It simply does not rule out a supernatural possibility, which I think is more plausible than the alternative.

  642. abc's said

    Mike S.

    With that being said, why don’t you believe in unicorns or Allah?

  643. Bob Griffin said

    ABCs

    Is a unicorn a transitional form?

  644. Mike S. said

    You just love those unicorns don’t you Abc? My point has nothing to do with unicorns or Allah. However if there was as much evidence for them as there is for the Bible and Jesus Christ then I would have to seriously consider them. But this digresses from the point.

    Which is more tenable?

    The big bang was something coming from nothing or there was a supernatural cause?

    The universe and it’s contents appears designed (R. Dawkins admits this in his book) but it’s not, or it appears design because it is!

    Moral laws came from nothing or from a moral law giver?

  645. Stanley said

    “You can not weigh a chicken with a tape measure.”

    Really, Mike? 3 bad examples already today.

  646. Stanley said

    Unicorns don’t exist. Just like your god.

  647. Bob Griffin said

    Mike S 644

    Ditto.

  648. Mike S. said

    Stanley you have a really tough time with thinking 1 or 2 inches below the surface don’t you? Try it sometime, you might just learn that you can actually think for yourself.

  649. abc's said

    Mike S.

    “The big bang was something coming from nothing or there was a supernatural cause?”

    The big bang was not something coming from nothing. That is a uninformed generalization of the theory.

    I mentioned unicorns twice today, so I must love them, huh?

  650. Barney said

    Bob Griffin: ignore

  651. abc's said

    Mike S.

    But let’s assume the “everything came from nothing” scenario.
    That seems very unreasonable.

    The only thing that could be more unreasonable would be to assume an omniscient supernatural being that is even larger and more complex than “everything” was around to create it.

  652. Mike S. said

    We talked about this before. Either something came from nothing, or something eternally exists. One or the other. There is no other option. I say it’s a creator and you say it is….??? Sorry I thought you metinoned unicorns before… Maybe it was Chris C. Welcome back Chris!

  653. Stanley said

    Irony. You’re doin’ it right.

  654. Mike S. said

    You’re going to need to depressurize after going that deep Stan!!

  655. Stanley said

    Really, if you think the big bang was something from nothing you are ignorant.

  656. abc's said

    “Either something came from nothing, or something eternally exists.”

    They both sound improbable, and that’s why I don’t make a truth claim regarding the beginning of everything.

  657. Stanley said

    Mike, pretending I don’t understand doesn’t make your examples any better.

  658. Maz said

    Stanley: Mike was right in #648, you either have a very shallow way of thinking or you can’t articulate it. Your answers really do display your ignorance.

  659. Maz said

    Barney: If you want to ignore people I suggest you don’t come onto this site atall.

  660. Barney said

    Remember: the young earthers straw man arguments are based on obfuscation and deliberately misleading misstatements of what science teaches us.

  661. Mike S. said

    Abc “They both sound improbable” so you don’t agree that one of the two HAS to be true? If so that is not very intellectually responsible.

    Stan my boy, you have not proven that you understand much of anything with your short claims that you never back up.

  662. Bob Griffin said

    Barney and Stanley.

    Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

  663. Stanley said

    Mike, everything you say is ironic. Think about it, but don’t think too hard, lest you get a headache.

  664. Maz said

    Abc’s: Get onto the Big Bang sites…..pick one…..any one, and you will find a similar story to this one….

    Big Bang Theory – The Premise

    The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment THERE WAS NOTHING; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

  665. Stanley said

    Really, Bob?

  666. Maz said

    Abc’s: I forgot to add……you see….THERE WAS NOTHING…and then THERE WAS SOMETHING!!!!

  667. Stanley said

    Maz, that is NOT what the big bang theory says. You’re understanding of it is flawed. There WAS matter, ALL matter, condensed and unorganized.

  668. Stanley said

    666 post. Its a sign.

  669. abc's said

    Mike S.

    “Abc “They both sound improbable” so you don’t agree that one of the two HAS to be true? If so that is not very intellectually responsible.”

    One of those ideas may very well be correct, I just don’t claim to know which one it is.

  670. Stanley said

    I’m going to anthropology. To go listen about that evidence that doesn’t exist, according to you.

  671. Maz said

    Stanley: #667. WHY DON’T YOU READ WHAT THEY SAY ON THE SITES……ONE OF WHICH I PICKED AT RANDOM AND COPIED FOR YOU TO READ. THERE WAS NOTHING……THEN THERE WAS SOMETHING.
    THERE WAS NOTHING…..AND THEN THERE WAS SOMETHING. Have you got it now?

  672. Maz said

    Abc’s: ”One of those ideas may very well be correct, I just don’t claim to know which one it is.”

    Yet you argue for one very vigorously.

  673. Barney said

    Remember: ignorance is celebrated as enlightenment by the young earthers.

  674. Mike S. said

    Abc I missed post #651. Either way you have to admit that it is mind boggling. How can it NOT be supernatural. Anyway I think we’ve beat this one around enough for today. Stan have fun at Anthropology, maybe you will find yourself… or one of your ancestors!! Or some unicorns… Maybe your ancestors were unicorns! That would splain that skull of yours! 🙂

  675. Maz said

    Ignore Barney.

  676. Barney said

    “In the United States, various views of creationism typically have been promoted by small groups of politically active religious fundamentalists who believe that only a supernatural entity could account for the physical changes in the universe and for the biological diversity of life on Earth. Proponents of this form of creationism also believe that all living things, including humans, were created in a very short period of time in essentially the forms in which they exist today.

    No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints. On the contrary, as discussed earlier, several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.” — from SCIENCE, EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM by Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences

  677. Barney said

    link to the above publication:

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876#toc

  678. Mike S. said

    I do not subscribe to young earth or old earth. Just His earth!!

  679. abc's said

    Mike S.

    “I do not subscribe to young earth or old earth. Just His earth!!”

    Now that’s a reasonable choice!

  680. Bob Griffin said

    Barney

    Does your science prove or infer 14 billion years?

  681. abc's said

    Bob

    Does spitting on your thumbs and pressing them into a girls eyes prove or infer God?

  682. Maz said

    Abc’s: You are beginning to sound like Stanley and Barney. As I’m having trouble connecting onto this site I bid farewell until tomorrow.

  683. F. L. A. said

    You guys![Laughter]
    As for the “Big Bang”, obviously there would have had to be SOMETHING, for if there was nothing, then what do you think exploded?
    “Something from nothing”…….I have only heard of the “Big Bang” described in this manner by Christian Creationists claiming that this is what evolutionists believe, not by Evolutionary Scientists themselves.

  684. Stanley said

    Thank you F.L.A.

    Don’t expect people to understand that, though. I’ve already told them.

  685. abc's said

    Maz

  686. F. L. A. said

    You are welcome Stanley.

  687. F. L. A. said

    Ah! Now I understand your comment within post#681, Abc’s.
    But is OUR Bob Griffin and THAT Bob Griffin one in the same?

  688. Bob Griffin said

    FLA and ABCs

    Can I spit on my thumbs and put them in your eyes and see what I find out?

    This may one of your Bob Griffins, or maybe Im an enema.

  689. Stanley said

    or a psycho.

  690. Chris C. said

    Regarding Dawkins’ opinion on Intelligent Design and Bob’s misquoted information:

    http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Dawkins_said_aliens_created_life_on_earth

    Also, how the universe began is completely unrelated from the theory of evolution. I don’t know how the universe started – no one does. Evolution is not concerned with the start of the universe, only with the EVOLUTION of life once it arose on earth.

  691. Maz said

    F.L.A: ”As for the “Big Bang”, obviously there would have had to be SOMETHING, for if there was nothing, then what do you think exploded?

    PRECISELY.

    “Something from nothing”…….I have only heard of the “Big Bang” described in this manner by Christian Creationists claiming that this is what evolutionists believe, not by Evolutionary Scientists themselves.

    I’v already posted something that EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE SAID, and if you go on other sites you’ll hear the same thing from other EVOLUTIONISTIC ATHEISTS……we ARE NOT saying it…THEY ARE.

  692. Maz said

    Chris: It is evolutionists and atheists who are saying that the Big Bang happened. And it is all related to a Godless explanation for life and the Universe.

  693. Maz said

    Abc’s: #685. I’ll have a look at your link and make comment later.

  694. Maz said

    Chris: Your link….OK, Richard Dawkins does not say he actually believed aliens started life on this earth…..but can you back up the accusations of deliberately lying by Creationists?
    A link maybe?

  695. Maz said

    It is interesting that if you were to ask the man in the street two questions: (Try it sometime)

    1) Where did man come from?

    2) How did the Universe come into being?

    You will probably get the same answer (unless ofcourse you meet a Christian…especially a YEC)

    1) From apes.

    2) The Big Bang.

    People beieve on the whole that these two answers are scientific FACTS. I wonder why?

    And actually, certain scientists have been saying that there ‘may have been’ SOMETHING’ at the beginning, but they don’t know what it was! More guess work ofcourse. Just like the Dark matter and the Dark energy they had to invent to fit their atheistic theories…otherwise they have problems with what they actually find in the Universe.

  696. Barney said

    Remember: the young earthers rely on misinformation: almost every post by the young earthers on this thread misstates the scientific method.

    We can only conclude they are doing it deliberately.

  697. Maz said

    The kind of attitude that prevails on this site from atheists and evolutionists such as the above are truly astounding. Accusations seem to be the only tactic that is left to them when they find themselves unable to answer valid questions.

  698. Barney said

    Even though I am a creationist I make it a point to try and understand the scientific method which then becomes no threat to my crationist belief.

    Young earthers celebrate ignorance. We confront them here with their ignorance.

  699. Barney said

    An interesting website that I found regarding young earth “Creationist Frauds”:

    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creationist_frauds.htm

    Wow! Maz will not like that!

  700. Maz said

    Barney: I really havn’t got much patience at the moment having problems on my e-mail page, so I am really not going to humour you any longer. Whatever links you dig up for me will go unchecked. At the end of the day, YOU will have to answer to GOD for your rejection of HIS TRUTH, not mine or anyone elses.

  701. Bob Griffin said

    Chris

    Nice post. Dawkins and the rest of you still miss the point. Even if aliens created us, how were they created? Darwin and evolution do not address the issue of origins – Darwin assumed some species was already in existence and evolution took over from there.

  702. F. L. A. said

    As much as I enjoyed reading you call yourself an enema, Bob[Snicker.Snicker.], I cannot help but wonder why.
    I wonder, what would happen to your mind if you were to ever encounter a powerful non-human intelligence that did not fit into your custom-made views of the universe and the sciences.
    I am betting on…
    A.Catatonia, followed by a different degree of insanity.
    Or
    B.Psychological denial of the senses and then later a willful altering of the memories.

  703. Mike S. said

    A.Catatonia, followed by a different degree of insanity.
    Or
    B.Psychological denial of the senses and then later a willful altering of the memories.

    Reminds me of how unbelievers respond to Jesus. (both now and when he walked this earth!)

  704. Bob Griffin said

    FLA and Mike S

    I dont think the bible says whether there are other creations or not. I guess there could be. As soon as I find an alien Ill ask him about origins and get back to you.

  705. Maz said

    I may have this wrong, but if Bob is an enema….I guess what he says brings out the…..(rubbish)…..from other people. Is that a good guess of Bobs meaning? Sounds right anyway.

  706. Bob Griffin said

    Maz

    I might be trying to be too much of a comedian. Maybe one of the comedians on the site can direct me to an alien to interview.

  707. Maz said

    Bob: We need the humour, and I enjoy a good laugh at times!!

  708. Ed said

    Bob,
    I would love to see that interview!

  709. F. L. A. said

    ..[long tired sigh]……

  710. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    Dredge me up an alien long and tired from his intergallactic trip and I will give you the results.

  711. F. L. A. said

    Sure Bob, just let me pull that out of my back pocket…Oh DARN! I forgot, I don’t wear cloths to have any pockets….

    Not all Aliens come from beyond the stars. When I use the word “alien” I just mean any non-human intelligence.

  712. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    Even with no clothes, you could still pull one out of your rear.

    What would this example of local intelligence be?

  713. F. L. A. said

    Bob, I think that we all already know that your only concept of Intelligent Design is just the same old version of Christian Creationism in a different wrapper. I do not think that as a Young Earth Christian Creationist you are willing to give serious consideration to the possibility of a non-human intelligence[Of the non-spiritual sort] any more than the information proving an ancient Earth and evolution, which makes your post#614 seem somewhat like a desperate and or unsincere attempt at compromise.

  714. Bob Griffin said

    FLA

    I personally believe that ID leads to a God – in my case that would be Jesus of the bible. Thats my Intelligent Designer. What would you suggest besides aliens?

  715. Maz said

    Bob: They HAVE TO invent anything other than believe that an Omnipotent Creator God created everything. Aliens are easy pickings……another intelligence Bigger than us put us here…..but as you point out….where DID THEY come from? And WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
    If you plant a field with seeds don’t you hang around to see the fruit?
    I suppose some will say, they do visit us occasionally….all those UFO’s!

    But the aliens that I have seen mans imagination create look nothing like us. Big heads, big eyes, skinny grey bodyies, and if they are supposed to be far more intelligent, then why didn’t they just plant the seeds of a man to begin with…..why wait millions of years for evolution to bring us to this point?????? The ones that planted the seeds would never see the result! Unless ofcoourse they LIVE for millions of years!!! Maybe they have invented a way of living forever. MMMMmmmmm. Just let our evolutionist friends THINK about all that this means. I guess they DO THINK about these things.

  716. Bob Griffin said

    Maz,

    While splitting wood this weekend, I had a thought. Do they accept an alien as probable but not a God?

  717. Bob – Please go to our new site at http://www.truthtalklive.com. We are redirecting everyone there now.

    Thanks!
    Moderator

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: