Renowned Chemist Says Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life

James Tour (1009x1024)HOUSTON – A prominent chemist who was recognized this year as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world says most scientists do not understand how evolution could explain the existence of life.

Dr. James Tour is a well-known professor at Rice University, specializing in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Over the last 30 years, Tour has authored over 500 research publications, and he was recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org. Tour has also received awards and recognitions from the American Chemical Society, Thomson Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others.

In a video released in late 2012, Tour explained that he has had extensive experience studying the origin of life.

“I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist,” Tour said, “if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules.”

Despite his experiences and expertise, Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence.

“I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video. “Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.”

However, Tour says he is not the only one who does not understand how life could have arisen through natural, unguided processes.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”

The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”

“Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

Fair says there is an important distinction between microevolution and macroevolution—the former is clearly observable and repeatable, but the latter has never been witnessed.

“From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution,” he wrote in a blog post. “The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.”

After recognizing that evolutionists are “collectively bewildered” by life’s origins, Tour joined nearly 900 other scientists in signing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which states: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

If evolution cannot account for life’s existence, then how did life originate? Tour says the most reasonable answer is simple.

“I believe fundamentally that God created us all,” he told the Houston Chronicle.

Photo: www.jmtour.com


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Reason2012

    Ask evolutionists to show an example of populations of fish morphing over generations (‘evolving’ they call it) eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. This is what they claim happens, yet pick any animal: the human race has never observed any such thing, *hence it’s observable scientific fact it does not happen until anyone ever shows it to do so*.

    Here’s what *is* science: It’s observable, scientific fact that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses and so on. In spite of this, evolutionists:

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief *never happens* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable scientific fact.

    Why do evolutionists ignore what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen? They are only deceiving themselves.

    • Nasus

      Sssshhhh…..not so loudly!!! Don’t want anyone knowing they are really clueless, and creationsist have had the right of it all along….Genesis…… *tongue in cheek*

      • Reason2012

        We cannot call creation by God science either. The bottom line is the topic of origins (of biological diversity of life, or of life, or of the universe) is beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table. Evolutionists have managed to distort science in order to pass off their belief system as science when it’s anti-science and contradicts observable, repeatable, scientific fact.

        • jmichael39

          When it comes to historical events, the proper manner of approaching the issue is to create an acceptable set of data points (facts) that we do know and then present the various options for explaining that data. The option that explains the majority (and preferably all) of those data points is most likely the proper conclusion to reach.

          It is interesting that even Darwin placed his entire theory on a string and suggested that “If it could be demonstrated any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

          Michael Behe has written in response to this quote from Darwin,

          “A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.

          “Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, “irreducibly complex” is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems?”

          Behe has, over the years, presented several dozen irreducibly complex biological systems as examples. Although I highly doubt that any would produce a consensus of agreement…no attempts to refute Behe’s work has done more than merely presented other options to explain these complex systems….options that fail to provide justification for acceptance. Likely they are options not even presented to provide a valid alternative to Behe’s claims, but are merely an attempt to cast doubt upon them. Which is fine, but is hardly a refutation.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Very well written response. Not entirely sure what your overall point was, but wanted to address one aspect: Science is about things that do happen, then we come up with how it happens. Even if we end up being wrong, it’s still science. Science is not about beliefs that never happen and “well if you can’t show it couldn’t happen that makes this belief science”, which is all evolution is.

            Good points about irreducibly complex systems – a single cell alone is one such case. Te human body has many parts that we cannot exist without as well. Molecular biologists have come to faith in God when they realize all the things going on even inside a solitary cell – it makes our most advanced computers an computer programs a joke.

            Thanks for posting!

          • jmichael39

            Thanks for your comment. I am no expert of science. But I do love researching and learning. I learn a great whenever a darwinian or neo-darwinian challenges me some questions or presents some data points. It forces me to study more. Which I do. The Behe point about irreducibly complex systems is amazing. You should see some of complex systems they’ve found.

            I’ve also been reading some info about some of the hardcore, complex coding that weaves its way through our DNA. It is so amazingly complex that it boggles the mind that anyone could view this and suggest anything other than an intelligence behind it.

            But I also understand the need for evolutionists to cling so fervently to their beliefs. Its like I said, it is natural human instinct to make the leap from just a pure Designer of the universe to that Designer being the God of the Bible. Creationists make that leap, as do evolutionists (which is why they feel they are compelled reject ID). B

            Thank you again for the kind comment.

          • Evolution is a fact

            Very few people in the scientific community take Behe seriously.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

          • jmichael39

            I’ve read that article before. Its always a minor curiosity why such articles that take an opposing view as someone else in such a cavalier fashion and then fail to make an obvious expression of who THEY are.
            I don’t take too seriously such disagreement. Every scientist has their critics….even Darwin. And rightfully so. But I’ve read Black Box and have yet to find any serious refutation of his work. Have you had a chance to read the book?

          • Evolution is a fact

            The problem with ID is that it isn’t science, it’s a belief system that is based on a logical fallacy, argument from incredulity. Mr. Behe may have a nice argument for his hypothesis, but he has absolutely no way to observe, test, or verify it.

          • jmichael39

            Any theory anyone has about the origins of the universe have the exact same ability to observe, test and verify those theories…since no one can obviously go back and observe the origins or replicate them in a laboratory.

            To sit there and declare ID as summarily non-scientific is ignorant at best…and wreaks of self-importance. You can make whatever efforts you wish to find flaws in the science of ID, but its utterly arrogant to blow it off as unscientific simply because or anyone else simply don’t agree with the conclusions.

            I’m honestly not sure where you think anyone in the ID science community are making an argument by incredulity. You seem to be projecting. No one is arguing that they just can’t imagine how there can’t be a Creator, therefore there MUST be one. Perhaps say the first part, but then don’t jump to that conclusion. But there is no harm in the first part. Even darwinists say such a thing about there NOT being Intelligent Design. That doesn’t suggest they are summarily proclaiming there must not be one just because they can’t imagine there being one. Seems to me you’re jumping to conclusions your self.

            As for Behe’s theories…he most definitely can observe and test and verify. His work centers around complex molecular machines. His idea of irreducible complexity can be tested, observed and verified through reversing of the machine’s complex mechanisms. Here’s how Behe describes it succinctly.

            “By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, ‘irreducibly complex’ is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.”

            I’m honestly not even sure why I share this with you. It seems fairly clear that you’ve come into this discussion with a preconceived idea of what ID is. After re-reading the very article upon which we’re making these comments, I have a difficult time believing you even read this article. There is clear and obvious science to ID. You may not like the science. You may disagree with the conclusions. But your cavalier dismissal of it as unscientific is, itself, a logical fallacy known as poisoning the well.

            If your suggestion that it is not science is based upon the idea that most ID scientists come into the discussion with their own pre-conceived ideas and try to work science around those ideas, you’re right. Unfortunately for you, almost every scientist does the very same thing.

            The funny thing is that most Neo-Darwinists accept that there is ‘design’ in the universe. They simply dismiss it as merely the appearance of design. I still, after reading dozens of papers on that subjects, can figure out exactly how them distinguish between the appearance of design and actual design. Every paper I’ve read on it from Neo-Darwinists, at best, make their own argument from incredulity, suggesting that they can’t conceive of there being actual design, so it must be just the appearance of design.

          • Evolution is a fact

            FWIW, I’m not dismissing the idea of a creator and evolution does not do that either. In fact, evolution has no position on the concept of a creator. What I am dismissing is the idea of irreducible complexity, because other scientists have demonstrated that it is a false idea. But, to be clear, I have no dog in this fight. I think Behe is wrong, but I would love for him to be right. It would be nice to discover that there is a creator/designer who is responsible for all that we see, but, for now, I don’t see any evidence for it.

          • jmichael39

            (sorry for the formatting on this…I kept trying to write it directly in here only to have something weird happen and my post disappear….so I wrote it in Word and copied and pasted it.)

            When it comes to issues like this, I approach the issue with
            as much data as I can find. I analyze it as best I can and then determine some percentage of likelihood of each of the
            conclusions presented. Unfortunately, while there are still weaknesses in Behe’s presentation, the alternative
            conclusions do little more than throw some doubt into Behe’s projections. They actually present no viably alternative
            conclusion, except that, to them, it can’t be Behe’s conclusion. And, frankly, when I look at such conclusions in light of the consequences to those scientists should Behe be right, I find
            little reason to accept their dismissal of Behe beyond that very logical fallacy your suggested earlier…namely, that they can’t imagine him being right. Or more importantly, they can’t imagine what him being right would mean to their own beliefs, therefore, to them, Behe must be wrong. That sore of cavalier
            dismissal of Behe is shown throughout their writings.

            The truly difficult thing for them to accept is that all Behe has to do is be right with regards to ONE such molecular machine. Even Darwin said that should anything like this be evident that his theories would be found wrong. The entire concept of Darwinism hangs on a string. That string centers around
            designe found throughout the universe. Darwin never denied such design. He simply dismissed it as nothing more than the appearance of design, but not actual design. Thus, that how
            many attack Behe. They simply dismiss what Behe sees as obvious design as merely the appearance of design. They simply argue that if multiple elements of one of these molecular machines needed to evolve at one time for the machine to function, then it simply did. They can’t explain how. They simply can’t imagine that it didn’t evolve naturally, so they dismiss alternative explanations.

          • Evolution is a fact

            Scientists don’t start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to fit it. In fact, they do the opposite. The reason scientists dismiss people like Behe is that his hypothesis is inherently unverifiable.

            Also, I apologize if I am repeating myself here, but evolution makes no claim as to the origins of life, rather it merely explains the diversity of life on earth. I’m attaching a link to an article by Dr. Ken Miller that addresses ID and irreducible complexity. FWIW, Dr. Miller is a Christian as well as a scientist. Let me know what you think of it. (Forgive me if you have read this already)

            http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

          • jmichael39

            Scientists SAY they don’t start with a conclusion…they all go in, however, with preconceived notions and world views that pre-dispose their conclusion and effect their approach to the testing. They all do. They’re humans…we all have world views…and its virtually impossible to behave, in any area of our lives, without being effected and influenced by those world views. To deny that reality is simply that, denial.

            His hypothesis is NOT unverifiable. The very nature of complex molecular machines make it completely possible to reverse out the various complex feature and observe. You honestly need to read Black Box to get it. At this point, all I’m here is that such and such a person says Behe’s hypotheses are unverifiable…and you’re not substantiating that accusation.

            Behe presents more that sufficient experimental evidence to support his theories. It boggles my mind that a person would dismiss someone’s scientific presentations by absentia…in other words, you take the word of someone else on why THEY think Behe’s presentations are invalid without having ever read Behe’s presentations. You’ll forgive me for saying this, but that’s simply illogical and highly prejudicial. While I’ve read many of the articles supposedly refuting Behe…I’ve already actually read Behe and find, literally, every one of those articles that supposedly refute his findings to be highly simplistic, dismissive, and highly prejudicial. All I’m getting from you is that you’ve read those articles and accept their conclusions without having read Behe. Sorry to say, that makes me feel compelled to dismiss you, to be frank. But I’ve chosen to continue to engage with you.

            Thanks for the other link, btw. I’ve read that one before too.

          • Evolution is a fact

            Has Behe submitted any of his work defending ID to a scientific journal for peer review? If so, has it passed and been published?

          • Melody Rainer Tregear

            Then you are a fool. And a blind one at that.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            I agree that macroevolution is moon is blue cheese science, but don’t agree with calling people fools. What kind of argument is that? But to some major points of the argument. Many evolutionists do not agree with one another, there is not just one theory of evolution; as some say here that ‘evolution makes no claims to origin of life’… yet others do claim that. I’ll address that. ‘some’ evolutionists claim that inert substances became life; this is the theory of abiogenesis. There must be an explanation for why there is life, it is either by intelligence or accident. If there is something in Mother Nature that arranges complex molecules, for example, that is evidence of intelligence. Example, in the movie Contact a half dozen numbers were being transmitted to earth, and they were repeated over and over. This was taken to be sign of an intelligence attempting to communicate. A big number: 10^80 is 1 followed by 80 zeros, est. number of molecules in universe. ONE single protein molecule of 100 amino acid ‘chain’ needs this chain to be in perfect order (some have 500 or more; none have less than 50). It is like numbering 100 poker chips 1 to 100, throwing them in the air and what are the chances of them landing in perfect sequence? 1 in 10^130. If by some naturalistic miracle this chain lined up, what would this produce? ONE single molecule of ONE single protein. To have the remotest chance of getting life started, billions of tons each of hundreds of different kinds of proteins, billions of tons each of hundreds of DNA and RNA molecules must be produced; the chance of that is flatly zero. If evolution can demonstrate the mechanism of that, I think that will explain to Dr. Huse why he cannot understand how molecules could by cosmic lottery produce life. As George Wald said, life is either by such accidents (which he considered impossible by the laws of probability) or God. Since he said that he didn’t want to believe in God, he chose to believe in the impossible creation of life. John Grebe, dir. basic and nuclear res. Dow Chemical offers $1000 to whomever can produce just one clear, real proof of macroevolution.

          • Melody Rainer Tregear

            I did not say he was a fool for believing in evolution. His statement, ‘It would be nice to discover that there is a creator/designer who is responsible for all that we see, but, for now, I don’t see any evidence for it’, is why I said it. Our Creator’s handiwork is everywhere if one will only look. To not believe in the Creator, is to not believe in God as they are one and the same. God says if someone says there is no God, they are a fool. What’s more, to look around and not see what is so obvious, is indeed to be blind though seeing. We all have a choice to make – to believe in God, or not. He either is or He is not. To say ‘I’m not dismissing that there is a God but I don’t see evidence of His existence’, is to say ‘He does not exist but I’ll believe He does if I see evidence of it’. Come on! Just look around. The wonder of life, the beauty of nature, the miracle of birth, etc, etc, etc. Is that not evidence enough to believe?

          • Don Fernando de SF

            I understand your point, since the Bible itself calls a non believer in God ‘fools’ (or at least that’s the translation); in book of Romans God has provided ample evidence of His handiwork in the ‘things He has made’ and that ‘no one has an excuse.’ I am speaking of the spirit of the law, not the ‘letter.’ Just that when someone is called a fool, they would tend to block out the possibility of what you are trying to put across. For the past several decades there has been more than ‘reasonable doubt’ evidence of an Intelligence, an Intelligence that creates galaxies and stars; one that can ‘arrange’ 186,000 ‘links’ in a DNA molecular chain in precise order. To arrange just 100 links is one chance in 10^130 – the number 1 followed by 130 zeros; which is more than the molecules in the universe! This alone is even ‘unreasonable evidence’ of an Intelligence. Of course, one could argue HM maybe this Intelligence is not good, but evil! But at this point of discussion one can admit that this Intelligence is supremely smart! Since no one can explain how molecules self-form (and the precise linking is only one part of a super nano factory btw), one can either say this is by accident or call it an intelligence. Even if you call it Mother Nature, that MN has an innate ability to create molecules into life, you are still ascribing an Intelligence. Of course, one who studies the Biblical record sees that it describes Who this Intelligence is. After 2000 years of attacks, it remains the #1 worldwide bestseller. Thomas Paine once boasted that the Bible would be long gone soon; he is long gone, but the Bible remains. Voltaire on his deathbed was terrified that he had blasphemed the one, true God. And that is what evolution at its core is: it is blasphemy. It says God is not needed to create everything, only blind chance. Yes, this is ‘foolish’ but let those who disbelieve study the evidence for themselves. But all the evidence in the world won’t convince them if their heart remains hard to God. He will allow the ‘veil’ to continue to block their vision. The very sad thing to me is not only are they destroying themselves for eternity if they continue on that road, but they influence their family and friends.

          • Melody Rainer Tregear

            Thank you.

          • Melody Rainer Tregear

            I posted a reply and now it seems to have vanished. Anyway, as I stated before … I did not call him a fool because he believes in evolution. His statements and replies to others indicate that, while he would like there to be a Creator, he sees no evidence of it. Basically, he doesn’t believe God exists because he can’t see evidence of His existence. God says that if someone says there is no God, he is a fool. That’s is why I called him a fool. I said he is blind because the evidence of God the Creator’s existence is everywhere. We just need to look and see.

          • Melody Rainer Tregear

            God says that if someone says in their heart that God does not exist, they are a fool. That is the truth. And that is what I should have said as only you and God know where you stand. I did not share the Truth in love, but with a wrong attitude. For that, I apologise. I don’t know your heart (or you, or the journey you have made through life thus far), only God does. For that reason I should have simply shared what He said rather than share it as an absolute. I am sorry. Melody

          • Robert Hagar

            Do the math evolution is mathematically impossible!
            You cannot even number all the cell functions going on in the next two seconds!
            You are forcing yourself to believe a lie!
            We can observe the complexity of life, the absolute synchronization of body functions that are so complicated one cannot live without the other.
            if life appeared in an instance how did it procreate and develop the next-generation?

          • Evolution is a fact

            Life didn’t appear in an instance. It took billions of years.

          • Robert Hagar

            150million fossils in museums all over the world and NO real link!
            Alot of the so called links were fraudulent attempts to promote the evolutionist religion!

          • Evolution is a fact

            Wrong

          • Evolution is a fact

            Sigh.

          • Jon Peterman

            it is a belief system based on factual eyewitness history

          • Evolution is a fact

            HAHA! Good one.

          • Jon Peterman

            prove it wrong

          • Evolution is a fact

            Seriously? You’re claiming that there is “factual eyewitness history” to the creation of the universe and I have to “prove it wrong”? Whatever drugs you are on, please share them with all of us.

          • Jon Peterman

            God is the eyewitness and Jesus is God, whom we know walked the earth, and was found guiltless by Herod and Pilate both real persons found in history.

            so yes, we have FACTUAL EYEWITNESS HISTORY

            now, prove it wrong

        • kornula

          “Reason2012” just how fucking retarded are you? BTW; I haven’t even read this silly article as the headline reaveals nothing but pure selfish ignonorance. Evoloution dos not explain at all the creation/beginning of life… please learn to fucking read you fucktard

          • Reason2012

            I never said evolutionism explains the creation/beginning of life. I said the topicS (plural) of the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, or the origin of all biological diversity of life are all beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

            BTW, you might want to consider how some evolutionists call the creation of life “chemical evolution”.

            No need for such vulgarity.

          • Rose

            Wow… You haven’t even read the article and you’re telling others they can’t read. And yet you post such things with full confidence and with an unnecessary amount of cursing. How about you read before you judge other people’s ability to read.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            I want to join the team of pure selfish ignonorance, and non-read silly articles exposing the philosophy of evoloution.

          • Rose

            Have fun!

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Fun should be a part of life. Which reminds me of the classic joke: a zookeeper passed by a chimp in his cage reading the Origin of Species and the Bible. The man asked why he was reading those two books? The chimp replied, “I’m trying to figure out whether I’m my brother’s keeper or my keeper’s brother.”

          • Rose

            LOL In speaking of the Origin of the Species, I recently got into a debate with an atheist, and they were trying to prove that there couldn’t be a God while quoting Richard Dawkins, then about thirty minutes later I was at the bookstore and I found Richard Dawkins books in fiction.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Someone could have put it in the food section.

          • Rose

            if only if only

          • CarbonUnitDale

            You have not interjected near enough profanity into your post; I’m sure if you tried harder you could be far more offensive – what a half hearted attempt at besmirching yourself!

          • happylada

            NO, for the number of lines, I think he did a pretty good job of demonstrating the utter ignorance of many who champion evolution. Himself included, of course. If you have NO case, resort to vulgatity – the old saying of a weak mind attempting to express itself with force.

          • Pax Humana

            I only resort to vulgarity if people are too stupid to listen to high and upper class English. You have to understand your crowd and the Apostle Paul understood that himself with the whole “I am a Gentile to the Gentiles and I am a Jew to the Jews” speech that he had in one of his letters.

          • happylada

            The ONLY “pure selfish ignorance” on display is yours. Mainly ignorance. And IF you cannot express a rational point without vulgarity, it appears you are also illiterate and maybe even a bit stupid.

            You are also totally wrong, which goes along with your general ignorance on the subject, and well, in general – there are 7 types of evolution, from stellar evolution, through biological evolution, all necessary to support the myth of evolution.

            Ignorance like yours NEEDS to be expressed in vulgarity because it has NO intellectual value, no rational evidence an NO scientific purpose. Can I ask you to actually THINK for a moment? It is well known that almost all the science disciplines were founded by creationists. Can you tell me ONE invention or scientific discovery that has EVER been based on evolution? I’ve been asking that question for years without an answer. Maybe in your stupidity, you MAY come up with something the thinkers haven’t

          • Pax Humana

            Yes, you ARE mentally retarded, kornula. Please DO tell me why we should accept your little pyramid scheme as true science again? I would love to make you look more like the moron that you already are in your life.

          • D. Mitchell Sweatt

            Korn-hole-ula, I assume you are not a christian by your reply.

        • Devient Genie

          Evolution has been, and continues to be observed, welcome to the 21st century 🙂

      • Daniel Curtsinger

        Good thing so many people were there to observe genesis….

        • James Grimes

          Dude, you are so clueless.

        • Johan Steyn

          Good thing so many people were there to observe the big bang…

          • tplay official

            Pick up a telescope, you’d be surprised what you can see.

          • Rose

            How do stars and planets prove the big bang?

          • tplay official

            Start with their motion, their speed and direction. Pay special notice to the difference between the speed of galaxies further (and furthest) away from the direction of everything else in the same general trajectory. Learn the laws that would govern and events required for such an expansion. Return here for further instruction when you understand basic inflationary principles.

          • Rose

            Not seeing an answer

          • tplay official

            Just a quiz to make sure you’ve done your homework
            Do you think
            a) scientists have discovered a second type of B-mode, or
            b) the observed effects have other, better explanations

            If a) what would be the best way of differentiating it from other phenomena

            If b) what other phenomena could have produced the observed effects

          • Rose

            I’d prefer you get to the point instead of beating around the bush if you’d please.

          • tplay official

            You don’t sound like you’ve done any reading on cosmological inflation at all. It’s almost as if you’re not actually serious about learning anything.

          • Rose

            That’s not it. I’m just not a fan of wasting my time. If you really want me to understand this, send me some links instead of playing games.

          • tplay official

            What did you notice about the difference between the speed of galaxies further (and
            furthest) away from the direction of everything else moving in the same general
            trajectory?

          • Rose

            I didn’t even go and research. Like I said, this is just beating around the bush. If you don’t mind, just get to the point.

          • jmichael39

            Paul Steinhardt, one of the world’s leading inflation theorists, pointed out additional difficulties with inflation theory. Theorists believe that inflation is extremely likely to produce a universe that permits life to exist. This would seem to be good news for secularists. However, it is actually bad news for them because most of these habitable universes would have characteristics that do not match what we observe! Even when the observations are interpreted through the filter of the Big Bang model, obtaining a universe that matches these observations requires a great deal of fine-tuning. Thus, our existence in such an unlikely universe still requires an explanation—theorists invoked inflation in part to escape one fine-tuning problem, but only succeeding in replacing it with another!

            Steinhardt also noted that one is far more likely to get a flat universe without inflation than with it, a conclusion supported by calculations done by Oxford physicist Roger Penrose in the 1980s: Penrose concluded that a flat universe was 10100 times more likely without inflation than with it. This is truly astonishing, since one of the main reasons inflation was invoked in the first place was to explain the apparent flatness of the universe! Trying to explain our existence apart from the Lord leads to frustrating conclusions: “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision” (Psalm 2:4).

            Steinhardt, P. J. 2011. The Inflation Debate. Scientific American. 304 (4): 36-43.

          • tplay official

            A fine tuner would have to be fine tuned. You’ve done nothing to end the paradox.

          • jmichael39

            Why? What you’re arguing is that, essentially, every
            cause has to have its own cause. That there cannot be the possibility of an uncaused cause. This is one of those questions that causes science to merge with philosophy…sort of like the discussion on the definition of ‘infinity’.

            The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind
            that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

            Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly
            appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, “Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn’t you?” No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren’t looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

            Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents
            caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a
            whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

            Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn’t, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a
            whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, “Don’t look to me for the final explanation. I’m just an instrument. Something else caused me.” If that’s all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, “The buck stops here.”

            If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great
            chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car’s motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because
            the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

            Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get
            it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect.

            If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the
            gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

            Saint Thomas has four versions of this basic argument.

            First, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here
            refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it
            does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.

            Second, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the
            universe’s coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us.
            Therefore there must be a first cause.

            Third, he argues that if there were no eternal, necessary, and immortal being, if everything had a possibility of not being, of ceasing to be, then eventually this possibility of ceasing to
            be would be realized for everything. In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die. But in that case nothing could start up again. We would have universal death, for a being that has ceased to exist cannot cause itself or anything else to begin to exist again. And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God.

            Fourth, there must also be a first cause of perfection or goodness or value. We rank things as more or less perfect or good or valuable. Unless this ranking is false and meaningless, unless souls don’t really have any more perfection than slugs, there must be a real standard of perfection to make such a hierarchy possible, for a thing is
            ranked higher on the hierarchy of perfection only insofar as it is closer to the standard, the ideal, the most perfect. Unless there is a most-perfect being to be that real standard of perfection, all our value judgments are meaningless
            and impossible. Such a most-perfect being, or real ideal standard of perfection, is another description of God.

            There is a single common logical structure to all four proofs. Instead of proving God directly, they prove him indirectly, by refuting atheism. Either there is a first cause or not. The proofs look at “not” and refute it, leaving the only other possibility, that God is.

            Each of the four ways makes the same point for four different
            kinds of cause: first, cause of motion; second, cause of a beginning to existence; third, cause of present existence; and fourth, cause of goodness or value. The common point is that if there were no first cause, there could be no second causes, and there are second causes (moved movers, caused causers, dependent and mortal beings, and less-than-wholly-perfect beings). Therefore there must be a first cause of motion, beginning, existence, and perfection.
            dependent and mortal beings, and less-than-wholly-perfect beings). Therefore
            there must be a first cause of motion, beginning, existence, and perfection.

          • Johan Steyn

            You have obviously not read anything else than evolutionary propaganda. Please look at my other comments. To make a more objective judgement, you need to study both sides, not just one side.

          • tplay official

            Well I just read the RATE project by the Institute for Creation Research. Do you agree with their findings?

          • CarbonUnitDale

            The answer is b) and the better explanation is:
            Isaiah 51:13a
            And you forget the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens And laid the foundations of the earth.
            You sure have a rude awakening coming in your future!

          • tplay official

            So god uses magic tricks to make gravitation lensing appear through primordial light? Which tricks am I supposed to fall for and which ones am I supposed to see through?

          • Johan Steyn

            Evolution uses magic tricks to create information from nothing. It creates left handed proteins, which cannot occur spontaneously. If you want magic, look at evolution!

          • tplay official

            No, the question was which magic tricks am I supposed to fall for and which ones am I supposed to believe? And how do you tell the difference?

          • Johan Steyn

            So you can? This is where man has become so arrogant!

          • tplay official

            No… the premise floated by the other creationist was that primordial really wasn’t polarized by the effects of gravitational waves, a god used tricks to make primordial light look like it had been polarized by the effects of gravitational waves. So how is it known that this was just a stunt by a trickster god?

          • Rose

            We have a bible, a book of truth, that says so.

          • tplay official

            Well, the bible says nothing about fake gravitational waves, but more importantly how do you test the trickster god claim to make sure it isn’t made up? It can be applied to anything, for example, “There isn’t really a sun, trickster god just makes it look like there is a sun.” is just as valid as “trickster god makes primordial light look like it had been polarized by the effects of gravitational waves”.

          • Rose

            You mistake science with religion. Science explains how something happens while religion explains why. We like to call these questions that you ask, ‘An Adam’s Belly Button’ question. All I know is that my Father in heaven made the world in seven days with simple commands. I don’t test the ‘trickster god claim’ that you speak of. I know my God exists because I have seen him with my own eyes, I have his spirit within me telling me right from wrong, and I have the whole world to prove his existence.

          • tplay official

            Can you ask him for a cure for Ebola?

          • Rose

            I can ask him for his will to be done, and as for the second, no because there are some things man isn’t meant to understand. Maybe one of these days he will reveal the answer to that question, but as for now it doesn’t matter.

          • tplay official

            Does he coincidentally only know the same exact things that you know and nothing more?

          • Rose

            Of course not. He knows everything. I think you’re vision on God is a little mixed up. I mean, ‘trickster god’ and ‘does he only know the same exact things that I do?’ I mean really? You’re telling me to go and research on what you believe yet it seems like you have no idea about mine.

          • tplay official

            To the contrary, none of what I asked of you depended on anything I believe. “Trickster god” is not my phrase, it was used by Young Earth Creationists who criticized the Institute for Creation Research’s RATE project who came to the conclusion that miracles put radioactive elements into the earth’s crust, then another miracle rapidly accelerated their decay, another miracle arranged the decay products to cover up any rapid decay, then yet another miracle increased the volume of the earth to absorb the amount of decay energy that normally would have literally blown the planet apart.
            I used the phrase toward a poster who, in his other posts, claimed that a god made light from stars already on their way to earth when the universe was created. Meaning any of the hundreds of supernovas visible from publicly accessible observatories never actually happened, and the stars and the star system that were destroyed never actually existed. Now I don’t think you share this belief, but both of you seem to be convinced that your god is the right one, without giving me anyway to determine which one is.

          • Rose

            I do not share the belief that you speak of. The God I believe in is the one read in the bible, and is the only one I believe is real. I’m a Christian and we have only one God.

          • tplay official

            unfortunately a number of people here have the same preface to their stories, but everyone else’s calls to god’s secrets-of-the-universe hotline seem to have mutually exclusive answers

          • Rose

            Last I checked, you and I are both human. Humans aren’t meant to understand every law of the universe. There are still going to be questions unanswered. Seeking knowledge about unimportant things will only lead to wasted time and regret. So I focus on the main thing I was made to do; I go and make disciples and try to get people saved while I can. I defend my heavenly Father and make him my number one priority. And personally I’m perfectly happy with not understanding everything, for there is a God who knows everything, and how to handle it. I am hoping and I am praying that someday you will experience the same peace that I have.

          • tplay official

            “Last I checked, you and I are both human.” That could be called my central doctrine. carbonunitdale claims god created illusions of stars that never existed, Pax Humana claims lucifer uses polarized light in space to trick us, and you claim the knowledge is not meant for humans. You all claim to talk to God but came to 3 mutually exclusive conclusions and offer no way to determine who is telling the truth.

          • Rose

            We’re not the same Christians. My thinking comes from the story of Joseph in the bible. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. Even though he didn’t understand why God would let that happen to him, he kept on being the best person he could. Eventually he got promoted and then was sent to jail for supposedly hitting on his master’s wife. Then he was released from jail and because of his ability to understand dreams, he got promoted to second in command, and helped save everyone in Egypt. He didn’t have all the facts, mainly because he didn’t need them.

          • Johan Steyn

            Ask monsanto or spher or Merc for the cure, they have helped creating it.

          • tplay official

            thats a great motto for monsanto “God, powerless against us”

          • Jeremy Berryman

            They helped create it? I thought only god could create something. Now you have just proven you are a conspiracy nut as well as being deluded.

          • Johan Steyn

            When someone begins to attach you personally and begin calling you names, you can know that they have lost the argument. When people fail at logic, they’ll call you names.

            This is not the way to do it, is it? Do you even know Monsanto’s history? Yip, you are right, there are no conspiracies out there. Everybody loves everybody, nobody wants to do anything bad to anybody else. All the corruption we see is actually just conspiracy theories. We can trust all politicians, they just want the best for us. What we see out there, we can believe just as it is, nobody wants to fool us in any way. Humanity is so wonderful and evil does not exist.

          • Johan Steyn

            Evidence is interpreted by people. When people make wrong interpretations, the evidence still stands. Everyone thinks that they have the only interpretation that is right. Yet there can only be one correct interpretation, unless you are one of the total relativists.

            If anyone would say that there are no questions that cannot be answered, he is mistaken. In creationism, there are questions that scientist struggle to give proper answers to, the same goes to evolutionism. The big problem comes when people defend questions with stupid answers.

            One problem for both camps is Zircon crystals. The crystals creates a closed system where no material can escape except the Helium. When these crystals are dated, a date of 1.2 bil years. That is not easily answered by creationists. There is however one other big problem, the helium that is in the crystals are far too much. Helium escapes through any material. Nothing stops it because it is so small and because it is a inert gas. When the diffusion rate of the Zircon is taken into account, the date shrinks to 6000 years.

            There are also two views on creation, one that matter did -exist – even though that was also created and one that everything is only 6000 years old.

          • tplay official

            Are you referring the papers put forth by Russ Humphries?

          • Johan Steyn

            I studied this quite a while ago, I do not know.

          • tplay official

            No pressure, but I would legitimately be interested in the details.

          • Johan Steyn

            It was him yes. There is an updated paper on this:

            http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm

          • Pax Humana

            I can answer that QUITE handily, Johan Steyn, and the answer is that they are using faulty testing methods that are brought about by a variety of flawed systems, such as Carbon-14 dating. The dates on those systems are WILDLY off, thus they are inaccurate by default. Their way of getting things done is akin to trying to use a pencil eraser to remove skid marks from an asphalt road…you just can not do that, sir. Furthermore, why is it that forensics teams use this thing that is called tandem access mass spectrometry to measure the dates of things instead of the other methods of measuring things? The answer is simple and that is because the tandem access mass spectrometer is a WAY more accurate (albeit STILL not quite perfect) measurement than ANY other measurement of age that is out there, period, full stop. However, if and when people can develop the technology that is called multiple access mass spectrometry, well, that will make what tandem access mass spectrometry started become even MORE accurate in its form and, yes, it will ALSO give the zircon crystals a REAL date for their creation, period, full stop.

          • Johan Steyn

            The real miracle from evolution’s dating system is that they found red blood cells and soft tissue in T-Rex bones. It is interesting that they would believe that any biological material could survive 60 000 000 years. How much faith do you need to believe that. Could you even believe something surviving even 10 000 years? What about multiplying that by 6 000 to get to 60 000 000. Do people even know how long that is? Nope they do not!!! To even find T-Rex bones so “old” is not possible. Yet they have it.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            Explain one thing then. How does light from the furthest reaches of the universe reach us? If you believe the universe is only 10k years old, there’s no need in trying to convince you, you are seriously ignorant of the facts of physics. 60M years is nothing.

          • Johan Steyn

            Once a guy told me that God placed fossils in the ground to confuse people. The fact that he made such a ridiculous statement, does not negate all the other research and correct responses, does it?

          • tplay official

            You replied directly to my response to him, that is all.

          • Johan Steyn

            Ok

          • Pax Humana

            Well, you should know that since Lucifer is the father of lies and that he also is a master of deception, confusion, and trickery himself.

          • tplay official

            so polarized primordial light is jesus voodoo or lucifer voodoo?

          • Pax Humana

            You serve Lucifer, numb nuts.

          • tplay official

            Does polarized light serve lucifer?

          • CarbonUnitDale

            Pay particular attention to the fact that some moons and planets are rotating backwards compared to most which would/could not happen for all naturalistic explanations of their origins.

          • tplay official

            So nothing in a universe can travel in any other direction unless magic is invoked?

          • happylada

            Interesting. So YOU have it down pat, while NO astronomer I know or have read claims to really know what is happening. That’s amazing. YOU should be a professor to the professors.

            Even the POSSIBILITY of the big bang depends on God, for time matter AND energy had to be created consecutively. The BIG BANG theory has no explanation for its own existence, or for the space it existed in, OR for the time it acted within.

            And with so many glaring holes in the BB theory, its rather futile to grab that as a philosophical lifesaver. Even black holes are NOW no longer sacred to the cosmologist – what you learned 10 years ago is irrelevant to today’s science.

          • tplay official

            I don’t know what you are responding to, but it clearly wasn’t to anything I said.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Evolution ‘in the beginning’ taught that the universe was infinite; then they had to change their story and so came up with the big bang, an explosion that created absolute precision — where the return of a comet can be calculated to the moment, where we can bank on the tidal tables, any of the planets’ positions at any time in the future, etc. So we have a cosmic egg that exploded for some reason. Where from? Why explode? No one knows. What did this cause? Well, maybe it created hydrogen gas. And those became stars and planets! Yet when we study hydrogen and gravity, we can see that the formation of planets and stars by this method is impossible. One scientist postulated, Well perhaps a supernova exploded nearby and that created the star. Ie, you first require a star to make a star! No one can explain how our sun can have 99.9% of the solar system’s mass and still have planets around it. Ie, it is beyond scientific knowledge why this is so. We also don’t know why earth has a perfect gravity ‘setting.’ Imagine a ruler across the universe, and all possible gravity settings in one inch increments. Our setting is in the precise ‘one inch’ actually something like 1/16 of that inch. One inch either way and life is impossible. And we just ‘happen’ to have that setting by ‘accident.’ Earth ‘happens’ to be in in the perfect place in our galaxy for life; with a perfect galaxy for life! With a perfect solar system, sun, moon and other planets that make life possible. Any ONE of these factors missing, and no life! We hear of ‘earth type planet’ being announced in the news. One assumes, why that could mean Capt. Kirk has a new mission! Yet an ‘earth type planet’ must also have a perfect sun, solar system, place in a perfect galaxy, etc. And of course a perfect gravity setting among other impossible settings. This is why Sir Fred Hoyle renounced his atheism; studying the chance formation of life anywhere in the universe as 1 chance in impossible he became a believer in God.

          • jmichael39

            Give your heart to Christ, you’d be surprised what you can see.

          • tplay official

            My heart is required to pump blood through my body.

          • jmichael39

            well, then just give your entire life to Him…why settle for just your heart.

          • tplay official

            tell him to tweet me, it seems inefficient for you to do the speaking

          • jmichael39

            He already has…you’ve rejected His calls. But He’ll keep calling.

          • Rose

            TRUTH!

          • tplay official

            well, my twitter inbox is empty, but more importantly that’s a weird thing to say for someone to say who doesn’t know me

          • jmichael39

            Why is it weird…what statements have you made on here that would lead anyone to conclude anything other than that? If you’ve made such statements, I would love to see them, so that I can re-evaluate my conclusion. You see, that’s how logic works…when new information is obtain, you re-evaluate conclusions. You’ve done that before, I hope.

          • tplay official

            Have you ever considered that making a conclusion with no evidence and then asking other people to disprove what you’ve made up, might be your problem and not anyone elses?

          • jmichael39

            The evidence is your posts. If you’re too incapable of reading through your own posts, don’t blame me. My conclusion still stands based upon your posts. If I’ve missed some that you wish to provide that would potentially alter my conclusion feel free. Otherwise, my conclusion is legitimate.

          • tplay official

            So you can tell by my posts that god has made calls to me? What were they? When were they?

          • jmichael39

            I don’t need to read your posts to know that much. Your posts simply reveal you’ve rejected the calls. He is always calling for us to return to Him.

            But here’s the real calling…Jesus, Himself, said that those who seek a sign (a call) will get one…His death and resurrection. And Paul directly said in I Corinthians 15 that the entirety of Christianity hinges upon whether Christ really raised from the dead. You should read it sometime. Anyone with half an itch to rid the world of Christianity could simply and decisively end the faith by snipping the string of Christ’s resurrection. An honest and rational evaluation of the known and most accepted facts about the death and supposed resurrection of Christ should, if there is no resurrection, lead one to an obvious conclusion that directly addresses those accepted facts. Its been 2000 years, nearly…you wanna be the next to try?

            But, frankly, even after all that, even if after an honest and rational evaluation and analysis of the facts, the most rational conclusion is that Christ DID rise from the dead, guess what? You STILL don’t have to answer the call. But you can’t say there never was one.

            You up for the challenge?

          • tplay official

            So you don’t anything about the calls and you offer no way for me to distinguish what you are saying from something completely made up?

          • jmichael39

            Sure I did…You want to meet God…take a good long look at the data points surrounding the resurrection narrative. Everything about Christianity…about Christ…is found in that. Understand that a belief …no matter what the belief…merely requires us to evaluate the data about that matter and come to a place where we can conclude at least 51/49 that the data provides the necessary justification for that belief. That is the ‘sign’…the ‘call’…whatever other word one might use. If don’t want to answer the call…don’t…its your choice.

          • tplay official

            believing a guy came back to life would only leave me with a belief that a guy came back to life, you still have all your work ahead of you

          • jmichael39

            After THREE DAYS? BS…you’re so full of yourself, you might as well tie a mirror around your neck so you look at your personal god whenever you want.

          • tplay official

            If your point is implicit in a 3 day resurrection, what would be implied by a 2 day resurrection or a 4 day resurrection?

          • jmichael39

            you think your science going to raise someone from the dead after three day? Any other religious leader die and rise from the dead three days later? Any other religious refer to himself as God? AND rise from the dead three days after dying? You wanna explain His resurrection by ANY natural means?

          • tplay official

            You missed the question, which is odd, since it was the only thing in the post. If your point is implicit in a 3 day resurrection, what would be implied by a 2 day resurrection or a 4 day resurrection?

          • jmichael39

            no, sir, you’re missing the point and presenting a rather sophisticated red herring. The point of issue is the resurrection account. If you can account for the evidence of that resurrection outside the conclusion that indeed he was raised from the dead after three days, then please do so. Acting as though it is no big deal, as though people rise from the dead after several days all the time, is utterly ridiculous and intellectually condescending.

            It would not be a stretch of the imagination to assume that by those same standards of logic that you would look at the origins of the universe and the origins of life and simply shrug your shoulders and say, “who knows and who cares? So the universe was created…who cares?”

          • tplay official

            Actually according to Matthew people at one point people were popping out of the ground and greeting their old friends, it’s weird that no one else in the world, not even the other gospel writers noticed this.

            But more to the point, I can tell you in advance what will prove or disprove a hypothesis and and could tell you what a hypothetical outcome of an experiment would mean. My question was important because even in a non-formal setting, when you’re trying to convince someone based on the the pungency and potency of a story, the details matter. What do you think it means if your conclusion is the same regardless if the facts were different?

          • jmichael39

            Still following rabbit trails and avoiding the issue…you want to take up the challenge to cut the string or don’t you?

          • tplay official

            The issue is whether or not what you say is verifiable and consistent with your conclusion. So I’ll say it again: I can tell you in advance what will prove or disprove a hypothesis and could tell you what a hypothetical outcome of an experiment would mean. My question was important because even in a non-formal setting, when you’re trying to convince someone based on the the pungency and potency of a story, the details matter. What do you think it means if your conclusion is the same regardless if the facts were different?

          • jmichael39

            the facts of the resurrection account are what they are. You don’t like what the consensus of scholars in the field have accepted as fact, tough. The conclusion, whatever one you might want to come up with, must deal with those facts.
            If you want to proceed, then we can go to the data points. Otherwise…be well.

          • tplay official

            Fine, we’ll come back to testability when you’re done with your temper tantrum. How many more times do you need to call hearsay “data” before we can actual talk about how to test your claim?

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…temper tantrum….trying to poison the well just a little, tp? Nevermind.
            ‘hearsay’ – you haven’t even heard the data and you’re already judging it? Is that what you call an open mind?

          • tplay official

            btw, you don’t have to wait for my replies to keep calling hearsay “data”, just get them out quickly so we can talk about how to test your claim

          • jmichael39

            why in the hell would I waste my time proceeding? You’ve clearly made up your mind without ever hearing a single piece of data. Why would I spend another minute debating someone who’s so blatantly prejudicial? Have fun with your games somewhere else.

          • tplay official

            Yep, just like the guy on here who claims to have a secret supernatural pipeline to divine knowledge that will overturn the world of genetics, and instead of using his special powers to help rid the world of inheritable disease and cancer, he sits around complaining about how everyone else is wrong while keeping his “data” a super secret. It’s almost as if you guys have no way to test your claims.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…that’s right, TP…blame ME for YOUR prejudice. At least you could have had the decency to admit you were being prejudicial and close minded. But, no, as is typical of a narcissist, you can’t even accept guilt or blame for anything you do. Like I said, TP…go play your games with someone naïve enough to bite.

          • tplay official

            Asking how to verify a claim is not prejudice. I don’t know who you think you’re fooling.

          • jmichael39

            Oh come on, TP…talk about playing games. You know full well why I called you prejudiced…calling the data “hearsay” before ever even hearing the data, is pure prejudice. Don’t even begin to try to pretend like you didn’t know that. Who do YOU think you’re fooling. Get lost, dude.

          • tplay official

            It amazing that everyone who claims to have a supernatural pipeline to the secrets of the universe, when asked how other people can verify their claims, just turns back into a fellow mammal typing on a computer.

          • jmichael39

            Should have thought about that before you behaved like a prejudicial ass. Maybe next person to come along seeking an honest and intelligent debate will get a more open-minded tplay… Adios.

          • tplay official

            I actually was thinking about the guy who claims to be able to see through the magic spells that god casts on everyone elses telescopes. Thats why I was asking about testability.

          • jmichael39

            You honestly can’t see past your own prejudices can you?

          • tplay official

            Asking about testability is not prejudice. Its a fundamental aspect of evaluating a claim.

          • jmichael39

            Read again…your prejudices are there…you’re merely too prejudicial to see.

          • tplay official

            Testing eliminates bias. Do you have anyway to test your claims?

          • jmichael39

            That’s the entirety of any postulating. Any postulations must include some rational way to testing them. In fact, the very nature of historical analysis requires the presentation of known and/or predominantly accepted facts and then postulating as to the most reasonable explanation for those data points. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear by the words you use that you’ve already made up your mind. Good for you. Can’t say its the most rational way of approaching such issues. But if it works for you, great.

          • tplay official

            Don’t worry your crystal ball and palm readings will remain our little secret.

          • jmichael39

            And yet more ways in which your prejudices are revealed. You’re really a rather sad person, TP. You honestly can’t get out of your own way, can you?

          • tplay official

            weren’t you going back to voodoo dolls?

          • jmichael39

            Now you’re just being an ass.

          • tplay official

            and I can’t possibly read the tea leaves like you

          • jmichael39

            more ass.

          • tplay official

            “Of course not, they never do tests. Not many real deeds either. Oh, conversation with your grandmother’s shade in a darkened room, the odd love potion or two, but comes a doubter, why, then it’s the wrong day, the planets are not in line, the entrails are not favorable, ‘we don’t do tests!'”

          • jmichael39

            snooze-fest…and still an ass.

          • tplay official

            Maybe when the moon is in the Seventh House
            And Jupiter aligns with Mars
            Then peace will guide the planets
            And love will steer the stars

          • jmichael39

            Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. – Wonderful Christian couple. Forty year of marriage and amazing entertainers.

            But you’re still acting like an ass.

          • tplay official

            Still no way to test your claims?

          • jmichael39

            I never made a CLAIM. I said all of Christianity hangs, by Paul’s own words, by the thread of Christ’s resurrection. I asked you if you were up to the challenge of reviewing the data surrounding the resurrection account and seeing if you can come up with a more rational and reasonable explanation for those data points than the Resurrection itself. You really do need to learn to stop projecting…I know its difficult for you to not be so prejudicial..but do try.

          • happylada

            Have you ever considered that you are staking both your current and your eternal life on an untestable and untenable mythology? Asking others to turn their backs on a rational and eyewitness account in favor of an account that is riddled with gaps, contradiction and false concepts doesn’t seem very smart.

            Why would a testable theory be discarded for one that is NOT testable? Its EASY to disprove YOUR hypothesis.

            It may be YOU that has the problem.

          • tplay official

            I feel like this is, again, a reply that was meant for another comment.

          • mack jones

            Moses did NOT witness Genesis… how could he? Have you read it? We’re talking at least 1000 years after creation, MINIMUM that Moses was around to tell the story…

          • Don Fernando de SF

            No human being witnessed the beginning. No one saw the supposed ‘big bang’ an explosion which supposedly created absolute precision, where we know that explosions just create chaos. Jesus Christ has the credentials that prove that He is actually God in the flesh. Just as people such as Simon Greenleaf, Lawrence Luckhoo, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascual, Faraday et al, who studied the evidence in the Bible, I am also convinced it is God’s ‘letter’ to humankind of the actual history of the universe and everything. The evidence is sound that it records the actual words of Jesus, who verified the authenticity of the Old Testament. He taught it as true history. He verified the Book of Genesis; in fact, you can say that as God He wrote it through the human hand of Moses. When Jesus was tempted by satan in the wilderness He didn’t argue, He just quoted the Old Testament. At His trial He claimed to be God, and this is why the religious leaders hated Him — for His ‘blasphemy.’ A king once asked his most trusted advisor, “In two words can you prove the reality of the Bible?” His advisor replied, “The Jews, your majesty.” Just that one record alone is evidence that the Bible is true. It records and prophesies centuries before the events what would happen to these people. About one half of OT prophecy has come true, so I can be assured that the rest will also be just as recorded. It even records the precise timetable of Jesus’ birth and death > resurrection. Jesus fulfills the OT prophecies of the Messiah at odds of 1 in at least 10^130 (the number must actually be more than 1 in 10^5000 billion!) but the previous number is just for a sample of the major prophecies He fulfilled. He fulfilled ALL the major prophecies. Archeological discoveries always verify the Bible as history. While not written in modern scientific language, when true discoveries emerge they always verify the biblical record, such as the discovery of gravity and the recent discovery of another ‘ocean’ beneath the known ocean. This is likely the ‘fountains of the deep’ which exploded during Noah’s flood. Some have estimated (and creation scientists can also speculate btw) that the force of those waters would be like 100 million nuclear bombs. If you look at a relief of the Atlantic ocean floor, you can see a massive ridge from north to south; it looks eerily like explosions of great pressure. The earth’s geology speaks of cataclysms, not slow processes. Fossilized creatures are shown in death throes, not dying and then being fossilized. The creation of fossils itself is by catastrophic instant burial. Leave a dead fish on the beach at it disappears by either predators or decay, it won’t last very long to become a fossil. The apostle Luke, who wrote the book under his name and also the Book of Acts, has been called by foremost authority in archaeology as ‘an historian of the first rate.’ Ie, we can conclude that he recorded things accurately. That’s just one example; the Bible has passed all acid tests for all honest skeptics.

          • D. Mitchell Sweatt

            ” Jesus Christ has the credentials that prove that He is actually God in the flesh.” So god sent himself down to Earth to correct a mistake that he himself made. Even though god makes no mistakes. The bible, um, ya, that makes complete sense. http://911billofrights.blogspot.com/2014/04/an-unreasonable-argument-for-anti-theism.html

          • Pax Humana

            Sadly, you lack one, Cylon.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            As a former believer all I can say it did for me was to make me read the book that as a child I found a bit unbelievable and after a decade in darkness I came to see the light that it made as much sense as Harry Potter or TLOTR.

          • Johan Steyn

            You have been misled, a very sad tale to hear. Read my other comments. I was an atheist before, so, reversed roles.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            Maybe you have been misled. We are all born atheists.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            There have been many A-list minds that were atheists and became Christians after studying the Book. some examples … in law: Simon Greenleaf wrote the ‘bible’ of legal evidence; Sir Lawrence Luckhoo was knighted twice by Queen Liz… both these legal giants assumed the Bible was just myth. But when they applied the rules of evidence they became believers. Lee Strobel has written some excellent books such as Case for Christ and Case for a Creator where he interviews very high credentialed experts in history, theology and sciences. He started as an atheist but then became a teaching pastor. He was trained in law and journalism and his main criteria for selecting interviewees is that they would look at all sides of the issue and could verify their conclusions by hard facts. Further, I can’t see the issue of ‘scientists can’t be Bible believers’ when the actual formulation of modern scientific method was by mostly Bible believing scientific giants, from Newton on down to Werner von Braun (a list of the very top A list). Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer was an atheist; when he examined the mathematical probability of life forming by chance (on earth he calculated the chances 1 in 10^40,000); following this his further investigations caused him to renounce his atheism. He said that the chance formation of life is similar to a 747 parts from a junkyard falling down a hill and assembling into a working aircraft. And of course, to be honest, one would have to assume that the parts were first self-formed and then assembled! This is what evolution assumes. Its core is atheism. Is it logical? Look at the evidence of non life to life; there is none. Nor for the ‘icons of evolution such as the tree of life, ape to man, even eons of years plus slow processes.

          • D. Mitchell Sweatt

            “…became Christians after studying the Book” Then is wasn’t study, it was desperation. http://911billofrights.blogspot.com/2014/10/if-jesus-never-existed-would-there-not.html

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Hope you’re following the Trial of Infinitea here, which begins with presentation of the satanic origins of evolutionism, displacing science based on rigorous observation/experimentation.

          • Pax Humana

            So you abandoned what you thought was a collection of fairy tales and myths and made up your own as well as listened to other disillusioned and spoiled brats like yourself and THEIR fairy tales, am I right? I know that I am spot on with the answer, so do not even THINK that you can win if you choose to argue with myself on the topic. I made even The Amazing Atheist scared of myself AND I made myself banned on EVERY single evolutionist AND atheist board on Disqus, so you KNOW how scary that I am to your friends and you would be VERY wise to also fear myself in your OWN life.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            I’m more afraid of the common cold.

          • Pax Humana

            You should be more afraid of me, bitch.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            Oh, now you have done it I repent and bow down to you the Almighty Bitchmaster. Pathetic is too generous a word.

          • Pax Humana

            I could tell you what you need to pick up and where you can stick it, but I am sure that you already know what I am talking about and that you already do it on a regular basis, so why not do it again in your life?

          • tplay official

            Your contributions to science are overwheming.

          • Pax Humana

            Yes they are and your contributions to being a douchebag are likewise overwhelming.

        • YouNoWho

          Brilliant, Daniel.

          • Pax Humana

            Do you mean stupid?

        • Mike De Fleuriot

          Just like people who were there to watch your Allah make the world, right?

    • waffleater

      you are just arbitarity defining what is a “kind” and what isnt

      • Reason2012

        I never said a word about “kind” – evolutionists claim populations of fish ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Yet the human race has never seen any such thing for any animal. So until they show otherwise, it’s actually observable, repeatable scientific fact that such a thing does not happen.

        What they try to do would akin to implying “well if you can’t show that pink elephants with extra large ears never flew the earth, then it’s science they did until you prove it’s never happened”, when the reality is: it’s observable, scientific fact no such thing took place until anyone shows it.

        • Antiestablishmentarianist

          Do you even liger bro???

          • Pax Humana

            Do you even know how to shut your pie hole, jabroni?

        • Jeremy Berryman

          Observable – Like the people that saw god make the earth or even Jesus heal the sick. Grand total of zero. Macroevolution is evident a tiger and your aunt’s cat are obvious just like a Yorkie and Wolf are related. Humans have been on the earth for a very short time so it wouldn’t be possible for us to see evolution in action, unless you look at the fish that are developing limbs, the fact that snakes once had legs and no longer do, that whales and other dolphins show evidence of once being land animals and have vestigial limbs. Other than that and a few thousand examples, you’re right, our proof is rather sketchy, especially when compared to a book that says to get striped or spotted goats you should paint trees for them to look at.

          • Reason2012

            Which is why we cannot call creation by God science either. You’re catching on. The various origin topics are beyond the scope of science b/c beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table – but evolutionists are dishonestly trying to pretend their beliefs can be called science.

            Canines only ever remaining canines, showing yet again no matter how many generations go by, what evolutionists believe in does not happen.

            Calling something a vestigial limb doesn’t make it so – circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a vestigial structure”
            “What’s that?”
            Evolutionist “When for example your great…great grandparents are fish, any things left over that we no longer use are vestigial structures from when we were fish”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolution is true”
            “How do you know evolution is true when the human race has never seen any such thing?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a vestigial structure”
            (go back to top and repeat)

            Making up beliefs about things that never happen does not make those things “examples” or “evidence” of the belief you just made up about them.

            And right on que you attack belief in God and the Bible, which only shows what evolutionism is REALLY about. If your beliefs were science and actually happened, you wouldn’t need to hatefully attack belief in God to “prove” it. Thank you for showing yet again what evolutionism is really about.

            Alghough the Bible is not a science textbook, Scientific facts in the Bible thousands of years before scientists ever discovered them, when people could not have possibly figured such things out yet, which is more proof there’s far more to the Bible than just another “man-made book”.

            1 Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

            2 Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

            At a time when it was believed that the earth sat? on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

            3 Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

            4 The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled,” and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

            5 Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean” (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.”

            6 Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

            7 “During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine).” Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, “Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” (11:3 continued)

            8 At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

            9 The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world

            10 God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

            There’s many more than this. We will be without excuse when we face God – forgiveness is available now, but will not be when it’s too late. You do realize the devil would do all he can to deceive as many as he can, do you not? Jesus spent more time warning about avoiding hell than about gaining heaven. Please think on these things.

            Luke 12.4-5 “[Jesus said] And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. “

          • Jeremy Berryman

            I didn’t attack the Bible, just some of the ‘facts’. Your medical reasoning is sound, other than the fact that you fail to point out all of the animal sacrifices also required to fully prove cleanliness. BTW on that topic, do you avoid your wife during menses? Another ‘medical fact’ from the Bible. It also states that the earth is on 4 pillars and has corners, so it contradicts itself, in many other places too. I fear no man, and certainly no god or death. For if the god of the Bible IS the true god, well that (politely speaking) WOULD give me reason to hate him. I don’t hate him, just the dogma that goes with any religion that forces you to chose either his way or ETERNAL torment. Sounds lovely.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            And fact #1 in no way implies ‘atoms’.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            I would respectfully recommend the site UK Apologetics that gives a fair light to Darwin. Accidents have never been proven to create anything. When we hear that somehow a cosmic egg appeared and exploded and this created the super-precise universe, I am reminded of Isaac Newton. He is regarded as the top scientist of all time, and wrote the most highly regarded scientific work of all time, further he believed the Bible as the Word of God. When a friend visited Newton in his study, he exclaimed on a model of the solar system, “What a marvelous thing! Who made it?” They had been debating the origin of the universe. Newton replied, “You can infer that this little toy was created by an intelligent mind, yet you cannot infer that our real solar system was created by an intelligent mind. Now on the question of Jesus and the Bible. Of course this is a huge subject, but a few points: When the renown atheist Antony Flew debated Christian historian on the resurrection of Jesus, Flew lost the debates and they became friends. Flew later wrote a book “There is a God” which includes an appendix on Jesus. I don’t know when he died if he believed Jesus was God. My point here is that Flew’s critical thinking enabled him to study the facts of the resurrection and its historicity. It is perhaps the most proven even in history. 1/ We don’t know if Abe Lincoln existed. I wasn’t there. I can study the documents about him, and the things he wrote and others wrote and historical records of other witnesses. Are these witnesses trustworthy? Are the written records genuine? Similarly we can look at the Bible. The Old Testament with 5,000 copies/ the New with 25,000 plus copies. Their textual accuracy is the highest by far of any ancient writings, I believe 99.5%. Ie, the copies match one another to an incredible precision. Other words from writers such as Socrates, Alexander, et al number only about twenty each on average. And their textual accuracy is very poor. Yet we accept them as historical records. The works of Shakespeare also have low textual accuracy compared with the Bible, and with few copies. Without question, the Bible is the most accurate of any hand-written document. 2/ Now, if we can rely on its accuracy, what about what it depicts? Let’s look at the NT. The Four Gospels have passed all acid tests with flying colors. The writers were either first-hand witnesses or second hand. They also wrote other books in the NT with further witnesses to the events. The NT was written within 60 (or less) years from the events. The original apostles in fact faced death rather than recant their testimony, a chief one being that they were there when Jesus was crucified and that a large crowd could attest He was proven dead by a spear to the heart (blood and water in the text is medically sound with a fatal wound of this sort) by a trained Roman soldier. His body was guarded by elite guards and His tomb affixed with the Roman seal. If anyone tampered with the seal, or the guards fell asleep, etc. they would be put to death. This was to guard against the possibility the apostles would invent that Jesus had risen from the dead, as He said He would. (I would suggest Gary Habermas’ book on the resurrection, btw). Scores of witnesses saw Jesus alive afterwards for about a month; 500 at one time. Even non-Christian historians of the time recorded “The curious story of Jesus of Nazareth being seen alive after His crucifixion” that “This Jesus performed many miracles.” In fact, just from secular historians of the time, the basic thrust of the Bible can be recreated — that God became a Man, that He was killed and He rose from the dead. Besides this direct evidence, we can see the circumstantial evidence (See Lee Strobel’s Case for Christ), such as the first Christians faced the might of the Roman Empire; they had either seen Jesus or talked with people they considered reliable. Further, even His enemies could not say He did not perform miracles, such as raise people from the dead. In fact, His raising of His friend Lazarus incensed the religious authorities. They could only say that Jesus did these things by satanic power. We can see Jews at that time overcoming their background to become Christians, facing ostracizing by their family, their culture in huge numbers. The first Christians were mostly Jewish. We can see that the disciples went to their deaths (mostly by torture)proclaiming what they had seen. Few, if any, will go to their death proclaiming a lie. 3/ The OT was written hundreds/ thousands of years before Jesus’ time. They included specific prophecies of Him and other events. Let’s take the number 10^80; this is the estimated number of molecules in the universe. That’s the number 1 followed by 80 zeros. Jesus fulfilled 60 major prophecies/and all other minor prophecies. For one individual to fulfill just eight major prophecies is equal to having a blindfolded man in an area the size of Texas, filled three feet deep with silver dollars. One dollar is painted black. He has ONE chance to find the black dollar. The fulfilling of about 20 major prophecies is something like 10^130. Take another example. To form just the ‘chain’ part of an amino acid with 20 ‘chains’ that have to be in perfect order is 10^128. Yet, most chains are really 50 or more, 100 and some 1000. DNA is 186,000 ‘links’ … now one may believe that these links just fall into place by an unseen natural force. But the probability of just 50 such links by accident is far more than the molecules in the universe. I would not bet my life on a 1 in 2 chance, let alone a 1 in 10^5000 chance! Yet, this is what one is saying when one says molecules and everything else happen by ‘accident.’ We may give them fancy names, but now we must prove the mechanism of the theory. As Dr. Tour says, he builds molecules. He knows how complex they are. Just for ONE molecule to form by accident is impossible. And then we are supposed to believe this happens an infinite number of times; and that life from non life ‘evolved’ by accident. Although we know that proven scientific law has proven that life only comes from life. And so we have the Bible prophecies. Critics say they were written after the events. This would mean 5,000 copies were counterfeited and then buried, fooling all the world’s experts for hundreds of years. I am convinced that the Bible is historically accurate for the above and many other reasons. It records the sayings of Jesus accurately. He said He is God. He proved it by His miracles, His fulfilling of prophecies, His overcoming death, etc. That’s a bigger resume than Darwin. He also said that the Old Testament is factual history. That is Witness enough for me. Ie, Everything was created by God. Man did not evolve from apes. And then man became a women? The modern sciences were either created or strongly influenced by Bible believing scientists, the greatest names: Newton, Faraday, Copernicus, Boyle, Pasteur…. it must be something like fifty giants. We can probably include Galileo and Michelangelo as believers in God. They created/influenced physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, mathematics et al — the ‘hard’ sciences’ where one must PROVE by experiment/ observation, not scenario writing.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            Where in the world do you get your ‘facts’? There were NO witnesses that wrote anything at the time of Jesus, probably not even first hand accounts. There aren’t even any records of him existing and the timetable of his life doesn’t match what happened according to any of the Roman texts available. The Bible (OT) was copied by fanatics who took baths after each letter of YHWH of course they were accurate copies of copies of copies. So if they were 1% off, after 10 copies you have a bit of a problem. Notwithstanding the fact that all the history in the OT is either fabricated or not in harmony with any factual writings of the time. (The Egyptians make no mention of any of the events associated with Moses.) just goes to show how inaccurate it is. I’m sure in 1000 years people will be stating that the Harry Potter they have is the same as it was 1000 years before even if it isn’t.

          • jmichael39

            “Where in the world do you get your ‘facts’? There were NO witnesses that wrote anything at the time of Jesus, probably not even first hand accounts.” – I get my facts from experts in Textual Criticism. The vast majority of such experts have said that the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that all the books of the NT were written during the First Century and by the people suggested in the writings.

            “There aren’t even any records of him existing and the timetable of his life doesn’t match what happened according to any of the Roman texts available.” – Again, there’s an almost unanimous consensus among historians as to the reality of the life of Jesus. Tacitus and Josephus both mention Jesus in their historical writings.

            “The Bible (OT) was copied by fanatics who took baths after each letter of YHWH of course they were accurate copies of copies of copies. So if they were 1% off, after 10 copies you have a bit of a problem.” – Once again your understanding of textual criticism is naïve at best. The vast majority of textual deviations revolve around simplistic deviations…such as the idea of adding an “n” to the name “Don” to make “Donn”. Technically a textual mistake, but obviously inherently irrelevant.

            The real brilliance of textual criticism of the Bible is the vast number of copies we have. Textual critics have often used a very interesting test with classes they teach to show how easy it really is to reconstruct texts from variations to be able to find the original text, even without having access to the original text. They will have, like, six students transcribe a single page of text…first one student and then the second transcribes only from the first copy. And so on. Then the next day, with an entirely new class, six more students are given the last transcription from the day before and the process continues until they’re 12 generations past the original text. Lastly, another handful of students, being trained in textual criticism, are given ONLY the last six copies…no access to the first six or the original…and asked to use what they’ve taught to piece back together the original text. In every instance this has been done the number of variations from the actual original text was never more than 3 words and that happened only once. And often the students piece together the original text perfectly.

            This is done with mere students of textual criticism and with only a half dozen copies of the text. There are literally tens of thousands of copies of the Bible (NT dating back to as early as the early 3rd century and the OT dating back several hundred years BC). The rules of logic suggest the most reasonable conclusion would lead us to believe that what we have now as the Bible is incredibly close to the original text.

            “Notwithstanding the fact that all the history in the OT is either fabricated or not in harmony with any factual writings of the time” – Once again your claims are utterly false. To date, numerous biblical accounts have been confirmed by archaeological findings. And, as far as I can recall from my readings, none have been refuted.

            “(The Egyptians make no mention of any of the events associated with Moses.) ” – actually the ANET makes several mentions of the Israelites and when you combine what’s written there with the historical writings of Josephus, who adds historical details to the biblical account, and archaeological evidence, there is little doubt as to the veracity of the Biblical account.

            Considering you’re utterly wrong on every account, it would serve you well to go back to the drawing board in your vanity.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Well, we can see that the history is there, but some choose not to study it. I refer back to the debates between champ atheist Antony Flew and Christian historian Gary Habermas on the physical resurrection of Jesus; Habermas won the debate with historical data; they became friends and Flew wrote book “There is a God.” He as far as I know, resort to name-calling or personal attacks. He examined the facts. Btw, in the appendix, in addition to one on Jesus, he also exposes the intellectual ‘bias’ of Richard Dawkins.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            Josephus was around long after Christ died.Not exactly an ‘eyewitness’ Writing in the last half of the century isn’t exactly the same as jotting it down as it happened is it? As for refuting Biblical Archaeology, do a bit more research, there is a lot of it.

          • jmichael39

            “Josephus was around long after Christ died.Not exactly an ‘eyewitness'”

            Then I guess you don’t accept anything a qualified historian of any era says regarding an issue.

            “As for refuting Biblical Archaeology, do a bit more research, there is a lot of it.” – I don’t suppose you care to actually specify what you’re referring to?

          • Jeremy Berryman
          • jmichael39

            That’s really exciting stuff…maybe when they provide the evidence to back up their claims they might mean something more than just the rantings of a ‘skeptic’. And then we can actually compare the data samples and decide which conclusions are the most rational to accept. See you when you have that evidence and are ready to do such an evaluation.

          • jmichael39

            Actually there were plenty of people who witnessed the miracles of Christ. Now if you want to try to discredit those witnesses, feel free.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            Can you name one? Where are these documents? Even the 4 gospels were not written until well after the death of Jesus. At the earliest 70 AD.

      • Pax Humana

        Are you not doing the same thing yourself?

    • tplay official

      Do fish have wrists?

    • Mackster248

      Considering evolution, in theory, is a process that takes thousands or millions of years, we only know what we can infer and assume. What we have found are facts that could prove the idea of Evolution. Without getting into it too much, we have found many fossil examples that may help prove the idea of Evolution. Finding fossils of Neanderthals and other human species that came before Homo Sapiens is a good example.

      • Reason2012

        Hello. Science is not presenting beliefs that never happen, then implying “well my beliefs take too long that’s why the human race will never see it – so take my word for it that it happens anyway and call it science”.

        No, making up beliefs about fossils that never happens does not then make fossils “evidence” or “facts” of evolutionism. Circular reasoning.

        Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil”
        “How do you know it is?”
        Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
        “How do you know evolutionism is true when it is when it never happens?”
        Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

        Bottom line is that the topics of the origin of all biological diversity of life, or of the origin of life, or of the origin of the universe are beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

      • Don Fernando de SF

        There has never been found a fossil of a half-man/half ape. They have been either the result of poor science (or at least it’s OK to make mistakes, just admit them) or outright frauds … from ‘Lucy to Peking Man, Pildown Man, Nebraska Man, etc.’ For example, to ‘prove’ that Lucy was our ancestor, the discovers ‘borrowed’ a human knee joint found hundreds of yards away from “Lucy” (a mere ape) to prove she could walk like a human. The Nebraska Man was based on a single tooth. From that tooth various scenarios were written; even an entire neighborhood of these ‘ancestors.’ The tooth was later found to be a pig’s tooth. It was used in the Scopes trial to prove evolution. When the piggy involvement was discovered, there was no retraction. There has never been a fossil of any transitional plant, insect, bird, all through the line. A curator for a famous museum (and similar) said that the museums should be filled with transitional fossils, but “we have zero.” Darwin predicted such transitional fossils would be found within fifty years; thus far, the score is zero. We can see that the most basic of evolutionary theories are guesswork, with no proof that we can ‘stake our life on.’ 1/ Origin of universe. Somehow a cosmic egg appeared and then it exploded. Who can explain where this egg came from and so on? 2/ Origin of stars; no one can explain this. The theory is superheated hydrogen gasses pulled in against the force of gravity. However, the force ‘outward’ is about 100 times the ‘inward’ pull. When scientists were perplexed by this, one ventured that a supernova exploded nearby and this overcame the ‘outward’ forces. In other words, to make a star, you first have to have another star. 3/ the origin of our solar system is similarly explained very foggily. No one can deny that the sun has something like 99% of the mass in our system, including all the planets, so what unknown force overrides that mass?
        4/ Origin of life. As in my first post, Louis Pasteur and others completely demolished the theory of ‘abiogenesis’ — life from inanimate chemicals. It is an absolute scientific law that life only comes from life. Just this one fact is an insurmountable checkmate to evolution/accidentalism. While evolutionary theories may give one a headache because of their complexity, we must simply ask simple questions; such as, if non life can’t produce life, how can all these other theories be possible? Instead of going off on tangents, first prove that non life produces life. Of course, evolutionists are playing an extremely dangerous game: they are attempting to say ‘God, You are not real. You did not create me.’ When they influence another person, this is a terrible thing. They are also inferring that they know God doesn’t exist because they have all the wisdom and power in creation, and have examined every part of creation … in other words they are gods. Sorry, but Darwin is not my god. Btw a website UK Apologetics is excellent in exposing Darwin.

        • tplay official

          Asking for a half man, half ape is like asking for a half-dog, half-greyhound.

        • Jeremy Berryman

          And you clearly do not understand ‘transitional fossils’. There are many of them to be found, you just don’t accept them as such.

          • Johan Steyn

            Please do mention one. there have never ever been proven to be one transitional fossil found. This is not even disputed anymore. You believe in gradualism like Darwin believed in. It sort of made sense, but has been proven to be false. All top evolutionists today accept that gradualism is dead. Have you ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?

            There are no intermediary fossils. The ones that were presented, were all falsified and lied about, like the so called bird dinosaur.

      • Johan Steyn

        First, facts are subjective interpretations of evidence. Evidence is neutral, facts are not. To say that Neanderthals are a different species, is like saying a poodle is not a dog, but a great dane is. Read what I posted in answer to others in this thread.

        • tplay official

          No, Neanderthals were human, but they weren’t sapiens. They had genes that sapiens don’t and lacked some genes that all sapiens share. Domestic breeding of dogs has not yet produced the same genetic divergence.

          • Pax Humana

            Prove it, jerk weed!

          • tplay official

            http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full
            have you ever considered learning about something before trying to comment on it authoritatively?

          • Pax Humana

            Have you ever considered pissing on an electric fence? Also, did you try to take your own advice about your previous comments?

          • Johan Steyn

            They did not have a different gene structure, otherwise breeding would not have been possible. Neanderthals existed quite a few thousand years ago (from what we have gathered, about 4 300 years, not 40 000 years). On your subjective view on deviation in genetic information, aboriginese should be regarded as a different species from Europeans.

            The time for neanderthals that has passed is significantly more than with dogs. If you do want to see divergence, look at the carp species. Look at a gold fish and look at a carp, koi, comets, shibunkins etc. They are all carp, yet differs immensely from each other. You can also look at horses and Zebras. People see them as different species, why? Because they look differently. They should be regarded as one species.

            You want to use Neanderthals as a reference point, yet we do not have a proper complete sample of their DNA. It is a composite. It is not fully mapped yet either.

            There are many animal examples, like camels and lama, dolphins and whales, all tipes of cats should be regarder as one species, snakes, deer, bisons and buffalo and cattle, etc etc.

            One thing is unfortunately true. Most people who believe in evolution will never accept any evidence given. It is a belief system more powerful than the Roman Catholic system of the middle ages. Quite ironic isn’t it?

          • tplay official

            “They did not have a different gene structure, otherwise breeding would not have been possible. Neanderthals existed quite a few thousand years ago (from what we have gathered, about 4 300 years, not 40 000 years).”

            I don’t know what “gene structure” is supposed to mean. Anyway, neanderthals were human, but they weren’t sapiens. They had genes that sapiens don’t and lacked some genes that all sapiens share.

            “On your subjective view on deviation in genetic information, aboriginese should be regarded as a different species from Europeans.”

            Aborigines don’t share any genes, as a whole, that other modern humans don’t. They don’t lack any genes, as a whole, that other modern humans have. The way you portray my post is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said. I also didn’t say anything about appearance so I have no idea why you wrote your second paragraph at all.

            “You want to use Neanderthals as a reference point, yet we do not have a proper complete sample of their DNA.” Samples of Neanderthal DNA, including the 95% complete mtDNA sample, share genes not found in modern humans. More complete samples would not “unfind” these genes.

            “There are many animal examples, like camels and lama, dolphins and whales, all tipes of cats should be regarder as one species, snakes, deer, bisons and buffalo and cattle, etc etc.”
            You’ll have to elucidate your criteria for classifying a species. What I can find from the major creationist sites (AIG, nwcreation, arn, asa, CMI, CRS, apologetics press) all say dolphins and whales are not related. I’m not saying you should agree with them, its just this is the first time I’ve seen a creationist say that they are related.

            “One thing is unfortunately true. Most people who believe in evolution will never accept any evidence given. It is a belief system more powerful than the Roman Catholic system of the middle ages. Quite ironic isn’t it?”

            If you’ll familiarize yourself with the “cool story bro” meme, it would save you from having to type these closing monologues.

          • Johan Steyn

            You have not done a proper study? Stop reading one sided information.

            It is now accepted that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Interbreeding means same species. You do though have a different meaning for the word “species.” Also, top scientist have agreed that Neanderthals had 99.9% similar DNA to humans, yet it is also known that humans have 99.9% similar genes. This is quite remarkable.

            You would do the same as the first evolutionist who depicted the neanderthal like this:
            http://eavice.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/1909-picture-of-neanderthal-man-based-on-la-chapelle-aux-saints-neanderthal-skeleton.jpg
            Instead of like this:
            http://creation.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol22/6951neandertals.jpg

            I do not need any of these facts to know that God actually exists, I do not believe because of what I have found to be true. The facts have just confirmed my faith. At least I’ll admit to my faith, will you? If you are presented with the best proof ever, will just go and look for a way to disregard it? I became a believer, in spite of my evolutionary ideas. I later on dropped my unscientific ideas because I saw the proof. Have you ever searched for evidence to the contrary to what you believe or have you just searched to validate your claims?

            You believe you have all the information, are you sure? You get stuck on Neanderthal. You still have not proved how life can spontaneously erupt. You still have never proven any beneficial mutation, which without evolution has absolutely no ground. Do you still deny that you do not believe?

            For some or other reason you have this war with people who believe. From what I can seehate for God whom you do not even know. Quite ironic? Well, not really, do you even know the history of how the RCC killed and tortured believers who did not want to submit to the pope? Do you think that God’s existence would exclude the possibility of evil?

            By the way, I did make a mistake concerning the dolphins, the whale was a false killer whale. The point is still made that the so called boundaries between what is called species, is not so clear as thought.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            Stop reading one sided information… Isn’t that what you do? Just to prove that you are right. Even Google has a list of accepted transitional fossils. The ‘evolutionary’ scientist, Colin Patterson, who many christians says there were no such things is completely misquoted.

          • tplay official

            “It is now accepted that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Interbreeding means same species. You do though have a different meaning for the word “species.””

            I didn’t use “species”. Its not a useful diagnostic word. The world moved on from Linnean Taxonomy 64 years ago. I asked you what you meant by it because you listed groups that can breed and produce sterile hybrids, but also some groups that can’t interbreed.

            “Also, top scientist have agreed that Neanderthals had 99.9% similar DNA to humans, yet it is also known that humans have 99.9% similar genes. This is quite remarkable.”

            This is what this conversation would look like to a top scientist:

            You: My cousin is my brother

            Me: No, he’s not

            You: but we share the same grandparents

            Me: but you do not share the same parents

            You: but look how close we are genetically

            Me: of course, you are cousins

            For genes to be common to an entire population it has to be spread over generations while sexual selection, death, and genetic drift rid the population of other alleles. It’s extraordinary and is only complete when there are no other variants left. All that is left of an entire population are direct descendants of that gene’s progenitor. This happened for every gene that separates sapiens and neanderthal, and on each side of the divide.

            “If you are presented with the best proof ever, will just go and look for a way to disregard it? I became a believer, in spite of my evolutionary ideas. I later on dropped my unscientific ideas because I saw the proof. Have you ever searched for evidence to the contrary to what you believe or have you just searched to validate your claims? You believe you have all the information, are you sure? ”

            Name a single published work on evolution that you understand and once believed. You havent said anything relevant that is right, and nothing right that is relevant. You’ve managed to say something the exact opposite of correct. You might want to start there before moving on to the “best proof ever”. I only claim to know things that are testable and demonstrable.

            “You get stuck on Neanderthal. You still have not proved how life can spontaneously erupt. You still have never proven any beneficial mutation, which without evolution has absolutely no ground.”

            We’re stuck on neanderthals because because your idea of them and sapiens being as different as two sapiens or two dogs was wrong. If you want to define life and beneficial mutation in a way that is relevant to the topic, then go ahead.

            “For some or other reason you have this war with people who believe. From what I can seehate for God whom you do not even know. Quite ironic? Well, not really, do you even know the history of how the RCC killed and tortured believers who did not want to submit to the pope? Do you think that God’s existence would exclude the possibility of evil?” ok

            “By the way, I did make a mistake concerning the dolphins, the whale was a false killer whale. The point is still made that the so called boundaries between what is called species, is not so clear as thought.” Alright, you also said cats, what did you mean by that?

          • Johan Steyn

            I am not so sure this conversation is going anywhere. You have already tried to belittle me, but it is OK. You believe in the gradual improvement of animals over time. That is gradualism for which there is no basis, although it makes the most sense. Do you really want to hold to it?

            Even using the word “hybrid” puts you back in the old school of Linnean Taxonomy. You should know that when you inbreed for long enough, the mutations (bad mutations) gets dominant and later on this inbred race can have problems like fertility. Even within this race, fertility can be an issue as seen with cheetahs. You can also find that if certain races would mate, there could be other genetic problems as well. Apparently there are genetic issues when African Americans and Asians have children.

            Horses and zebras have been isolated for such a long time that it is not so surprising that they can have problems. Let me give you a very “useful” example of this very fact with human intervention: Goldfish have been bred from carp, so has koi, comets, etc. Yet funny enough, when goldfish and Koi or comets interbreed, their offspring are infertile. Does it mean that they have evolved? Should we regard them as hybrid species?

            I know it has not been proven that household cats and lions can mate, but I would not be surprised. All cats share a common bad gene. Cats cannot taste sweet. I know that only means they have a common ancestor. I just want to show that they are very related. Just compare cats and lions to the huge variety of fish derived from carp. Also compare it to the variety seen in dogs. You get dogs that fit into a cup and you get dogs that are huge.
            http://www.moveoneinc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/gibson-and-boo-boo-worlds-tallest-and-smallest-dogs.jpg

            Why is it that you want to separate different cats and not dogs or goldfish and carp? Do people even want to consider that they are only different races? Yes inbreeding can cause incompatibility especially over long periods of time. Gold fish have only been bred for a thousand years or so. Yet they have fertility issues with other carp. How much more will house cats and lions have? Yet, lions, tigers and leopards breed with each other. House cats, rooi cats, servals and many other wild cats can breed as well. The breeding between lions and tigers shows exactly how inbreeding affects genes badly. a Liger does not stop growing because of dominant bad genes. Tigons on the other hand stay very small also because of the combination of faulty genes.

            They have even bred jackals and wolves in Siberia.

            You can call me a Linnean Taxonomist, but there are different distinct species, but withing those species there are races. You would rather regard it all as a mushy pot of animal goo. Yet you do differentiate between certain varieties in some way.

            Beneficial mutation: a Mutation that is beneficial, but not detrimental in another. So using sickle cell anemia is not beneficial. It is like saying it is beneficial to be born without feet, because you cannot get athletes foot. Not too complicated. No example has ever been shown. Mutation is always detrimental. Yet it is the cornerstone of evolution.

            So what have you shown to be useful? Sill no proof for spontaneous eruption of life, no beneficial mutation, no proof of intermediate species, etc. I really do not mean this to ridicule you and Yet you are the realistic one and I’m the irrelevant one? Don’t you think that your opinion of your own logic is a bit exalted that it might be blinding you? I do not regard myself as an expert at evolution, neither of Neaderthals,I am still learning and I even do make mistakes, even get to the wrong conclusions from time to time, yet I do know that my Redeemer lives, not just hope He does. This part you choose to ignore. One philosopher once said that he needs God not to exist because if He does exist, he is in trouble. This is so true of many.

            I am honest with you that even if you give me irrefutable proof that evolution is true, I would still believe in God. You might call that naive, I might call it experiential faith. Ironically, you have so much more to loose if you are wrong. If I am wrong, I would still live a happy and fulfilled life. Do I want to “convert” you with fear? Nope, you need to make your own choices, which seems like you already have.

            I maybe just need to tell you that the God you are not believing in, I might also not believe in either. Why? Because Christianity has moved away so far from what the Bible teaches about God. God is not the tyrant they portray. The Bible does not teach a hell that is burning for ever and ever. The Bible does not even teach that when you die you go to heaven. And yes, I take the Bible very seriously. That is the cornerstone of what is true.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Neanderthal is known to be completely human. There has been no half ape/half man. some have been outright frauds or simply bad science, such as Nebraska Man, formed from a pigs tooth. The tooth created a scenario of an entire ‘ape/man village. There are cash prizes offered to anyone who can prove macro evolution. After 150 it remains a theory, not a scientific law.

          • tplay official

            They are human, but they are not sapiens. Please learn something on the topic before trying to comment authoritatively. Asking for a half ape half man is like asking for a half dog – half poodle. Nebraska man was never published in a scientific journal. If you are refering to Mastropaolo’s challenge, you can not just go to a court room and demand that a judge make a decision in your personal contest because we do not live in a sitcom. Nothing is ever promoted from theory to law.

      • Johan Steyn

        Paleontology is not a proper science. They can do one thing very good though and that is sort bones and fossils.

        If you would take different skeletons from all the different dog races and give to a paleontologist who has never seen a dog in his life (for argument sake), and ask him if these were different species and how he would think they evolved, he would classify them in many different species. Why? Because they work on what the fossils look like.

        To give an example, most paleontologists agree that there are three species of triceratops. Why did they decide that? Because they look differently. The differences between them and the differences between dogs are much less defined, yet we all know that all dogs are still dogs. The same goes for Neanderthals, who differs very little from any other human.

        Also do not look at the genome. They have only been able to map about 60% of their DNA and the joke is, is that the genes they have, comes from two to three individuals’ DNA combined to get a full DNA. This thus far shows that human DNA and Neanderthal are compatible. Most agree that humans and Neanderthals interbred.

        That is like saying a Rottweiler and a a poodle interbred. Yes there are marked differences in DNA, which can be seen in inbreeding in any species. You can see from DNA difference in DNA between certain dog races, etc. The main DNA structure still remains the same, otherwise breeding would not be possible.

    • NotRight

      And they TOTALLY ignore the second law of thermodynamics and it’s implications to “evolution”.

      • CarbonUnitDale

        Of course the ‘open systems’ canard is always brought up when the
        Second Law of Thermodynamics is used as refutation of evolution!

        • tplay official

          its probably brought up because earth, life, the solar system are all open systems

          • Pax Humana

            Open systems…okay, so that is your cue to just simply make up another theory that you do not even know what it means in order to keep the pseudo-scientific and pseudo-intellectual 419 scam operating into perpetuity…I get you now, sir.

          • tplay official

            earth, life, the solar system are all open systems

          • Pax Humana

            Sadly, your brain is too open and there is not a damn thing that is on the inside…kind of like Eskimo Man.

        • NotRight

          Do you know the second law? That is what I use daily. Simply put, if you do not put energy INTO a system, then the system, through entropy, eventually winds down and actions cease. So, as applied to “evolution”, SOMETHING OR SOMEONE had to “inject energy” into the system. Something they have YET to explain (actually two somethings) are MATTER and the existence of LIFE. Death is easy to explain. Life, not so easy.

          • CarbonUnitDale

            The energy put into a system needs to be put into the system in a very precise and planned way or the energy simply speeds up entropy. Take a look at any ‘system’ that sits out in the sun, the sun is definitely putting energy into the ‘system’ but the end result is pretty much the destruction of the ‘system’, unless it is “designed” to use the energy in a “planned” way. Evolution does not “design” or “plan” anything as it ‘mindless’.

          • NotRight

            No argument here. Sort of like feeding welfare folks rather than teaching them to provide for themselves. We’d be money ahead by lowering the cost of education. And I don’t mean by subsidies. Those academics are way over-paid already. And the universities have a racket where they demand you live in their dorms for your first two years. They love their socialism so much, introduce it to academia. REAL socialism. Not their capitalist-lite version of socialism where they are the powerful.

    • Evolution is a fact

      FTFY: Why do religious people ignore what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs also never happen? They are only deceiving themselves.

    • R Stone

      Because they want to get paid. If you come out with the truth you lose your funding. So the deceive and dumb-down the whole population

  • LostBoyPA

    Are you worried about Ebola becoming airborne?

    Surprise! That’s evolution!

    • http://ivaylo.tinchev.com/ Ivaylo Tinchev

      That is microevolution. A virus always stays a virus and a bacteria always stays bacteria. They don’t evolve to something else.

      • jmichael39

        That’s right, Ivaylo…and unfortunately for the neo-Darwinians among us, the vast major of ID proponents have no problem with microevolution whatsoever. ^5

        • Pax Humana

          I have a problem with micro-evolution, as it is equally as evil as macro-evolution. What is REALLY happening is that more mutations that we simply did not record before, or, more accurately, had happened in the past and that have only been recently rediscovered, are appearing once again in society.

    • James Grimes

      Another clueless atheist…

      • Pax Humana

        James Grimes, do you have a Facebook account?

        • James Grimes

          Yes. It’s under my name.

          • Pax Humana

            I just followed you…so send me an invite, please. Thank you.

    • http://www.moveupmarketinggroup.com Linda Tannen

      We have the power to overcome even Ebola because Heavenly Father’s spirit lives in us. See Corinthians, Ephesians, it’s what Jesus was saying :). After reading this article I am happy to see that this scientist does believe in God 🙂 yay

      • wfraser11

        Great Linda. You go pray away all those viruses. And this guy is a liar not a scientist. Furhtermore, most scientists do believe in a God. Howver unlike this clown, they don’t have to lie about science in order to have faith. This gy is intentionally misinformative, poorly educated in the basics of many many sciences apparently, or just crazy. Either way, the fact that you don’t recognize an assault on the scientific method based on fundamentalism reveals that you are also a scientific illiterate. Praise Jesus!

        • Daniel Foley

          You say there is an assault upon the scientific method. Mind citing the article there? All I see is him stating that there are public supporters of evolution who admit to not even understanding it.

          And if you want to get into the scientific method, go read my response to “Antiestablishmentarianist.” It may provide some insight into what evolutionary scientists actually believe.

        • Nabukuduriuzhur

          I don’t accept evolution because it violates a considerable number of scientific principles and laws, but is still magically assumed to work.

          For example, most of the compounds in the simplest cells, that of cyanobacteria (what used to be called blue-green algae), require life to synthesize them. They do not occur in nature without life to create them.

          C55H72MgN4O5, or Chlorophyll-a requires life to create it. And yet evolutionists assume that cyanobacteria spontaneously generated from random chemicals, despite the incredible complexity of the cell. A single RNA molecule having 10 to the 200th combinations.

          That is just one massive problem of evolution. There are thousands.

          Evolution is treated by evolutionists as their religion and so it should be treated as a religion, not a science.

          The scientific method itself disproved evolution, and so it cannot be held to be a science.

          Before someone says “ah, what does he know”, very few people have my background in the sciences and engineering.

          I hold four degrees in three fields. Two engineering, one bio and one geo.

          For example, at a glance, this is what I’m qualified for:

          Ecology Series GS-0408-13
          General Biological Science Series GS-0401-13
          Environmental Protection Specialist GS-0028-12
          Natural Resources Management Specialist GS-0401-12
          Fishery Biology Series GS-0482-12
          Bio Science Tech GS-0404-9
          Wildlife Biology Series GS-0486-9
          General Engineering Series GS-0801-7
          Engineering Technician Series GS-0802-7
          Materials Engineering Series GS-0806-7
          Civil Engineering Tech Series GS-0810-7
          Civil Engineering Series GS-0801-7
          Geology Series GS-1350-5
          General Physical Science Series GS-1301-5
          Hydrology Series GS-1315-5
          Hydrologic Technician Series GS-1316-5
          Botany Series GS-0430-4
          Soil Conservation Series GS-0457-4
          Soil Conservation Technician Series GS-0458-4
          Soil Science Series GS-0470-4
          Land Surveying Series GS-1373-4

          • Richard Forrest

            You seem seriously confused not just about the nature of evolution but of science in generaal

            Evolution is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory. The term “evolution” was coined to refer to the phenomenon Darwin (and his precursors) referred to as “descent with modification” and which we now define in terms of changes to the genetic makeup of populations of organisms over successive generations.

            It is a fact that evolution occurs.

            Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how this phenomenon of nature operates. As is the case with all theories in all fields of science, it is based on evidence, tested by the acquisition of further evidence and revised or rejected if that is what the evidence demands. It has been exhaustively tested over a century and a half, and has grown considerably both in scope and explanatory power since Darwin’s original formulation.

            The evidence on which the theory is based has always been from studied of extant populations of organisms. Although the fossil record is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory, and that theory makes strong predictions about the nature of the numerous intermediate forms which, contrary to the blatant falsehood promoted by creationists, have been found in considerable numbers, the fossil record is not and has never been the primary evidence on which it built. If there were no fossil record, evolutionary theory would be just as valid and just as well-supported by evidence.

            All science in all fields is based on the assumption of naturalism. It is that assumption which makes science possible. In science, if we don’t have a robust explanation for a phenomenon we say I don’t know and carry on looking. What we don’t do is to demand that science be redefined to accommodate supernatural explanations so that some particular supernatural explanation (even if disguised by sciency-sounding language) be accepted as science.

            I suggest that Dr Tour must know this.

          • Pax Humana

            Nabukuduriuzhur, do you have an account on Facebook. I would love to add you as a friend on there, please. What is your name on Facebook? I am writing a series of novels and I would love to get some experts on the subject, please. Thank you.

        • MC

          “And this guy is a liar not a scientist.”

          Lets see,
          “Over the last 30 years, Tour has authored over 500 research publications, and he was recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org. Tour has also received awards and recognitions from the American Chemical Society, Thomson Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others.”

          Sorry, he’s a scientist! And one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world today. How many research publications have you authored? None! How many awards and recognitions have you received for science? None! So what you meant to say is YOU are not a scientist. Remember, jealousy will get you nowhere.

        • Pax Humana

          Please tell me all of YOUR experience in the hallowed halls of academia, let alone any of your latest findings on the concepts of evolution and its related ilk. I would just absolutely LOVE to read that work and then use it as my emergency toilet paper.

          • tplay official

            Was there ever a time in your life that you weren’t human garbage?

          • Pax Humana

            Was there not a time that someone said that about yourself? Why not do the world a favor and go urinate on an electric fence?

          • tplay official

            so.. no?

          • Pax Humana

            So, go fuck yourself?

    • Nabukuduriuzhur

      Ebola has always been “airborne”.

      As a biologist I’d have to say that those claiming it isn’t in our media are clueless what that means.

      Viruses don’t “fly”. The virus particles are suspended in droplets of saliva when sneezed or coughed. A sneeze can fling these particles 17 feet. When the drops dry out the virus dies. Unfortunately, someone might have inhaled some of the drops or gotten it on the eyes or other mucous membranes and that person now has the virus.

      Evolution stands or falls by mutation. Every one of the 15,000+ mutations found in human DNA cause problems rather than solving them, with a

      • Johan Steyn

        Yip, there has never been a case of beneficial mutation. This is fundamental to evolution, yet completely unproven, even Dawkins knows that:

        http://vimeo.com/84937161

    • Johan Steyn

      And then there is genetic manipulation by humans…

  • Nasus

    The scientists need to come to me for knowledge of the origins of life…Genesis.

  • Bob Blitzen

    Well that proves it I guess. Everything was created by a magical being in the sky. No evidence needed.

    • Jonathan Fontenot

      Nothing magical about it. There is nothing more natural than belief in God.

      • crazygemini12 black

        How idiotic. International proselytizing wouldn’t be necessary if that was so

        • Jonathan Fontenot

          We teach and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and his saving work. It is not our job to convince them of the existence of God. Everyone knows that..romans 8:18-21. It is also natural to hate God..

        • Daniel Foley

          That’s actually not true. But, you appear to have never studied how intelligent design proponents see things, so I wont hold it against you.

          In fact, some prominent evolutionists agree that there is an innate sense of something more, a supernatural if you will. That is all that Jonathan was saying, and nothing more. Some choose to follow their innate senses, others reject them. That’s why proselytizing is necessary. Both atheists and theists do it, as proven by this conversation here and now.

        • Nabukuduriuzhur

          You immediately attack the person, not the idea. That is not a good way to debate. It solves nothing and a court would state “assumes facts not in evidence.” It’s much better to present a cogent argument than to come off as a jerk by making irrational comments.

        • Pax Humana

          …and yet the person that made the comment also has the word “crazy” in their name…how predictable and also ironic.

    • James Grimes

      And another clueless atheist. Wonders never cease.

      • Bob Blitzen

        Really? You’re the one that believes that a guy lived in a fish for three days, that there was an actual talking donkey.
        Yea, wonders never cease. Clueless indeed.

        • JustSomeChristian

          Bob,
          While I’m sure you probably don’t care if your assertions have answers, I will try anyway.

          1. Have you considered that Jonah was dead in the fish and God resurrected him? Jesus used Jonah’s story as a parallel for His resurrection.

          2. God could make animals talk if He so chooses.

          3. Unicorn could be referring to a single-horned Rhinoceros (search for Elasmotherium sibiricus).

          4. Satyrs are most likely referring to a male goat or male goat idols worshipped by ancient people.

          5. Dragons are probably dinosaurs though I’m sure you would disagree ancient peoples saw them. There are ancient artifacts that have dinosaur-like depictions on them however. Stegosaurus at Ankor Wat and Sauropods at Bishop Bell’s Tomb. Ancient people who never saw dinosaurs making these rather uncanny depictions is pretty amazing wouldn’t you say?

          • kornula

            you’re a moron.

          • JustSomeChristian

            Ad hominem without addressing my points. How typical.

          • tplay official

            When Bishop Bell died, the English had already been printing modern english books for over 20 years. Why didn’t a single person right a single line about the “60 foot long dinosaurs” roaming the earth? Why is the “sauropod” fighting something drawn exactly like one of the dogs depicted elsewhere in the tomb? Why did the “dinosaur” at Angkor Wat have an ungulate head, feet and tail? What would the continued existence of non-avian dinosaurs even prove?

            Now if you’ll excuse me, I have uncovered some important evidence in a 60’s cartoon called “The Flintstones”.

          • Pax Humana

            Is that your best comeback?

          • tplay official

            yes, thats all a drawing of a brontosaurus fighting a dog deserves

          • Pax Humana

            First of all, you thunder cunt, a brontosaurus is a disproved species of animal that was revealed as a fraud and second, if by the dog fighting itself, well, that would be a rather pointless and counterproductive fight, but hey, then again, if you are the dog and you have rabies, well, I guess the only thing that will fix the problem is to put you down and that is precisely what I am going to do you, ass clown. You fucking started shit that you know that you can not win and I will also not allow you to die as a martyr. I will disrespect, defile, blaspheme, dishonor, disrespect, desecrate, mock, pervert, deface, and ridicule ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that you stand for and I will not only make a good example of what it is like to fucking start shit with me, but I will also make you out to be a horrible warning as well simultaneously should you continue to act like a mindless fuck wit in this world. You need to come to the USA and meet me in real life if you want to bring a fight to myself, to kick my ass, to start a fight, and to finish a fight because you will not win that fight, period, full stop.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Bob, when it comes to magic and miracles, it is truly a-theism that requires an ample supply of blind faith. You believe that:
          1. The universe miraculously pooped into existence out of nothing and uncaused by anything.
          2. Life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.
          3. Morals and mind evolved from molecules through monkeys.
          Now, don’t be too rough on those of us former a-theists who no longer have enough blind faith to remain a-theists. Dr. Tour has merely followed the data where it has led him.

          • Antiestablishmentarianist

            1. Don’t you guys believe that the universe pooped into existence by God’s hand? Wouldn’t that then align with both beliefs?
            2. Didn’t life magically spring to life from a stroke from God?
            3. God can do whatever he want’s, why couldn’t he make evolution possible?

            The difference in all of your points you list are that most of these are theories. The big bang “theory” is just that a theory. Except, common descent does have some actual evidence behind it. Look it up before spouting that there is no evidence. Its all over the place, those that say otherwise either don’t want to read into it, or have some other agenda they want you to follow:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

          • Daniel Foley

            First off, many theistic scientists are now coming to the belief that the big bang did, in fact, occur. The Higgs-Boson particle is an evidence of that. But the big bang in itself does not imply evolution. It is simply an explosion of matter that is used as a physical explanation for the cause of our universe. But the evolutionists’ argument is inherently contradictory. Something cannot create itself, due to its non-existence.

            Secondly, yes. Life did ‘magically’ come about by God’s word. But, the Bible clearly outlines that creation happened all in six days, and only six days. There is no room left for macroevolution, except if it occurred in under one day’s time, which is completely contrary to macroevolution.

            Thirdly, you say there is evidence for common descent. What you are citing is something heavily equivocated and blurred (aside from it being from Wikipedia). The ‘evidence’ for common descent is actually, in fact, similarities between organisms. But, we all live in a common universe. That common universe then requires us all to have certain physiological traits in order to live. Using similarity in structure is hardly at all evidence for common descent, but it instead shows we live the same universe.

            Lastly, you are equivocating the word “theory.” The greatest tool of the persuader is equivocation. The evolutionary definition of the word “theory” is a “well-established or generally accepted explanatory concept” (http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/partner/evolution-s-non-debate). However, the word “theory” in the scientific method is a hypothesis that has been continously tested over long periods of time through scientific experimentations and observations which confirm that the hypothesis is correct. Evolution does not fit that requirement, as they are unable to in any way recreate macroevolution (notice, I do not disagree with microevolution, or “adaptation” as some scientists say) or observe it. In fact, it is so unfounded in science that the only field that still generally accepts it is biology. Physicists, chemists, mathematicians all have begun straying away from these hypotheses due to their lack of evidence and the vast improbabilities that even the slightest bit of what is claimed to have occurred actually occurred.

            TL;DR
            Basically, evolution is as unfounded in science as it can get. Even Richard Dawkins has ceded that evolutionists are unable to disprove God. Plus, the burden of proof falls with the evolutionists, not the intelligent design proponents. Intelligent design has been accepted for all of recorded history, and the evolution movement only gained momentum in the late 1800’s. In any science, the new hypothesis always has to disprove the old theory. You can’t just come in and say “you’re wrong unless you can physically prove and a-physical being exists.” It just doesn’t work that way.

          • Johan Steyn

            If a certain watchmaker makes different watches all looking a lot different, you’ll find quite a lot of similar parts in all the watches. Similarity shows a common
            creator, not a line of decent.

          • Johan Steyn

            To mix evolution and creation is ludicrous. I have believed this for very long. You just cannot combine the two. Which parts of the Bible is true and which is not?

            Then if God took 5 billion years to create earth, how will he be recreating it? Another 5 billion years? The tool of evolution is death, do you believe in a god who uses killing to create things?

          • Tom T

            You miss a critical point. We cannot explain God. We don’t try to, for an eternal, infinite Being cannot be explain by finite beings. We believe that something greater, much greater created all that we observe. Evolutionist believe that nothing did it; that there was no intelligent Creator, but just billions of years of chance that brought something from nothing, life from non-life, and intelligence from chaos. We cannot explain God, the Creator, and you cannot explain Evolution, the creator. Our creators are unexplainable, but to believe that all we observe comes from your creator is beyond faith, it is insanity.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            What utter nonsense – and a wiki link to boot! Are you kidding me?!? What’s next: a Star Trek quote? (I like Star Trek, BTW, original series. :-))
            1. Certainly not. We have the Kalam Cosmological Argument supported by the established science of Big Bang and the BGV Theorem to point to an uncaused first Cause. (I didn’t have that growing up as an a-theist. I was busy clinging to eternal and oscillating universes, and certainly would not have invented the unobservable multiverse to “rationalize” my presuppositions.) We have teleological arguments, moral arguments – all for the case of theism. We have a plausible case based on science, philosophy, logic, math, and, yes, metaphysics. You have blind faith in a-theism, with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever.
            2. Yes, it did. That’s because non-life does not have a particularly strong track record of producing life. But, life DOES have a strong track record in this domain. (Except for same-sex couples, of course. Where’s the equality?!?) 🙂
            3. He could and He did. Microevolution is a fact. Evolution as “change” is a fact. Macroevolution is a religion, one which is losing ground every day as science progresses. 🙂
            God bless!

          • Terry Firma

            “The universe miraculously pooped into existence.”

            Now now, let’s not get needlessly scatological here.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’ve got a sticking “O” here. Kinda like another “O” who has stuck around way too long, at least for the poor in America. Thanks for catching!

          • Tom T

            Where did Bob go? Look for guys with their heads in the sand — you might find him there.

          • Bob Blitzen

            Actually I was living my life, which from all the replies here I see you people don’t have much of one.

          • Bob Blitzen

            Look, I
            could sit here and debate you all on who’s right and who’s wrong all day,
            that’s not going to get us anywhere and I’m not going to convert anybody any
            more than any of you are going to convert me.

            I was born into a very Christian household, we attended church regularly, I was
            an altar boy a few times, did my first communion, had my collection of crosses
            and bibles, but in the end it was my own research, it was me finding the
            answers to my questions that nobody else would or could answer that led to my
            discoveries and my decision. I could explain what those questions and discoveries were,
            but that would just be a waste of all our time.

            When
            it comes down to it, we all want the same thing. We all want to be happy,
            we all want to see peace in the world, and we all would like to see an end to
            hunger and suffering. We would all like to live our lives in peace and
            not have to submit to another person’s views, or rules on how you should live
            your life simply because they have a different view on how the Universe came
            into existence.

            If we can’t find a way to set aside our differences and live peacefully
            with one another, I’m afraid that we are all just living on borrowed time.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I’m afraid that we are all just living on borrowed time.” That’s the big question, isn’t it, Bob? Is this it? 75, 80 years, of what will ultimately be a meaningless existence – if we are lucky? (Most of the classical a-theists, like Bertrand Russell – my former hero – agreed that if God does not exist, then life has no meaning.)

            As for submitting to other people’s rules, we all do that. Most of us, a-theists included, do not go out and murder people. That’s someone’s rule. The question of morality comes down to the question of if there is a Moral Law Giver, or not. If not, then “all things are permissible.” (paraphrasing Dostoyevsky) And the “pope” and “cardinals” of a-theism agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/#comment-101449
            On the theistic view, the goal in life is NOT to be happy, BTW: the goal is to come to know and love and serve the One Who gave us life, even though He had no obligation to do so. For this reason, I say, sincerely, God Bless you, Bob.

          • Tom T

            Bob, you were not in a Christian home, you were in a Catholic home. You followed religious rituals, and they made no sense, and you were right. It was like living with pictures while being told that they were alive and powerful. Unfortunately you didn’t meet the Real Thing, the person of Jesus Christ. He does away with the rituals of religion and He gives you a relationship with Himself. He satisfies your whole being, including your mind. I would never recommend that you give religion another chance, but I would recommend that you give Jesus, the Son of God, a chance.

          • Tom T

            So that is why you replied – LOL Bob, you’re not fooling anyone. Bob, admit it, you have no answers; you are lost in a world that screams that it was created with intelligence, thus there must be an intelligent Creator. You have never seen anything come from nothing, so you know that what your eyes can see cannot be the cause of what you see. Now Bob, go back to your sand hole, stick your head in it and yell over and over again, “There is no Creator!”

          • Bob Blitzen

            Wow, angry little thing aren’t you Tom T. LMAO.

          • Tom T

            Bob, I have nothing and no one to be angry with, so humor yourself if you’d like, but you haven’t angered me at all. You may hope that you have that sort of impact, but you don’t. You are typical of what I see everyday: ignorant evolutionist who cannot understand what they believe but are ever hopeful that “knowledgeable” evolutionist do. Your first statement in this string, which I replied to, said that nothing in biology could be explained without evolution. I asked you to give one example — just one. You have resorted to more insults, but Bob you couldn’t even give one example. Yes, Bob has no clothes, no covering for his open ignorance. You believe in something that you haven’t a clue about and I’m guessing you are pretty uncomfortable in your skin. —- now laugh on, but even your laughter is a vain coat of fears.

          • Bob Blitzen

            You’re a funny guy Tom. And trust me, the only fear I have of religion is of nut jobs taking it too literally and doing something stupid like blowing up innocent people.

            And it wasn’t my intention to make you or anybody else angry, if I did I apologize. We are all entitled to believe what we want as long as it does not hurt others.
            If you want to make assumptions about me being “uncomfortable in your skin” or call me ignorant, or anything else you may want, then go for it Tom, it really does not bother me in the least.

          • Bob Blitzen

            Yes, because it makes so much more sense that an all knowing, all powerful guy magically appeared out of nowhere and did such a crappy job creating everything.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Speak for yourself, Bob – I am happy with how I was created, warts and all. 🙂 Seriously, though, please address the fact that you guys (and, yes, me too for 42 years) are on the wrong side of science, philosophy, logic, math, etc. I mean, we’ve got Kalam (supported by Big Bang and BGV Theorem), teleology, moral argument, etc all for the case of theism. (And the Cambrian explosion of life does to macroevolution what the Big Bang did to naturalistic cosmology.) And, you’ve got what for the plausibility of a-theism: everything popping into existence out of nothing uncaused?!? I know: the unobservable multiverse (of the gaps) did it. (But, that just pushes the argument back one step.) What’s your case for a-theism? Besides, your Dad was mean to you, and you therefore don’t want to be held accountable to anyone, including your Creator? God bless you, Bob, and yes I REALLY mean it.

          • Bob Blitzen

            Oh WorldGoneCrazy, you funny thing you. Such cleaver use of a dash in the word atheism, too funny.
            OK, I get it, you have morals and I don’t because I don’t believe in a sky fairy. I was abused as a child and that is the reason why I’m angry with god. Hey wait, is this Kevin Sorbo? LMOA.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I think it’s LMAO, Bob. 🙂 I’m glad you like the dash in “a-theism” also. I use it to remind a-theists that they share a burden of proof for their worldview. Now, in my post above, I merely pointed out that a-theists are on the wrong side of science, philosophy, math, logic, etc. Thus far, you have made no case for a-theism, so it is hard for me to understand why you cling to your “religion?”

            As for the moral argument, no one makes the claim that a-theists cannot behave morally, but that they have no basis for doing so under their a-theistic worldview. And, the “pope” and “cardinals” of a-theism agree with this assertion: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-atheist-explains-the-real-consequences-of-adopting-an-atheistic-worldview/#comment-101449
            BTW, you are one of the nicest a-theists I have ever met online. (Sincerely!) God bless you, Bob!

          • Bob Blitzen

            Thank you for that WGC. Sometimes we tend to let these things get to us and we end up getting all bent out of shape. I try to be civil, but I do admit that I sometimes let others get to me.

            You know, I had a pretty good childhood. It wasn’t the best mind you, but it sure wasn’t the worst. At least I had a roof over my head, food in my belly, and parents that loved me and treated us well. As far as I go? Well I just needed something more concrete than religion I guess. I’ve been an Atheist since my early twenties. I’ve been married for 18 years, raised three wonderful kids, two are somewhat believers another is not. All three have done good in life. My youngest daughter is a housewife and a mother to an adorable 3 year old boy. My boy has his own family with two boys of his own and runs a successful construction business, my oldest daughter has been offered a government job working on an embassy of her choice, and my marriage is the type that all my wife’s friends envy and constantly tell her that’s what they want.
            We are both professionals, we make a very decent amount of money, we take yearly vacations, we donate a ton of stuff a year, and also donate money to charities. So life is good.

            One of the things that believers like to say to us is “so you think this came out of nothing” “everything must have a creator” while ignoring the fact that they themselves believe that same exact thing” In fact I could go on to say that even most believers are to a point Atheist themselves.

            What I mean by that is that some like to pick and choose what they believe from the Bible. Well God created the Universe, it’s right there in the Bible. Noah’s Ark was real, it’s right there in the Bible. Homosexuality is an abomination, it’s right there in the Bible. Those are all nice and simple beliefs, though in the case of Homosexuality I think some people tend to use that as an excuse for their own bigotry. They don’t believe all of it, but criticize you for not believing any of it.

            But the really hard ones? those are the ones that they like to ignore, or they say, “well you can’t take it literally”

            The ones they ignore are the ones that inconvenience their life. It’s easy to bash gays, but those same people will totally ignore the following.

            Anyone who curses his mother or father must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9).
            Anyone who commits murder must be put to death (Leviticus 24:17).
            Anyone who commits adultery must be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22).
            Anyone who commits perjury must be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-19).
            Anyone who disobeys a judge or priest must be put to death (Deuteronomy 17:12).
            Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death (Exodus 35:2).
            Anyone who does not worship God must be put to death (2 Chronicles 15:13).
            Any strangers approaching a sanctuary must be put to death (Numbers 17:7).
            Any prophet who tries to turn you against God must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:5).
            Any prophet who makes a wrong prediction must be put to death (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
            Family members who tempt you with other gods must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
            Anyone who claims to talk with spirits must be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:27).
            A stubborn and rebellious son must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
            Any woman who has had premarital sex must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:21).
            Anyone who worships another god must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-7).
            Anyone who curses or blasphemes must be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:14-16).

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Bob, thank you for your kind reply. I’m glad you have had a great life, but what’s next? I mean, we can all go at any time, so is that it, under your view? Do you believe you have a soul or mind? Is it off to “the long sleep” as Carl Sagan put it? How can life have any deep meaning for you under such a view? Why be faithful to your wife under such circumstances? Shouldn’t you be reproducing with as many women as you can under a-theistic naturalism?
            I’m sorry that you have a problem with Levitical laws, but surely you have seen the exegetical responses to this? I mean, you didn’t even bring up the Canaanites. 🙂 But, before we get to the issue of Christianity, we really should be investigating theism vs a-theism, no? You are an a-theist: you have a case to make. Perhaps you can convert me back.
            Back to the question at hand: what is your argument for a-theism in light of the fact that Kalam (supported by Big Bang and BGV), teleology, the Moral Argument, etc all point to theism? As an a-theist, you are on the hook to provide evidence to support your belief that there is no God. (We can deal with the “moral monster” of the Christian God later.) Doesn’t it seem (from a plausibility standpoint) that all of the science, math, philosophy, logic, etc point toward theism and away from a-theism?
            Secondly, you seem to be making the argument that the Levitical laws (and the Christian position deeming homosexual behavior as a sin) are immoral. How do you do this under a-theism? In my link above, I showed that Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse make compelling (IMO) cases that objective moral values and duties are illusory under a-theistic materialism. If our lives are so infinitesimally short in the cosmic sense, if we are nothing more than the product of evolutionary molecules to monkeys to man, how on earth could anything like morals or duties arrive on the scene in an objective sense? And why donate any time or treasure under this view? We’re just animals, right? The animal kingdom is largely quite cruel, with rare exceptions. You are really stepping outside of the statistics in this regard, for which I must highly commend you, BTW!
            Finally, what is your position on abortion? God bless, Bob – thanks for your kind replies!

        • Pax Humana

          Yes, you are the clueless one here and you are not the only one, sir. Furthermore, I find that your avatar is quite apt for yourself as you are like a zombie with your way of thought, that is, you lack a brain to be able to think for yourself.

    • jmichael39

      Well, that’s a truly lovely false dichotomy you’ve presented there, Bob. Would you like a similar response or would you prefer a response that’s actually logic-based?

      ID does not attempt to define the nature, character, or even the name for that Designer. It never has. And ID is completely evidence based. The same problem faces both extremes from both ends of the debate on the origins of the universe and the origins of life: jumping to the conclusion that if there is Design in the universe that this automatically requires us to accept some version of what/who that Designer is. It does not.

      If anyone from either side and set aside that jumping to a conclusion then it allows for a very interesting and intelligent debate of the evidence and data points…and an even more interesting discussions on the possible answers to those questions of origins.

      That being said, when and if you’d ever like to engage in that sort of debate, let me know. Until then, you can save your false dichotomies for other occasions.

      • Bob Blitzen

        Here is the difference between you and me slick.

        1. You believe in stories that were written thousands of years ago by uneducated farmers living in mud huts in the capital of bat shit crazy (the middle east)

        2. Me. I believe in the research conducted by highly educated scientist who were trained in prestigious universities all over the World.

        Um, yea, I’m going to go with door number 2.

        • jmichael39

          That’s truly hilarious…honestly it is. And you honestly believe that the only truths are those that scientists can tell you about…that your five senses can perceive or your limited human mind can understand? Is that what you’re telling me, SLICK?

          • Bob Blitzen

            Of course not dip stick. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t put too much faith in a bunch of rehashed old myths written by a bunch of primitive screw heads. But hey, if you want to pray to your sky god, then go for it, sport.

          • jmichael39

            Primitive screw heads? do you practice being an ass? Or does it come natural to you?

            Nevermind…let’s play a game then. One of those ‘screw heads’…a man who received some of the best education available…similar to that of the Greek Philosophers (or were they primitive screw heads too? Or am I missing the point, that only people disagree with you are screwheads and dip sticks?). Anyway. one of Christianity’s early leaders, Paul, put the entirety of Christianity on a string and dangled in front anyone who would like to…well…completely obliterate the entire faith.

            Did you know that? I don’t think I know of any other religion where one of its prime leaders and early founders placed the entirety of that faith on a string and essentially opened the door for anyone who can cut that string to destroy that faith. But Paul did.

            Here it is in I Cor. 15 – “12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

            You wanna shot at it, Bob. You really think you can cut the string? I’m here, Bob. I’m not even remotely the most knowledgeable on this, but I’m willing to take you on. You wanna give it a shot? Or are you nothing but a bunch of hot air and insults?

          • Bob Blitzen

            Oh my. So you are trying to prove something using a make believe book. As far as being an ass, idiots like you tend to bring it out. Got that Sport?

          • jmichael39

            what’s make believe about it, Bob. Its a real book. People don’t pretend to read it. Do they? Or are you inferring that the Resurrection of Jesus of ‘make believe’? If it is, surely you can make argument to prove it.

            Virtually every scholar on the issue, even the ones who reject Christianity, accept certain data points about the Resurrection account.:

            1) Jesus died by Roman crucifixion
            2) He was buried, in likely a private tomb.
            3) Shortly there after, the disciples discouraged, bereaved and despondent, having lost hope.
            4) Jesus’ tomb was found empty soon after he was buried.
            5) The disciples had experiences which they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus
            6) Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed, to the point of being willing to die for this belief.
            7) The Resurrection message was the center of preaching of the earliest church.
            8) This message was especially proclaimed in Jesusalem, where Jesus died and was buried (a place where the people would have surely known about the crucifixion, burial and the resurrection stories going around).
            9) As a result of this preaching the church was born and grew.
            10) Sunday, the supposed day of the Resurrection, became the primary day of worship for these Jews who’d become Christians.
            11) James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus.
            12) A few years later, after ardently persecuted and killing those who had preached this resurrection, Paul became a believer due to an experience which believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

            There are more…but these 12 data points are almost universally accepted as facts about the resurrection. Notice the manner in which the points are presented. There is no proclamation that Jesus actually rose from the dead. There isn’t even a proclamation that the disciples did anything more than think they saw the resurrected Jesus.

            So, whatever conclusion you come to regarding the resurrection story, you have to account for these accepted data points…or somehow successfully refute one or more of those data points…along with presenting a conclusion that successfully accounts for whatever remaining data points you’ve not refuted.

            Give it a shot, Bob. Or is that too primitive for you?

          • Bob Blitzen

            Jesus man don’t you work? or are you just cutting and pasting from Evernote?

            And before you say something witty, when I say Jesus, I’m talking about Jesus Gonzales, my lawn guy.

          • jmichael39

            What do you care whether I write from scratch, cut and paste from other sources or have debated these issues so much that’s written my own responses and saved them in a .doc for situations just like this?

            Do you want to try to cut the string or not? If so, go for it, If not, take your asinine vitriol and find someone more willing to put up with your BS

          • Bob Blitzen

            Then stop replying silly, LMAO.

          • jmichael39

            So in other words, you have no reasonable explanation for the 12 data points outside of the conclusion that so many others before us have concluded, namely that Jesus was raised from the dead just as those so-called make believe stories say? So by any reasonable standards you have failed to cut the string…have failed to refute the basic premise of all of Christianity and that you BELIEF that this is a fake religion is based purely upon unreasonable prejudice and bias.

            Thank you for clearing that up.
            NEXT!!

          • Bob Blitzen

            Um, you do know that there were other gods before Jesus that were born to virgin mothers, performed miracles, were crucified, and came back from the dead right? You do know this right?
            It was the going trend back.
            As far as cutting the string? I’m not here to try to prove anything or convert you or anybody. I’ve had this conversation before with other believers in their religions.
            I’ve had it with Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Scientologist, and the one thing they all have in common, is that they all believe they are right and everybody else is wrong. Nothing surprising there.
            If you were born in India you would be a Hindu and you would swear that was the one truth and all others wrong. If you were born in Iraq you probably would’ve been a Muslim. You strike me as somebody that might have joined ISIS if that was the case, so I’m happy that you were not born in the Middle East.

            Like I said, I’m not here to try to convert you or anybody.
            I came to believe what I believe because I had to do my own research and search for my own answers. To me “God works in mysterious ways” or “It’s a sin to questions God’s will” was not enough. I needed more solid answers, so I went searching for them. That’s for me and me alone.
            As long as somebody’s religious beliefs are not being used to kill, hurt, deprive, or control others, I could care less what they believe. As long as they’re not hurting others I’m fine with that.

          • jmichael39

            “Um, you do know that there were other gods before Jesus that were born to virgin mothers, performed miracles, were crucified, and came back from the dead right?” – do you wanna tell which ‘gods’ these are? I suspect you’ve been reading too much Dan Brown. This claim about Mithras was popularized by Dan Brown in his novel The Da Vinci Code. Says one of his fictional characters: “Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras… was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days.”

            Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, whose doctorate from Brandeis University is in Mediterranean studies. He was a professor at Miami University of Ohio for more than 35 years until his retirement.

            Yamauchi has been called “a scholar of scholars”; has studied 22 languages; has delivered nearly a hundred papers on Mithraism, Gnosticism and other topics at scholarly societies; and has written seventeen books, including the authoritative tome Persia and the Bible, which includes his findings on Mithraism. He was selected to deliver an academic paper at the Second International Congress of Mithraic Studies in Tehran.

            “Mithraism was a late Roman mystery religion that was popular among soldiers and merchants, and which became a chief rival to Christianity in the second century and late,” Yamauchi told me. “The participants met in a cave-like structure called a mithraeum, which had as its cult statue Mithras stabbing a bull, the so-called tauroctony.

            “There are relatively few texts from the Mithraists themselves. We have some graffiti and inscriptions, as well as descriptions of the religion from its opponents, including neo-Platonists and Christians. Much of what has been circulated on Mithraism has been based on the theories of a Belgium scholar named Franz Cumont. He published Mysteries of Mithras in 1903. His work led to speculation by the History of Religions School that Mithraism had influenced nascent Christianity. However, much of what Cumont suggested turned out to be quite unfounded. In the 1970s, scholars at the Second Mythraic Congress in Teheran came to criticize Cumont.

            “The Congress produced two volumes of papers. A scholar named Richard Gordon from England and others concluded that Cumont’s theory was not supported by the evidence and, in fact, Cumont’s interpretations have now been analyzed and rejected on all major points. Contrary to what Cumont believed, even though Mithras was a Persian god who was attested as early as the fourteenth century BC, we have almost no evidence of Mithraism in the sense of a mystery religion in the West until very late – too late to have influenced the beginnings of Christianity.

            “Mithraism as a mystery religion cannot be attested before about AD 90, which is about the time we see a Mithraic motif in a poem by Statius. No mithraea have been found at Pompeii, which was destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. The earliest Mithraic inscription in the West is a statue of a prefect under the emperor Trajan in 101 AD.

            “The earliest mithraea are dated to the early second century. There are a handful of inscriptions that date to the early second century, but the vast majority of texts are dated after AD 140. Most of what we have as evidence of Mithraism comes in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. That’s basically what’s wrong with the theories about Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianity.

            But there are more problems with this false connection between Mithras and Christianity.

            In Christianity, Jesus was born to a virgin….in the legion of Mithras, he was not born of a virgin, he appeared fully grown coming from a rock.

            In Christianity, there is no record of what time of year Jesus was born. The Dec. 25th date came years after during Constantine’s attempts to incorporate Christianity with the pagan religions of the day.

            In Christianity, Jesus was a teacher with 12 disciples…in the legion of Mithras, he was a god with ONE disciple.

            In Christianity, Jesus saves the world from sin and death. In the legion of Mithras, Mithras….kills a bull.

            In Christianity, Jesus died, was buried and rose again. In Mithras’ legion, there is no record of his death.

            Now, if you want to share some of these other god stories that supposedly parallel Jesus’ life, feel free to share. But simply throwing out thoughts don’t cut it.

            “You strike me as somebody that might have joined ISIS if that was the case, so I’m happy that you were not born in the Middle East.” – seriously, dude…is that the best you’ve got? I’m sitting here presenting highly intellectual information in an attempt to DEBATE you and because you’re too damned lazy to stand up and defend your own positions with any substance you fall back to associating me with murderous barbarians? Is that REALLY the level of your intellectual skills?

          • Bob Blitzen

            Wow, obsess much do we?

          • jmichael39

            That’s your rebuttal, to try to demean my willingness to seek out truth and knowledge? You would do well to either back off engaging in such debates for clear lack of knowledge or rethink your own beliefs. Because clearly, not a single thing you’ve shared here is remotely based upon fact.

          • Bob Blitzen

            You are so over the top that nothing I say to you will make a difference, whether you believe all the dribble you spew out or not.

            I don’t need to present evidence to you simply because I don’t care what you think. Your 574 comments show that that you get immense self gratifying pleasure from arguing with people on the Internet.
            I’m not going to debate you on whether the creation of the Universe was due to natural occurrences or or the work of an infinitely super powerful being simply for the same reason that I would not waste my time debating a Scientologist, because I simply find it all ludicrous and ignorant.

            Now if you want to take this as my surrendering to your intellect then by all means go ahead and wave your flag of victory, thump your chest in conquest and have yourself a congratulatory toast.

            As for me? I have better things to do with my time than to go back and forth with an Internet Troll.

          • jmichael39

            “You are so over the top that nothing I say to you will make a difference, whether you believe all the dribble you spew out or not.”

            The word is “drivel”, idiot.

            “I don’t need to present evidence to you simply because I don’t care what you think. ”

            In other words, you’re not here to engage in a discussion. You’re merely here to throw random, factually incorrect posts and don’t care whether someone calls you on your BS.

            The ‘gratification’ I get comes from three sources…1) learning, 2) engaging in intelligent debate with serious opponents and 3) watching little wannabe intellects like yourself blow in the wind anytime someone stands up to you and your moronic posts.

            I knew long ago you weren’t here to debate…as you say….ANYONE. You’re the stereotypical troll who jumps out into conversations with your pathetic posts in hopes of doing nothing but piss off or intimidate some Christians.

            I don’t need to beat my chest or raise a flag of victory. There is no glory in defeating an intellectual wannabe in a war of intellect for which he came completely unarmed to fight. But I will recommend something…either don’t come back, create a new ID or make the conscious decision to do your damned homework before opening your trap about something. Because you are otherwise through here. You’ve been exposed for what you are and every one reading these threads knows it.

            Do yourself a favor, don’t respond. I know that seething arrogance in you is just dying to reply to this…but don’t.

          • Bob Blitzen

            You are so predictable it’s comical.

            You may claim that I have not made you angry, but I think it’s
            obvious to everyone reading this post that I have gotten to you. Not my intention, but hilarious just the same.

            So I think I’ve pretty much figured you out.

            You are a walking contradiction. You are an Obsessive Compulsive Narcissist,
            yet you desperately seek out the approval and encouragement of others. You were bullied as a child and you probably suffer
            from some type of mental disorder, most likely Bipolar Disorder, or some form of Schizophrenia, which would mean that you are not employed and are living off disability. Due to your mental disorder,
            you probably wet your bed into late adulthood.

            Most likely you are in your mid 30s, maybe early 40s,
            grossly overweight, and probably live with your mother who you cannot stand because she never showed you the love you so desperately desired. This along with your mental disorder makes
            you have inappropriate sexual thoughts about her, which only helps to fuel your hatred towards her. You are most likely
            still a virgin and have some deep seeded disturbing sexual fantasies.

            Your father, who most likely touched you in an inappropriate
            manner when you were a child has been out of the picture for a while, which would explain your desperate need to believe that there is a holy fatherly figure waiting for you in the afterlife that will wrap his arms around you, tap you on the head and tell you “don’t worry little one, everything will be fine”

          • jmichael39

            Thank you for taking the bait, Bob. I just knew your hatred, bigotry and arrogance wouldn’t allow you to just walk away. And thank you also for finally putting aside the pretense and making a post that is from the heart…not hiding behind the guise of intelligence or civility. I’m sure you feel better now that you don’t have to sit here and pretend to know anything about the topics being discussed…and you can merely express your putrid disdain for people who believe in something you don’t even have the decency to investigate properly. Now I know it will be tempting to go back to your old ways and think you have to try to sound intelligent when you make future posts on other threads. But don’t give in to the temptation. Just be your true, hateful, arrogant self. Its much easy in the end. You can thank me later. Be well, my fr…….whatever you are.

          • Pax Humana

            …and thank you for telling me the story of your life, minus the age, which might be closer to late 20s or early 30s in your case, and that is being generous. Seriously, you make TEENAGERS seem smarter than you, let alone CHILDREN!

          • Pax Humana

            jmichael39, if you are on Facebook, I would love to know your name, please. Thank you.

    • Reason2012

      Why do you believe your great……..great grandparents were reptiles with no evidence but by faith only? You’re being deceived.

      • Daniel Foley

        The only real reason I have found throughout all my research and studies is that
        a) they don’t want to be morally responsible for their actions
        or
        b) they have fallen victim to the equivocation of evolutionists

        either way it is very tough to speak about these things with someone who just doesn’t want to believe in the existence of something beyond themselves, sadly.

    • crazygemini12 black

      I don’t understand this magic that I’m not required to understand. Okey doke. Things we once didn’t understand: germs, female reproduction, the movement of our planet, cancer. Yes let’s chalk it up to good and stop looking.

      • Daniel Foley

        But, we still don’t understand evolution, and it has not been proven, so it is still inapplicable under that logic.

        • Donni Steen

          http://m.msb.embopress.org/content/10/4/725

          Evolution has been proven. This year!

          • Daniel Foley

            You do realize the article you’re quoting as ‘proof’ itself admits it’s only a possibility? Amino acids come in two types, left-handed and right-hand. The left-handed are completely useless for life and are the only things that scientists have been able to create in even the most advantageous circumstances. Right-hand amino acids have only been produced by other life, as further proven by Pasteur.

          • Donni Steen

            And your molecular biology degree is from where exactly? Credentails and citations? And screw your ignorant Darwin comment, I spent my whole life studying the bible, and for what, for you to lower yourself to such a level? What a waste of hot air!

          • Daniel Foley

            Firstly, I don’t need a degree in molecular biology to read what’s said in the article. There are clearly several points where the writer admits it’s only a possibility.

            Secondly, this article is dealing with the origin of life, not evolution. But, according to you, since I don’t have a degree in molecular biology I am unable to understand simple chemical and molecular terminology.

            Thirdly, I lowered myself to a level? I merely stated the reality that BOTH ID and evolution grasp at straws sometimes. If you’re unwilling to accept that, then you need to recuse yourself from speaking on anything of the sort.

            I’m not going to spend any more time on this forum. Your lack of common sense and knowledge regarding even the thing you cite as ‘proof’ isn’t what you say it is.

          • Donni Steen

            After your dismissive demeanor, your degrading Dawkins comment, and the fact you didn’t research the site I gave you further, anything you say is moot. http://m.msb.embopress.org/content/10/4/725

          • Donni Steen

            With your dismissive demeanor, your lack of researching the site I gave you, your derogatory Dawkins comment, and your blatant disrespectful comment about my common sense, everything you say becomes moot. If you’re claiming to be Christian, and you want to be taken seriously as one, I would suggest you drop the derogatory statements and address facts.

            Yes, to truly understand molecular biology, you need a degree, or at least know someone who does, so they can explain how this work.

            Lastly, isn’t the whole Creation theory based on the lack of truly knowing origins? So with your above statement, which is quoted as: “… this article is dealing with the origin of life, not evolution.”, this article proves a point, that it is possible, and it’s been recreated in a lab. I would venture to say, that with this research, the creation idea, will be lost.

            There’s also other studies within the site I gave you, that specifically mention evolution, within the same scope of discovery.

            Don’t insult people, it doesn’t look good for the point you’re trying to make, it also isn’t an example, that Christians should be portraying. One bad apple, makes the bunch look bad. Deplomacy is the best approach, especially if you want others to take you seriously.

          • Pax Humana

            You know, Donni Steen, there ARE such things as “useful (useless) idiots” and “educated (re-educated/brainwashed/etc.) idiots. Sadly, you and your fellow anti-Creationist posters that are on here, as well as the people that also promote ANY form of evolution whatsoever, have proven yourselves to be those things in your lives.

          • Donni Steen

            How very christian and loving, for you to refer to me as an idiot. Practice what you preach, or don’t preach at all. I wasn’t always a humanist, I became one after I became intolerant of my “fellow christians” constant berating of other individuals and the hypocrisy. But thanks for being so reserved and showing great restraint.

          • Pax Humana

            Well, lady, if you do not want shit talked about you, then you need to practice what you preach, otherwise, politely shut the fuck up and learn to get a fucking thick skin, learn some things called logic, reason, rationality, critical thinking, independent thinking, common sense, and intelligence in your life, or, should you lack the courage to live a NORMAL life, please end it all in a fashion of your own choosing and limit the damage to only yourself, you servant of Lucifer.

          • Donni Steen

            Jesus said to love one another. So when you meet your maker, how are you going to answer for this? Are you going to say, I spewed vile words at her, or do you think it would have been better for you, to have witnessed to me with love and compassion? I’ve yet to be disrespectful, and in the very least, as far as you know, you could have had the perfect opportunity to win me back, but yet have reinforced why I chose to leave in the first place. Nicely done…..nicely played.

          • Pax Humana

            You were disrespectful when you opened your damn mouth, so spare me the fucking sob story.

          • Donni Steen

            Are you serious? Only the uneducated use such language. Lol….what a joke.

          • Donni Steen

            Seriously, your nasty mouth, gives decent christians a bad reputation. One bad apple, ruins the bunch. GROSS!

    • Nabukuduriuzhur

      I could do a dissertation on the matter (and have in books) but I think that your avatar is better disproof of anything logical than any argument that I might bring from the sciences.

    • Johan Steyn

      Nope, we would rather believe in a magical dot that magically appeared from nowhere, magically exploding so that everything might magically exist, even the sky itself.

      Nope we are not believers, we have the facts to support us, look we have fossils with date stamps, we have Darwin, he just has to be right. We are objective and therefore know that all other rejecters of evolution must be crazy. We even have our own prophet, Richard Dawkins and if he says it is so, we know it. As long as people wear long white coats and have thick glasses, we can know that know better. even though atheism leads to absolute absence of no moral law, we will believe that none of these atheists will ever lie to us.

      See, we must be right:

      http://vimeo.com/84937161

      • Bob Blitzen

        Oh, the old ” atheism leads to absolute absence of any moral law” I love this one. One needs the Bible to have morals. So what happened with all your pedophile priest? Not that it’s a big deal in your religion.
        You can kidnap a child, rape that child and torture it to death, but if you then repent, then all is fine, no biggie right?

        You do know there are other countries other than the US right?
        You do know some of the happiest, safest, and most prosperous countries in the world also happen to be some of the least religious countries in the world right?

        I think most of you here would love to have your own version of ISIS, so you can go around stoning to death all those who have a different opinion than you. You would love to go around murdering men and boys just so you can kidnap and rape their women and little girls as your Bible tells you to.
        You will never admit it, but that’s what you would all love to do.

        • Johan Steyn

          First of all, they’re not “my” priests. Don’t get me wrong, I believe there are true believers in the RCC, but the system itself is of the devil. If you know the history of the church, you would know this. Go and study a bit about the Jesuit order.

          And anyway, are only priests pedophiles?

          And you are right about one thing, there are terrible religions in the world. There is evil for sure. The RCC has managed to infiltrate the whole Protestantism and therefore you have an image of god which is not God. Modern day Evangelicalism is not what true Christianity teaches. Jesus came to deliver us from sin, not in sin. Yet this is what is widely taught throughout Christianity. That is why people believe that after you are born again, you will just keep on sinning till Jesus comes back. You can just keep on asking for forgiveness and everything is OK. Then I can understand why somebody like you would react the way you do. I was an atheist myself. If I switch on the TV and browse through almost all the Christian channels, I would become an atheist myself again if I did not know God personally as I do.

          There are still true believers, but they are not many. Through Jesus it is possible to break free from sin completely, not just a bit. I have seen many atheists who live better lives than many or most professed Christians.

          And today many Christians would actually do as you say. What you do miss is that this is actually foretold in the Bible.

          Nowhere does the Bible teach to go and rape women and girls. Where did you read that?

          By the way, you also do not understand the history of the Old Testament concerning Israel. It was not just a belief system, but a government.

          For what reason do you have so much hate towards Christianity? It really well defined and clear that for some reason you have very deep hate towards religion as a whole.

          The only thing that drives atheist to be moral, is consequential-ism. If the consequence is bad, avoid it.

  • James Grimes

    I guess the haters will do everything in their power to demonize Dr. Tour. They will now have something to do this week. They are probably thinking now, “We have to find a lawyer to file a lawsuit.”

    • MC

      Yup! But we’re going to start suing atheists right back and bankrupting them.

      • Johan Steyn

        I think you have it the wrong way around.

        • Pax Humana

          Nope, and I can make life miserable for them in areas OTHER than religion, philosophical, and educational belief structures. You, being a former atheist, would know this all too well, and if I had a police officer, federal agent, lawyer, and/or attorney, then I would make that all the more evident to yourself, sir.

  • MattFCharlestonSC

    Interesting (copy/paste)– In 2001, Tour signed the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”, a controversial petition which the intelligent design movement uses to promote intelligent design by attempting to cast doubt on evolution.[36][37] To those who “are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001” he responded “I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.”[38] — So, this website is misinterpreting his dissent from evolution, as an endorsement of intelligent design.

    • Brian Moore

      Where is the website misinterpreting his dissent? For the better part of the article he basically says “science can’t explain the origin of life.” At the end it gives his quote except, “I believe fundamentally that God created us all,” he told the Houston Chronicle. Is the article misquoting him? That’s nice that he said that in 2001, but it’s very possible he could have changed his thinking since then.

    • Reason2012

      If evolution was anything besides a belief, there’d be no threat of people “doubting” that belief.

  • http://Attilashrugs.com/ Attilashrugs1776

    How can the ability to evolve, itself evolve? Darwin admitted that his theory does not attempt to explain the origin of life. He merely meant to explain the origin of specific species. His book was “Origin of the Species” duh.

    No one in Darwin’s time had the faintest knowledge of the actual mechanism of inheritance. Though Mendel was able to predict the phenotype (appearance) of the results of his crossing different strains of pea plants, he had no idea as to how this occurred.

    Not until very recently (within many of our lives) has nuclear biochemistry been elucidated. The structure of DNA and its code of base pairs was linked to inheritance. The random change, substitution addition or deletion of a single base pair is a “mutation”.

    Even the most simple primitive life is far, far more complex than Darwin or anyone of his time could imagine. THE simplest system of replication is already so necessarily complex that it is impossible for it to have been assembled through random actions. How can the ability to evolve, itself evolve???

    • tplay official

      This post is the only interesting thing on this page, including the article.

  • Implied Volatility

    <>

    “God did it” explains absolutely nothing regarding the origin of life. Let’s have the humility to say “we don’t know but scientists are working on it” rather than deceive oneself with magical thinking. If I didn’t know what causes rain, but said “the clouds are angry”, would anyone in their right mind say that is a valid scientifically acceptable explanation of the causes of rain? No….

    • Daniel Foley

      This is only what the article said. He may have given a full-winded explanation that was never printed. Plus, the point here is not that “God did it.” It is actually that public proponents of evolution actually admit to not understanding it themselves.

      • Implied Volatility

        How would you know? Are you just pulling that out of your hindquarters? You apparently didn’t read what I read or you’re reading what you WANT to read into it. And I quote, “I believe fundamentally that God created us all.” Which implies evolution is not the explanation of speciation but rather, the magical interpretations of one particular religion’s holy book. That is totally and wholly apart from the scientific method which is alarming given his supposed knowledge regarding the scientific method.

        • Daniel Foley

          Belief in God does not imply disbelief in evolution. What he is dealing with is the fact that evolutionists so readily admit they don’t understand evolution even though they tout it in public as complete fact. And, evolution does not follow the scientific method either. The observations and experiments that have ‘proven’ evolution have a completely reasonable argument for neutrality or ID sides as well, evolutionists just choose to dismiss them. I am an ID proponent, but I recognize the reality that the vast majority of evidence is merely interpreted instead of taken as neutral.

          • Implied Volatility

            The Theory of Evolution DOES follow the scientific method. It’s you who is not. A scientist doesn’t dig up a fossil with the conclusion already in his mind. He lets the fossil tell him what happened eons ago. You, YECers, IDers, already have your conclusion. God did it. Then you make the fossil fit into that preconceived view. The difference between you and Charles Darwin is that he let the animals he found lead him to conclude the Theory of Evolution. You on the other hand, having your conclusion already in your head, would have taken those same animals and make them fit into whatever worldview you want to posit (i.e. God did it). The fact that you have to appeal to an outside, unprovable, supernatural deity just to make your “theory” (it’s not even a theory) work just demonstrates the lack of scientific credibility with which your view exists. As Bill Nye so finely asked Mr. Kent Hamm, “What, if anything, would change your mind?” Hamm’s response, “NOTHING.” Bill Nye’s response, “EVIDENCE.”

          • Daniel Foley

            Forgive me, I misspoke. Evolution does, in fact, follow the scientific method. It, however, has never been proven by it and is only a “theory” through equivocation. The scientific definition of a theory is a hypothesis that has continuously proven to be true through experimentation and observation. There is support in neither category. It is not so much that there is evidence against evolution as there is no evidence for it. But, it is a theory in the sense of it being a “generally accepted principle” ( http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/partner/evolution-s-non-debate ). Equivocation is the persuader’s greatest weapon. However, if you follow the actual definition of “theory” in the scientific method, evolution falls far short of the mark.

            Next, the conclusion ID proponents have reached is not from science, correct. But, just because something is not science does not mean it is invalid. If I believe in the moon monster, and science can’t find a trace of him, even though he is real, it doesn’t change reality. In reality, you have your views, I have mine. The problem is is that there are certain accounts evolution proponents discredit without even considering. And actually, there is not much dissent from me with some of Charles Darwin’s writing. The scientific theory of microevolution is clearly going on in the world today, which we see through observation and experimentation. But, it has never been proven that natural selection or gene mutations (which your theory relies upon) can EVER add new information or create entirely new species. Every single experiment up until now has provided us with data that clearly illustrates that a frog is a frog and a bird is a bird.

            And another thing, You say scientists don’t dig up fossils with preconceived notions. Then, by your definition, anyone who commented on Archaeopteryx before it was examined are not scientists. Evolution proponents went crazy when Archaeopteryx was discovered, claiming that it was a clear link between reptile and avian. However, when the fossils were finally tested, it revealed that much of the fossils were faked and that it did not in fact relate to the animals they thought. Evolution proponents proceeded to quietly sweep this under the rug.

            Also, you keep equivocating, as well as picking and choosing what to say to make your argument sound stronger. You left out all context or any explanation for Ken Ham (who I have actually met and spoken with). He views the data one way, Bill Nye views it another. EVERY scientist or philosopher has to deal with the EXACT SAME set of data, they just reach different conclusions because of PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS. To claim that ANYONE perceives science without a jaded view is just complete ignorance. There is not such thing as an unbiased worldview, even for agnostics. Our lives are constantly influenced by things that change our thinking, whether we realize it or not.

            At this point, I will be leaving the land of internet debate to get some work done. I hope you have a fantastic week, sir.

          • Implied Volatility

            —–>Forgive me, I misspoke. Evolution does, in fact, follow the scientific method. It, however, has never been proven by it and is only a “theory” through equivocation. The scientific definition of a theory is a hypothesis that has continuously proven to be true through experimentation and observation. There is support in neither category. It is not so much that there is evidence against evolution as there is no evidence for it. But, it is a theory in the sense of it being a “generally accepted principle” (http://www.naturalhistorymag.c… ). Equivocation is the persuader’s greatest weapon. However, if you follow the actual definition of “theory” in the scientific method, evolution falls far short of the mark.Next, the conclusion ID proponents have reached is not from science, correct. But, just because something is not science does not mean it is invalid. If I believe in the moon monster, and science can’t find a trace of him, even though he is real, it doesn’t change reality. In reality, you have your views, I have mine. The problem is is that there are certain accounts evolution proponents discredit without even considering. And actually, there is not much dissent from me with some of Charles Darwin’s writing. The scientific theory of microevolution is clearly going on in the world today, which we see through observation and experimentation. But, it has never been proven that natural selection or gene mutations (which your theory relies upon) can EVER add new information or create entirely new species. Every single experiment up until now has provided us with data that clearly illustrates that a frog is a frog and a bird is a bird.And another thing, You say scientists don’t dig up fossils with preconceived notions. Then, by your definition, anyone who commented on Archaeopteryx before it was examined are not scientists. Evolution proponents went crazy when Archaeopteryx was discovered, claiming that it was a clear link between reptile and avian. However, when the fossils were finally tested, it revealed that much of the fossils were faked and that it did not in fact relate to the animals they thought. Evolution proponents proceeded to quietly sweep this under the rug.Also, you keep equivocating, as well as picking and choosing what to say to make your argument sound stronger. You left out all context or any explanation for Ken Ham (who I have actually met and spoken with). He views the data one way, Bill Nye views it another. EVERY scientist or philosopher has to deal with the EXACT SAME set of data, they just reach different conclusions because of PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS. To claim that ANYONE perceives science without a jaded view is just complete ignorance. There is not such thing as an unbiased worldview, even for agnostics. Our lives are constantly influenced by things that change our thinking, whether we realize it or not.At this point, I will be leaving the land of internet debate to get some work done. I hope you have a fantastic week, sir.<—–

            Yes, very time consuming. I don't know why I even bother, but you responded to me, and seemed like one who actually listens so I guess it was worth it. Just know that I was a creationist for most of my life, and was able to realize how abjectly false it is once I understood the difference between KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF, and that science cares only about knowledge, while creationism, IDers, religion cares only about belief. I truly hope you advance not only spiritually but intellectually as many of the arguments you've asserted really do disappoint. Good day to you too sir.

          • CarbonUnitDale

            The delusion is strong with this fellow folks!

            Tell me “Implied Volatility”, do you still bother with church?

          • Implied Volatility

            Wow, great argument. I can tell you thought very hard about this one…

          • CarbonUnitDale

            Not an argument, just an observation. And a question you didn’t answer.
            I imagine that you find the Bible to be a very important document in your life (which you obviously believe very little of).

            Any thoughts on my rude comments to “Implied Volatility”?

          • Implied Volatility

            If you have a problem with anything I said, please, make your case. I’d rather not waste time on character assessments.

          • Pax Humana

            …and yet you make an art form out of them yourself…playing with a double standard much?

          • Implied Volatility

            Your POINT is what exactly? To waste people’s time with worthless character assessments?

          • Pax Humana

            Yes it DOES imply a disbelief, let alone betrayal in faith, of the faulty concepts of evolution and its related ilk, for these things undermine the concept of the Perfect and Divine Nature of YAHWEH EL ELOHIM and they also make Him out to be a liar with His Word, period, full stop. Furthermore, such forms of wickedness are completely incompatible and at a state of enmity with YAHWEH EL ELOHIM Himself, period, full stop.

    • Johan Steyn

      It is not just a case of saying “God did it.” Just believing a statement without any basis makes no sense. Saying that the clouds are angry can actually be proven to be false scientifically, So it is not a valid argument in this case. And by the way, there is something like false humility. Saying I am thinking humbly is not very humble is it?

      Looking at the creation account and the flood history, the evidence is overwhelmingly for the Bible account. I am not so sure that you have studied all the evidence for that, have you?

      We need to honest with ourselves. I was an evolutionist, then I became a evolutionist that believes the Bible as well, which is quite a confusing position. How did I reach that? I saw God in action in my life that was unrefutable, yet I still clung to my evolution “beliefs.” When I heard people talk about a 6 day creation, I really laughed and thought how ignorant they are. I studied further and realized my folly. It was not easy denying that I was a believer in evolution. The evidence for creation is so overwhelming. I did not need it to be a believer, I was one before that. Yet the evidence did strengthen my faith, but is not the source.

      For evolutionists, their view of evidence is their source of belief. And please remember that facts are merely interpreted evidence and not the evidence itself. Evidence is neutral, facts are not!!!

      Mutation is crucial for evolutionary belief, yet even Dawkins admits that y=there are no beneficial mutation evidence:

      http://vimeo.com/84937161

      • Implied Volatility

        —->It is not just a case of saying “God did it.” Just believing a statement without any basis makes no sense. Saying that the clouds are angry can actually be proven to be false scientifically, So it is not a valid argument in this case. And by the way, there is something like false humility. Saying I am thinking humbly is not very humble is it?Looking at the creation account and the flood history, the evidence is overwhelmingly for the Bible account. I am not so sure that you have studied all the evidence for that, have you?We need to honest with ourselves. I was an evolutionist, then I became a evolutionist that believes the Bible as well, which is quite a confusing position. How did I reach that? I saw God in action in my life that was unrefutable, yet I still clung to my evolution “beliefs.” When I heard people talk about a 6 day creation, I really laughed and thought how ignorant they are. I studied further and realized my folly. It was not easy denying that I was a believer in evolution. The evidence for creation is so overwhelming. I did not need it to be a believer, I was one before that. Yet the evidence did strengthen my faith, but is not the source.For evolutionists, their view of evidence is their source of belief. And please remember that facts are merely interpreted evidence and not the evidence itself. Evidence is neutral, facts are not!!!Mutation is crucial for evolutionary belief, yet even Dawkins admits that y=there are no beneficial mutation evidence:<——

        Evolution isn't something you believe. It's something you ACCEPT. I don't BELIEVE in gravity, I ACCEPT it given the evidence since Isaac Newton first quantified it mathematically without appealing to some supernatural sky deity. No beneficial mutation evidence? Really? Why? Because you say so? Here is the fact. The VAST MAJORITY of mutations are not beneficial OR detrimental. Most are NEUTRAL, they do nothing good or bad. The TINY fraction (i.e. far less than 1% of all mutations, something like 0.0000001%) of mutations that actually do anything, say 20 out of 100,000,000 mutations, approximately half are beneficial and half are detrimental depending on environmental factors. Those that are detrimental will cause the organism to be less able to survive and more likely to die off, hence leaving the more beneficial mutations to continue into the populations and future generations. This process continues for millions of years, of which one can only imagine the kinds of changes that occur in a species (i.e. just a 1-2% difference in DNA is all that separates us from chimpanzees).

        +++++++++++++++++++++++
        =======================

        Sorry if I sounded harsh. I just hope you can reconcile your religious beliefs with established science. I get it that you "feel God" but feelings are not a basis of describing reality. I hope the takeaway for you here is that YEC and ID IS NOT SCIENCE. It's religion masquerading as science, and frankly, IT'S JUNK SCIENCE. Again, the evidence leads you to the conclusion (SCIENCE), not the other way around (RELIGION, YECreationism, Intelligent Design). Realize that you've started with your conclusion (God did it) and you're just trying to make the evidence fit your preconceived conclusion. Once you realize this, perhaps you can attempt to reconcile your religious beliefs with science.

  • Devient Genie

    How do you know if the chemist you are talking to is overrated? Read the article above.

    When he is ready to get ihis own Noble Prize, have him put together a scientific paper to refute our understandings of evolution. Nobody can refute it, and if they could they would get much recognition.

    Simply saying “I dont understand it, so god did it” doesnt count.

    I could say “I dont understand evolution so thor did it, allah did it, zeus did it.

    We could do this all day. Your chemist is making an unsubstantiated claim and he should be ashamed of himself for instigating more religitards to embrace the immoral vicarious redemption of a lamb chop on a cross

    Without our current understandings of evolution, nothing in biology makes any sense. Thats how significant it is.

    So this is either a fake article or an overrated idiotic chemist.

    • Reason2012

      Simply saying “I reject God, so nothing did it” doesn’t count. The bottom line is these are matters of faith, not science. It’s beyond the scope of science to talk about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or the origin of all biological diversity of life as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

      • Johan Steyn

        And evolution is also a belief system.

        What can do though, is to look for evidence supporting your faith. Just be honest and admit that it is still faith, whether evolution or the Bible.

        There is however far more evidence for creation than evolution. I was an evolutionist myself, but no longer.

        • Reason2012

          Yes, as I said all such topics are of faith. And yes, I believe there’s far more evidence for creation by God – it’s logically undeniable we were created – the only faith part is God. But without the grace of God people will still not believe and will find an excuse to reject Him as did we all. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble, so even if someone rose from the dead, there are many who would still not believe.

          Luke 16:27-31 “Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

        • YouNoWho

          Far more evidence for creation than evolution? How absurd. You make a list of all the “evidence” for creation and I’ll make a list of all the evidence for evolution, and we’ll compare. We’ll see if you can provide “far more evidence” of creation than I can for evolution.

          • Johan Steyn

            Regarding what I say as absurd is purely a subjective statement. Evidence is neutral, facts are interpreted evidence and is not neutral. So, you might bring the same evidence to the table as I but interpret it in a very different way because of your belief system. There is one difference though, I admit to my belief system, usually evolutionists do not!

            You will see a fossil in a sediment layer and come to the conclusion that it was covered over millions of years. I would look at the same evidence and see that it was covered during a short period of time (1 year) during the flood. This is just one example.

            By the way, have you done extensive research to look in at the possibility of the flood to really have happened worldwide? Do you know that all the civilizations on earth have a history of the flood account. It is even recorded in the Chinese written language. The evidence here is remarkable. Even the Incas have a flood story that is very close to the Bible account. The Hawains has a flood story and the hero’s name is even Nuah (the correct Hebrew pronunciation. There were 8 people in his big boat and he saved plants and animals.

            The difference is that I have been brought up with evolution, done extensive research on the very subject and believed it with my whole heart. I have even been an atheist. Have done the same research on the “other side?” Have you seriously considered that you might be wrong?

            Nope, why? Because your beliefs are so strong that you would not look at other options. Real science takes everything into account and will even study the most ridiculous claims. Real science did not disregard the ridiculous statement that the earth might be round or that the earth might rotate around the sun. Real science that believing people like Newton practiced.

            So, if you are so sure that you have more credible evidence than I, please do the research yourself. If you are not willing to do this, you are not honest!!!

          • Jeremy Berryman

            You show your ignorance about fossils. Let’s pretend that they were covered by mud in the space of 1 year, that would mean that there were hundreds of floods as there are hundreds of layers of fossils and none of them contain any men!

          • CarbonUnitDale

            The fossil record has no transitional forms; even evolutionists attest to this fact:

            First a quote from Darwin’s writings:

            Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

            How about something from the late Dr. Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, in his book, Evolution, he replied to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

            I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one
            could make a watertight argument.

            Then there is renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, who wrote:

            The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.
            And:

            I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson/patterson.gif
            As I stated before, Patterson was misquoted and since then there have been many transitional fossils found.

          • Johan Steyn

            You have not answered my questions. Why?

            Do you know how sedimentation works and why there are so many layers? Take a glass bottle and fill it halfway with a different kinds of soil and even ash. You can even add sone small stones and gravel. Then fill it the rest of the way with water. Then shake it until everything is mixed thoroughly. Then leave it overnight. You’ll see the sedimentation layers. You have for sure done zero reading on this matter.

            You will also notice that the layers are perfectly straight, just as you see at the Grand Canyon. Please study this for yourself. The top layers have finer material and bottom layers have rougher material with bigger granules.

            Concerning human fossils. there has been found. They call it Neanderthal, which had a 20% bigger brain cavity. Even Discovery said that if a Neanderthal would walk in our streets, we would not even notice it. The difference between Neanderthal’s looks and ours is negligible. We even have the same genes. The difference between a poodle and great dane is more, yet we still call both of them dogs.

            By the way, very few mammal fossils have been found. All the primate fossils will fit in a cars boot. Maybe they floated longer. There was an experiment done for this. Have you read it? A guy took many dead animals and see which ones floated the longest before sinking. Reptiles sank early, birds last, just like you see in the layers.

            You see, we look at the same evidence, but have different facts and conclusions. We have the same evidence but different interpretations, yet we have other evidence as well that you do not have, hence more evidence.

          • Jeremy Berryman

            As I studied geology in school I have studied sedimentation, yes it occurs as you have said, on a minor scale, but it does not have multiple layers of different types of sedimentation throughout. Like stays with like. If your theory is true, they would have only found reptiles at the bottom. But they are throughout the entire strata across all layers. Even if they weren’t, they would still have found the occasional man along with them, which they haven’t. Ever. All the mammal fossils would fit into a trunk? Well I’d beg to differ, I had enough to fit into a trunk myself, but one reason that there are less is because they came along much later and are much harder to find because of their size.

          • Johan Steyn

            I did not say mammal fossils, I said primate fossils. But now that you mention it, the amount of mammalian fossils are is not huge either. Of many mammals, only one fossil was found. The lower you go down, the bigger the fossil count. Strange isn’t it? There are tons upon tons of crustations.

            “because of their size” Mmmm.. so humans are bigger than a T-Rex or other big dinosaurs?

            You believe in the geologic column, yet it is nowhere found in the world, not one place.

            “on a minor scale” I would not call the Grand Canyon a minor scale. Please explain to me how the layers seen there are absolutely straight, yet you believe they have been formed over millions of years. You might also go ahead and tell me what happened to all the sediment washed away by the Colorado river? It is not found in the delta, which is tiny. There should be tons upon tons upon tons.

            “came along much later” I am struggling to see why it would be hard to find something that came later. What is your reasoning behind that? Have the fossilization processes changed over time? Was it easier for earlier fossils to fossilize? You have actually given me new information. This is a very good question you brought up, why on earth are there less fossils of “later” species?

          • Johan Steyn

            Also look at the evidence of layering and submerging of trees as seen by the eruption of Mount St Helena. It has so many similarities with the flood’s sedimentation:

            http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/z-helens.jpg
            http://www.rtgmin.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/helen-layer.jpg
            http://truedino.com/MtStHelensstrata1.JPG

            Here are also layers of Japan Tsunami:
            http://considerthegospel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Japan-tsunami-2011.-Sediment-laid-down-during-tsunami-flooding.2011-tsunami-sediment.jpg

            Yet you guys would want people to believe that absolutely straight layers have formed over millions of years apart from each other. That really needs a lot of faith. But I understand, I have believed it myself.

          • YouNoWho

            I stick by my statement. It is absurd to say there is “far more evidence” of creation than evolution. You might not think there’s ENOUGH evidence to convince you but the claim you made is so absurd as to not merit any discussion of it.

            And yes, I’ve researched “the other side.” My degree is in religion and I pastored churches.

            Calling evolution a “belief system” is equally ridiculous. Is gravity a “belief system”? Get real.

          • Johan Steyn

            Gravity has been Proven empirically, evolution has not been ever. You hate God, we get it. Just don’t force others to do the same.

            The very foundation of evolution is beneficial mutation, which had never been proven. Not a belief? Be real! How can you know that it is a belief system for sure? The very fact that are getting emotional over it proves it!

          • YouNoWho

            Could you hate (or love) Santa Claus? Of course not. You can’t hate someone you don’t believe exists. If you would get yourself better informed on topics before making your pronouncements, maybe you’d make more sense. As for “belief systems,” I suspect if someone raped your daughter, you’d get pretty emotional over it. Would that make it a belief system?

            Amazing how exercised you religious people get in defending superstition and “faith” (believing without evidence). If you REALLY believed as you say you do, then you would not have to be so defensive. You’d rest assured that your religion would survive all criticism. But that isn’t the case, is it.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            You may then know that John Rockefeller funded Union Theological Seminary, among others to teach German ‘higher criticism’ … that cast doubt on the Word of God. Do you as a pastor believe that the Bible is God’s record? The acid tests that the Bible passes is far more evidence for Creation than accidentalism. As for the ‘far more evidence of science’ yes, I agree there is more evidence of creation than by supremacy of blind chance. A few : 1/ origin of universe; the Genesis account as history, as verified by Jesus, who claimed to be God; 2/ the origin of life, which is also verified by Jesus as being created by God in six literal days, not eons; God did not use death and millions of years to form the first man. Evolution teaches ape became man … how did he then become a woman? 3/ kind only produces kind … there is no morphing of species to another … there is absolutely no proof in the fossil record. Only complete forms are found. Anyone who can prove evolution conclusively would receive world acclaim. He would also receive cash prizes offered now. 4/ life only produces life; non life does not produce life. These are God’s laws, and they are ‘scientific laws’ … such laws are proven and that is why they are called laws. Theories remain theories and speculation. When evolution becomes a scientific law, then that is when the parade should begin.

          • YouNoWho

            You are employing the standard “god of the gaps” method of “evidence,” which is no evidence at all. Since the beginning of time, humans have attributed to the gods anything they have no understanding or explanation of. If we don’t know who did it, we say “God did it.” Not only do we have no evidence that the Bible is a divine revelation (there is nothing in it beyond the ken of ordinary humans to write), the creation story has “myth” written all over it. Myth is often a good thing, not a bad thing; the problem is when people insist on taking myth as literal. Anyway, you can’t just say “God did it” without evidence. You can say you believe BY FAITH that God did it, but that’s not evidence-based belief, it is picking a comfy belief and giving yourself permission to believe it without evidence.

            The other thing that is clearly obvious to me, is that you have not studied evolution. You may have read tons of books on evolution, but only those by religious fundamentalists whose world falls apart with the reality of evolution.

            The reason I know you haven’t really studied it, but have read religious stuff about it, is because there is OVERWHELMING evidence, including fossil evidence. Religious people who feel threatened by the reality of evolution will say anything to defend their preferred beliefs. (They worship their cherished beliefs more than truth.) They lie through their teeth about evolution.

            Also, you talk about the beginning of life. Anti-evolutionists typically badmouth the notion of life from nothing, but evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life!! Darwin didn’t pretend to know how life started. How ironic, though, that Christians, while belittling others for supposedly thinking life started from nothing, themselves believe it came from nothing when a supernatural being (supposedly) simply spoke life into existence—out of nothing.

            Another thing of which you are obviously ignorant is the meaning of “theory” in science. All you have to do is google it. GRAVITY is only a “theory,” but it is a fact. [See list of other “theories” in the definitions below.] Study up on this. “Theory” in science doesn’t mean hypothesis. You are dead wrong to say a scientific theory is “speculation.” There is NO doubt about evolution, outside of religious people. But don’t take my word for it. Everything that follows this paragraph is quoted from Wikipedia, and it contains two definitions of a scientific theory from two different sources.

            The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

            The formal scientific definition of “theory” is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)…One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[16]

            From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

            A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[15]

            Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            To my question on your belief whether the Bible is God’s Word or not (referring to your being a pastor) you have replied that the creation story has ‘myth’ written all over it, that we have no evidence the Bible is divinely inspired. For a quick overview, let’s look at the New Testament, which as a pastor you may have studied its historicity. Have you ever read ‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict?’ Have you studied the transcripts of the debate between champion atheist Antony Flew and Christian historian Gary Habermas? Flew lost the debates on the physical resurrection of Jesus, which Habermas among others have provided historically compelling evidence. They became friends and Flew wrote the book “There Is a God.” 2/ As for argument ‘if we don’t know how something happened so God did it” … no my argument is this: What accounts for existence? What /who started it all? There is no evidence that the Big Bang Cosmology is real; it is speculation, a cosmic egg that exploded and created a precise universe. See The Dreamheron Chronicles site for expose on scientific fraud in recent four Physics Nobel Prizes. Example, one winner was then named NASA’s chief scientist. After allegations of fraud, he was tossed out. 3/ I stand on the premise that evolution remains unproven by empirical science. There are cash prizes that are offered to anyone who can prove evolution without a doubt. Evolution does not match ‘good’ theories because it begins with too many assumptions. From nothing > something > everything, with no one explaining the mechanism of so vast a explanation. It is not “I don’t know how something happened so God did it” but you have these possibilities (or are there more?) A. Everything is created by random, blind chance B. An intelligence in ‘Mother Nature’ assembles nothing > something > everything; this would appear to be Intelligence, even though one may call it ‘natural selection’ C. God, Infinite Intelligence. Let me ask everyone here: Would you bet your life on a 1 in 100 chance? Say you have a roulette wheel with 100 numbers, and you spin it. If you don’t get a certain number, you die. I would not take that chance. Now would take a 1 in 1 billion chance, with a giant roulette wheel? Now, here is where we need to have some understanding of ‘science’ …. if there are estimated 10^80 molecules in the universe, we can note that is a huge number,1 followed by 80 zeros. Some math probability guys says any chance of over 1 in 10^50 will NEVER occur, no matter the time you have, or any other stacking of the deck. I accept that statement. Now look at one molecule, which is far from a living cell. The chance formation of a protein molecule with 100 amino acid ‘links’ is 1 in 10^130. Ie, you have 100 poker chips numbered 1 to 100, and they have to land in precise order when you throw them up in the air. If they somehow lined up in order, would you not gasp in wonder? It would never happen. Yet evolution assumes this happens. If they did happen, you would not have anything near life, just one single molecule of one single protein. To get anywhere near remotely life you would also need billions of tons of different kinds of proteins and billions of tons each of DNA and RNA molecules. And note that a DNA molecule has an astounding 186,000 ‘links’ that must be in precise order. I don’t know about you, pastor, but when I seem just a simulation of a DNA molecule I am in awe, because that speaks to me of Infinite Intelligence … God. 4/ as for your assumption I get my information from religious fundamentalists, whatever that means, I do not just peruse websites, because as you may know website information may be faulty … the World War II generation has been called the ‘greatest generation.’ Ours can be called the dumbest generation. We have lost the ability to critically think. Many do not read books anymore, but only others’ opinions. Perhaps you’ve read the classic ‘Science is a Sacred Cow’ which begins with the white coated scientist turning from his microscope and everyone must quake at his vast intellect. If evolution is ‘fact’ as you state, then it can be proven without doubt. You may also know that in scientific conferences, there have been at times a fellow who stands up and asks his colleagues, “Can anyone here provide absolute proof of macroevolution?” Resounding silence. I also understand the Nat. Academy on theory. What you should study is match evolution theory with other great theories and you will see that it fails the criteria for a good theory. But to return to Bible is myth, I am surprised, pastor. Have you ever read Thiessen’s “Lectures on Systematic Theology”? This is a classic that passes critical thinking tests … and answers your charge of ‘myth’ ably. If you conclude the Bible is myth, you must overweigh many of the most renown Hebrew, Greek scholars who can conclusively show you that the biblical text is absolutely astounding, and, yes, evidences that it could not be written by human hands. It was written by different authors (human) over centuries but it remains cohesive. The NT has solid proofs of textual authenticity, more than any other ancient works; over 25,000 copies that match 99.5% … I’m sure you’ve studied that in your pastoral college. It has proofs it was written within the apostles lifetimes. Whereas we see that other ancient works such as Alexander, Socrates, etc. are written centuries later, with few copies (and poor textual accuracy in those copies): yet they are accepted as historical documents. If we apply the same scholarship to the Bible, we see it is number 1 in all areas. I don’t know if you’ve studied the mathematical implications of OT prophecies, but a good book (not by a mad fundamentalist, btw) is ‘Science Speaks’ by math prof Stoner with 600 of his students; it was also peer reviewed, that their standards were up to the task. Anyway, he concludes from his study that “anyone who doubts Jesus is the Son of God doubts a fact proven more than any other fact in history.” Bold words, but this has swayed some of the most brilliant minds in history, including the virtual ‘creators’ of modern science who were largely Bible believers; Pasteur of course destroyed Darwin’s non life to life ‘theory.’ Unless evolution can prove how non life becomes life, it is checkmated right there. Jesus said 1/ He is God 2/ that the OT is historical fact. Whether you as a pastor, or any other critical thinker has studied that / accept or reject is up to you. But as Blaise Pascal’s famous challenge: “What would you lose if God is not real…. just a little bit. But if He is real, then you lose for infinity. Since I accept Jesus as God (the Son of God title meant exactly that to His listeners, it is not ‘son’ as we qualify it), I accept that when He states Heaven and Hell are real. I do not accept Darwin as my god…. His writings have over 600 times “We may well assume …” I would bet my life (note the huge roulette wheel above) that evolution is wrong, and that God is Creator. Would you bet your life on just the chance assembly of just one molecule, let alone what must happen after that to form ‘simple’ life and then complex? I would not, anymore I see the bacterium flagellum in our bodies … it has engine (complete with fuel, sensors, etc) and propeller that turns 10,000 rpm (some spin 100,000 rpm), can stop and then reverse its spin. If you can ‘believe’ that is by accident, that’s OK. I choose to believe it was created by Intelligence.

          • YouNoWho

            Don, you just plain don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t! Let me tell you how you are embarrassing yourself to everyone who actually knows what evolution is and is not. You have proven beyond any doubt that you have NEVER read a book on evolution. Oh, you may have read dozens and dozens of religious or otherwise anti-evolution books, the ones that say the same stuff you do. But you have NEVER, ever actually studied evolution. We know that from the way you just talk off the top of your head about it, or simply repeat silly non-arguments from religious people whose whole world falls apart when it is shown that humans were not put here in their current form. To people like you, if the creation story isn’t literal, it is devastating. Okay, lets cover a few things that prove you are abysmally ignorant of evolution.

            The most glaring thing is that you keep talking about the origin of life. 99 times out of 100, rabid anti-evolutionists will make this embarrassing mistake. Evolution says absolutely nothing about the evolution of life. It is about the evolution of species. Got it? You can still believe God created life if you want to, and believe the science of evolution.

            Another really crazy thing you talk about is this roulette wheel business. This again proves you don’t know the first thing about evolution, for it shows you don’t understand how it works. Oh, you may understand precisely what anti-evolutionists say about it; on that you might be an expert. But you don’t know how evolution works.

            I almost certainly waste my breath and my time dropping you a few hints, as I’m a pretty good prophet when it comes to predicting whether a fundamentalist will accept honest evidence. I hereby predict you will reject everything I say, and not bother investigating it by actually reading a REAL book or two on evolution written by someone who understands it (and that being their motivation) rather than a book designed to confuse and thereby dissuade people from the science (their motivation being to preserve their cherished religious beliefs, not discover truth). That is my prediction. I’m good, eh?

            About your roulette wheel…. This is similar to the goofy notions people say about the parts of a watch or the parts of an airplane: put them in a bag and shake the bag for billions of years and the parts still wouldn’t come together as a watch or plane. Sounds like a beautiful and simple proof against evolution, doesn’t it. Just like your roulette wheel. But none of this is how evolution works. Here’s a better example:

            Say you have a bought a lottery number. Say there are millions or even billions of players (chances). Now say the Lottery Department official starts picking the numbers out of a bag (or puts them on a giant roulette wheel). The chances of him pulling out your number are infinitesimally slim. You could sit there for years, and they won’t pick your number. And yet…. And yet….

            And yet, week after week, someone wins the lottery. And they only had to pick ONE number ONE time for that person to win. My god, what were the odds??!!!! Before the drawing, that person, just like you, could have said, “I can’t win. The odds are astronomical.” But on the first draw, he won.

            You are looking at it backwards. But you won’t bother studying further, will you. Nope, you’re a fundamentalist. By definition your mind is made up and NOTHING will ever change it. You cherish a belief, not truth wherever it leads.

            Now you can quote a list of “evidences” and debates and statements that you have cherry picked until your “evidence” is a mile long. But that will not change the fact that such “evidence” comes from a relatively tiny bunch who reject a science that is overwhelmingly accepted. That tiny bunch is like the people Scott Peck described in “The Road Less Traveled.” They spend their energy trying to bend reality to fit their view of the world, rather than adjusting their view of the world to fit reality.

            And you ARE employing the god of the gaps. This is easily proven. Let’s say you are completely right, that science is bunk. Let’s say no one knows how life started (true). Let’s say no one can prove the Big Bang (Earth to Don: no one has ever said they can). Let’s say the science of evolution is totally false (not true, but in our hypothetical). Let’s say everything you say is absolutely correct about all that. What are we to conclude? …

            Regular people will say, “We don’t know!”

            Fundamentalists will say, “We don’t know, so God did it!”

            If there’s a gap in knowledge, fundies plug in God to fill the gap. They can’t stand just not knowing, they have to have an answer, so anything they don’t know, they call it God.

            Now don’t start claiming you can prove it’s God, because you can’t. If you could, you wouldn’t have to call it “faith.” (Faith = the permission you give yourself to believe something for which there is no evidence.)

            Did you read the definitions of scientific THEORY that I uploaded? DID YOU READ THEM? Gravity and all kinds of things are “just” theories. But they are proven. In science, “theory” doesn’t mean what it means in ordinary common usage.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            DearYou, first thank you for keeping the discussion under civilized behavior, unlike some of the posters who resort to personal attacks and name calling. You keep implying that you know how evolution works and I (who oppose macroevolutionary ideas) don’t know how it works. To you example of the ‘goofy’ examples of a 747 falling out of a junkyard and self assembling, this is the example of Fired Hoyle, who was an atheist. But after studying the origin of life (on earth he calculated probabiolity of 1 in 10^40,000) he came to believe in a Creator. As for my claim that the origin of life question is one of the major planks of evolution: if evolution says, Well, there is life, and now we’ll address the problem on how simple life became more and more complex. Now, either life began by accident or by creation. You can’t get a free ride in the game by assuming that life is just there. As for the roulette example and the lottery. First, the ‘odds’ (using shorthand) of the lottery are far less than the odds for assembling just one molecule of one protein. Two, there is the ‘CAT’ question, which is another assumption of some evolutionists: If you have three children’s blocks with A, C, and T, it is assumed that once you throw a C, then you just have to next throw an A. This is an assumption of ‘natural selection’ / mutations … why does the (hypothetical) change need to be upward? It can also have the possibility of in each throw you actually have to begin fresh, and that you don’t retain the C in the first place. Well, pastor, I’m sure you follow this. Now as for the definitions of scientific theory. If you understand something, you can elucidate it simply. Yes, I have read scientific theory and ‘understand’ atomic theory, for example. When I place the ‘theory’ of evolution besides a well-defined theory, evolutionary theory is lacking; some even call it a hypothesis, but that’s another argument. Let’s take as example one of the prime theories of evolution, even though you don’t accept it as part of evolutionary thought, but other evolutionists, including Darwin certainly were concerned about it (I read Origin when I was eleven years old by the way; like many I thought well that’s a neat trick, my uncle was an ape!): the ‘theory of abiogenesis’ …. this was proposed as an antithesis to genesis. This is the theory of inanimate chemicals becoming alive. It was a worldview like other theories – to give a framework and build a ‘case’, and the crux was to prove it by empirical science. By this I mean by experiments that can be replicated by others and direct observation. This IS the base of the modern scientific method. Theories are fine and necessary, but they must point to what is actually reality. A wrong theory, of course, will point to unreality, and that is the great danger. Abiogenesis was murdered by Louis Pasteur and it has never come to life after 150 years; the ‘odds’ are that it will not. Again, I return to the perplexing self formation of ‘just’ a simple ‘chain’ of 100. This complexity is far more than any man-made machine. While your worldview / theory may preclude that Intelligence had anything to do with it, that’s your choice. And again, this needs to be accomplished again and again to form even the ‘simplest’ life. You did not answer the base of the roulette wheel question: would you bet your life on even just a wheel with 100 numbers, one spin/one number? I said I wouldn’t, let alone a wheel with 10^5000 trillion numbers (a conservative estimate for just ‘simple’ life. Darwin assumed this would be simple; now we know it is not. You imply that the odds make it possible. I will reply again with the advisory that any event with 1 in 10^50 odds or more will never happen in reality. Since this is a long post, I will take a break and continue, thanks.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Dear You, I just replied from my email, don’t know if it’s here. So I may be repeating myself: first, you assume that it’s clearly obvious that I have not studied evolution, that I have read only ‘religious fundamentalists’ whose world falls apart with the amazing proofs of evolution. You also note the ‘goofy’ example of a jet junkyard falling down a mountain and assembling into a new 747. This was an example by Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist; after studying the origin of life, (his calculations 1 in 10^40,000 for earth), he believes in Creator. On your example of the lotto: the ‘odds’ of the lotto are tiny compared to the ‘odds’ of the self assembly of just one molecule for one simple protein; and again, this is no where near life … this would happen again and again, with probabilities more than the molecules in the universe… now, if your worldview is that this COULD happen because of the cosmic lottery, that is Ok with me. But don’t deride others who look at these odds and say, no way. On my not understanding scientific theory, I do ask if you’ve read the classic ‘Science is a Sacred Cow’? This is an old book, and written before the huge debate of Creation vs Evolution; written by a chemist, it pokes a little fun at the notion that scientists are infallible. Theories change, science changes. What seems today to be scientific fact may in a dozen years be out of date … as has occurred with ‘evolution.’ But let’s take one of your prime examples of ‘theory’ … the theory of abiogenesis, non life producing life. This was certainly a fine theory, but it was murdered by Louis Pasteur in 1860 (I have read Pasteur); so far no one has ever disproved that biogenesis is fact, or that abiogenesis functions in reality. While you sidestep the issue that the origin of life is not important for the case of evolution, there are many, including myself, who see that historically it is one of the main planks of evolution. Evolution tries to explain the origin of the universe, stars and planets, life and ever increasing amazements. Yet, all of these ‘theories’ fall apart when looked at through the lens of science that we do know. For example, do you know that four recent Nobels for physics are scientific frauds; I’m certain you’re aware of that, unless your reading is only from ‘religious fundamentalists.’ In brief, the Big Bang (Bunk) Cosmology crowd replaced science with scientific bullying (I’ve included some of the details here on another post; if it’s difficult to find, I’ll resend); one example is a ‘laureate’ was given the big chair at NASA; when it was found he was guilty of scientific fraud, he was quickly booted out. A main ‘theory’ of the universe’s origin is the explosion created hydrogen, for some unexplained reason (it is odd that evolution is full of ‘god of the gaps’ knowledge), and that this formed the first stars and planets; but one who knows the properties of hydrogen vs. gravity quickly understands that the ‘push’ of hydrogen ‘out’ is 100x more than the gravity ‘pulling’ in. If I have embarrassed myself because I am demonstrating I don’t understand that, well that’s fine. One evolutionists opined that Well, maybe a supernova exploded and this overcame the hydrogen gas ‘out’ and that formed the star. Ie, you need a star to form the first star. You do imply that somehow it is possible for evolution to take place on macro and micro levels. My worldview, based on research and reading BOTH sides (not just religious fundamentalists) is that it is mathematically impossible for our earth to be in the precise spot in our galaxy; with a ‘perfect’ galaxy; with a perfect sun and moon and neighboring planets; with a perfect gravity setting* and on and on. It may be understood that even if one found an ‘earth type’ planet you would need all these things and everything else that ‘fine tune’ our life here … ie, you would need a perfect sun etc , and be at the correct distance or you would freeze or fry. Just one of these parameters missing and guess what no life. You may think that you can roll the cosmic dice and this would happen, but if you filled the universe with lotto numbers, you would not approach the impossible odds. *** on the gravity setting: imagine a ruler across the universe in 1 inch increments; the only setting for life is within 1/4 of one special inch. One inch to the left or right and life is impossible. Now, how can it be that our gravity setting ‘happens’ to be set at the precise calibration? “I do not understand evolution.” I do not understand if you are saying ‘chance’ is doing all of this. If as you say evolution is only concerned with how life changes into other forms, then you are also running into the probability question, which again, is impossible., I keep ‘harping’ on mathematical probability is because this would seem to be well understood by most at the most basic level. While one person can win the lottery, one person could not win the cosmic lottery with a basically infinite amount of zeros. I’ve touched on some of the prophetic mathematical accounts of the OT — and the ones already fulfilled to an ‘impossible’ accuracy rate of 100%. I can give more examples, but here will touch on the historical accuracy of the OT: it mentions 40 Kings from 2000 BC to 400 BC with each king appearing in chronological order with reference to kings of the same country, and with respect to kings of other countries. That this accuracy is by mere chance is 1 in 750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (if I’ve missed a zero, please forgive me)… this is just one example that the Bible had to be preserved flawlessly for this accuracy to be possible. This may be said to be a ‘good’ theory because you can check the facts for yourself. There are other evidences beside scientific evidence: I don’t know if George Washington lived, but I have to research his writings, others’ writings, witnesses and see if they are responsible, that’s historical evidence. I have looked at the evidence for the OT and NT (and not swayed by fundamentalists that you must have met in your lifetime, pastor) and conclude no other book in the world can compare with its historical accuracy. Again, no other book can foretell the future with 100% accuracy — this is exactly why they don’t have prophecies! Now, if Origin of Species had 100% prophecy scorecard, then I would say, hm, maybe Darwin was an angel! But he just repeats “We may well assume” more than 600 times; someone said it is more than 800 times. This is laughable, when you consider Darwin is a ‘god’ to many evolutionists. But let me go to something more recent: the age of the earth. Since the universe is a bigger place, and we would need more assumptions to ‘prove’ theories, let’s just look at the earth: TIME. Time is said to be the hero of evolution; with enough time, everything is bound to occur. 1/ many don’t wonder if the earth had to cool down and that leaves only 100 million years or so for everything (simple life > everything), this would seem to be very little time in the first place 2/ time isdemonstrated to be evolution’s enemy; the world is in fact winding down, things are not evolving upward. 3/ it is assumed by evolution that the age of the earth is proven; any other view is laughed out of the university. To that recent example: and I did not read this from fundamentalists): Science mag. 1993 reported grad student Mary Schweitzer looked into her microscope examining a T-rex bone, quote her words “I got goose bumps. It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course I couldn’t believe it. I said to the technician, ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells last this long?'” If you know your science, you may assume that even if these bones were 50,000 years old these tissues should not survive at all, let alone DNA! She was afraid to believe her own eyes, when empirical science is about observation. As the physics Nobel recent scams, here we also have ‘damage control’ in the extraction of dinosaur DNA: it is assumed that dinos are cousins with crocodiles and birds, therefore any tests must show this. Any other findings must be assumed to be either a/ anomalies or b/ contaminated. Example, if human/bacterial/fungal DNA is found it’s thrown out. This is evolutionary gatekeeping, and I can go into details by specialists who have pointed out this biased research. In 1994 the race to sequence dino DNA winners were Scott Woodward and colleagues, publishing in Science mag. The sequence they discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique. They did not follow the 1993 flowchart which would have ‘informed’ them their results were anomalies. They were raked over the academic coals; plus, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result, their DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. No scientist since then has dare to publish any dino DNA research. In addition to T-rex, other similar tissues have been found. It is assumed that radio dating is both reliable and the only ‘time clock.’ It is not reliable …. live seals have been dated as thousands of years old; Hawaiian rocks from lava flows from 200 hundreds years ago are dated in the hundreds of millions of years to billion years (I’ll have to get the precise)… more reliable (and we can take this as a theory) are other earth clocks such as the measurement of helium in the atmosphere… the salt in the oceans accumulate max 62 million, continental erosion no more than 14 million years, ocean sediments, 14 million years; magnetic field of earth 20,000 years max. It can be theorized that these are more accurate ‘clocks’ than radio dating. And yes, I have studied the subject as science and not religious fun!

          • YouNoWho

            Don, there is nothing more that I feel inclined to add, beyond what I already said, and a reminder that only you and other fundamentalists hold this anti-science view toward evolution. There is no substantive argument against the process of evolution, other than a religious one. You seem to still say or imply that evolution is about the origin of life. It is not. Evolution does not address the origin of life, it addresses the origin of species. No one knows (yet) how life might have started. Scientists are studying it, and religious people are saying their god did it. I am no more inclined to believe some supernatural superhero spoke universe into existence than I am to say a bolt of lightning put life into a cell—for which there is also no evidence.

            So if you want to argue that your god started life, go ahead, but it is an argument that will fall on the deaf ears of all but those who also choose by “faith” to believe your superhero god did it. It is an argument that can only be based on who has the best guess, not on any evidence. Therefore, most people (basically all but fundamentalists) will continue to say “We don’t know” until some evidence is forthcoming.

            It is quite odd that your God supposedly spoke directly with humans on a daily basis in the past, yet hasn’t been seen or heard from in thousands of years. (I don’t count mental impressions as a form of communication.) That should tell you something. If such a God existed, now would be the time for him to speak up! Or does he delight in being a cryptic god, playing games with people’s souls, planning to reward only those bright enough to get it?

            Your airplane parts example, along with your roulette wheel example, makes sense only to those who wish to disparage the science. Such illustrations are NOT illustrations of how the science of evolution works.

            I feel sorry for anyone who is a fundamentalist, believing he will be tortured for trillions upon trillions of years if they accept reality, but come back from the dead and spend trillions of trillions of years praising the superhero who wants to be worshipped forever like a god. I guess maybe speaking creatures into existence to suffer for thousands of years before taking care of them merits that.

            I will be gracious enough to read any further response you have, but I consider it a waste of time to continue responding, myself.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 2 Let me comment on two of the most immutable scientific laws and their tremendous implications on the question of creation.
            * Evolution is a certain kind of change, not the claim that ‘evolution is a fact’ because of change. True evolution is summed up by Aldous Huxley: “Evolution is a one-way process, irreversible in time, producing apparent novelties and greater variety, and leading to higher degrees of organization, more differentiated, more complex, but at the same time more integrated.” This statement encompasses both inorganic and organic evolution, along with the entire physical and biological universes. Ie, EVERYTHING is the result of higher and higher levels of organization / complexity.
            * We now ask if such a process is taking place today. Both Scripturally and scientifically, the answer is NO. According to the Bible, this process of increasing complexity, integration, is the process of creation. Creation is no longer taking place: Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:11; Ex. 31:17 — “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed.” Heb. 4:3 — “The works were finished from the foundation of the world.” Creation, according to Scripture that God’s ‘work’ was terminated at the end of six days; He is no longer creating, but preserving. Or: nothing is being either created or destroyed. The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us this is the law of Conservation; there are many ‘conservation laws’ but the one truly universal conservation law is of energy conservation — especially in the light of mass-energy conversions. Quoting from a thermodynamicist, “This law states that energy can be transformed in various ways, but can neither be CREATED nor destroyed.” This is a complete contradiction that ‘evolutionary creation’ — increasing organization and integration and development continues in the present. I would like to emphasize ‘complete contradiction’ but don’t want to over-capitalize!
            * And what does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say, equally applicable universally as the First Law and also proved beyond any scientific doubt? It states that in all energy transformation there is a tendency for some of the energy to be transformed into non-reversible heat energy — ie, the availability of energy in the performance of Work is reduced. Entropy means the measure of energy being depleted from the closed system. Entropy can never decrease, but rather tends to increase.
            * There is no question these two Laws apply universally, and that includes biological systems along with physical. The thermodynamic application means a universal tendency for everything to become more ‘probable’ — ie, more disorganized, more ‘random.’
            * It’s difficult to conceive of two more completely opposing principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is the converse of the other. Huxley defined evolution as a continual increase of order, organization, complexity. The entropy principle involves a continual decrease of order, organization, complexity. Both can’t be true (axiomatic). But there is no question that the Second Law is true!
            * Of course, entropy can decrease in an open system — a child grows, a crystal develops, a building is constructed is an example of influx of excess of ‘energy’ or ‘information’ into the open system. But they will eventually all wear out, decay.
            * In the minds of its proponents, evolution is a universal law, explaining the development of species in biology, elements in chemistry, and stars in astronomy. As Huxley said, “The whole of reality is evolution.” It is difficult to conceive that the leaders of evolutionary thought, and their perhaps uncritical followers have confronted this gross / repeat gross contradiction between the [‘theory’ of evolution vs. the Second Law.
            * There is a universal tendency toward decay/disorder; this is true on the cosmic scale. Even though it may be negated temporarily on a small scale by local increases in order from external influences, even these are temporary and will decay.
            The First and Second Laws agree with the Bible’s history of creation. They demonstrate its fact, but not the ‘why.’ The ‘why’ is contained in the curse by God. In the beginning everything was perfect. Adam and Eve were made instantly as mature adults, as were the rest of creation. Their disobedience caused the Fall and finally to the judgment of the Flood of Noah’s time. In the ‘end’ Scripture also records that the New Earth will return to God’s original plan of perfection, with no more death. As we can see, death entered into the picture after Adam and Eve, and that God did not use millions of years of death before the first couple, nor macro evolution until the ape man appeared and then he became a woman.
            * In an overview, evolution is unsupported by the two greatest scientific laws. Evolution completely contradicts these laws. A knee jerk reaction is Oh, no, that isn’t real science. Kindly remember the trillion dollar funding supporting evolutionary thought, and that a large part (perhaps the largest) is thought-indoctrination. How is this done? By calling evolution a philosophy? Of course not; it must be in the guise of a ‘science.’ UK Apologetics > Darwin. But despite the technical jargon, the universe is either ‘still winding up’ or it is ‘winding down.’ The First and Second Laws agree with Scripture,

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Let me also add that the First Law of Thermodynamics also states that the creation of Big Bang / matter/energy is impossible.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 3 The Trial of Infinitea (to any tea firms who wish to licence this, LMK)
            The debate of the origins of existence, specifically for the past 150 years between the ‘naturalists’ view vs. the ‘supernaturalists’ view. Today before this cosmic audience I will unmask the actual primary origin of Darwinism, and not the popular debate of ‘science’ vs. science that has dominated for the past 150 years. I call to the stand Sir Plydell Smithers, renown authority on the occult / comparative religions.
            Sir Plydell, would you please give us a brief overview of this strange story that has been rather overlooked in the popular mind?
            Mm, yes. I call it the Origin of Specious, the demonic origin of Darwinism. (Some of the audience catacalls and boos. The judge orders their silence) …. over the centuries the so-called ‘elites’ seized control of science, just as they seized control of the financial, banking, political, educational worlds among others. This ‘scientific’ dictatorship is managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry. Its earliest roots, of course, go back to the original Fall of Man, but today we will focus on the past two centuries or so.

            Daniel Pouzzner outlines the ‘elites’ tactics in marketing their ‘science’ as the only true path to understanding, while discouraging independent reason by propaganda. Note Pouzzner’s ‘Architecture of Modern Political Power.’ As Keith in his ‘Secret and Suppressed’ has noted, “All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control.”
            Aldous Huxley in ‘Brave New World Revisited’ defined this epistemological cartel: “The older dictatorships fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough … entertainment … (I am paraphrasing). Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really ‘work’ with the result that most people will grow up to love their servitude to the ‘scientists’ and never dream of revolution.
            As Keith in his ‘Saucers of the Illuminati’ notes, “As the sun/moon cults lost their popularity, the false scientists were quick to take up the slack. According to their propaganda, the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors, and naturally, those physical laws were only fathomable by the scientific elite (ie Illuminati).

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 4 Trial of Infinitea
            Sir Plydell continues….
            This ‘scientism’ … epistemological imperialism is not to be confused with legitimate science. Michael Hoffman/Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare: “Science, when practiced as the application of man’s God-given talents for … relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science gone made, which is what we have today.”
            Science is a bad master, a dangerous servant and not to be worshiped because it is not objective. It is about measurement; what does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and ‘fudged’ other data, such as Piltdown Man in order to fulfill its own agenda, be it Darwinism or cut/burn and poison methods of cancer ‘treatment.’
            The ‘elite’ needed, One … a ‘science’ designed for their specific needs and an institution to disseminate it. They had unlimited capital and other clout, as well.
            The British Royal Society (BRS) …. the new secular church and clergy of the elite originated from BRS. They were also members of the Masonic Lodge. Jim Keith says, “The BRS of the late 17th century was the forerunner of much of the media manipulation that was to follow.” Especially today, I might add.
            Before the BRS’ advent, science (study of natural phenomena) and theology (study of God) were inseparable, natural correlatives. We can see this splendidly in the true greats of science, who founded most of the disciplines of physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, and on and on, from Newton to Lord Kelvin, Galileo to Faraday, Mendles to Pasteur, to name a few. Of course, this was antithetical to scientism, which contended that the ‘physical laws of the universe were the causative factors. Metaphysical naturalism (i.e., nature is God) had to be enthroned. Meanwhile, God’s presence in the corridors of science had to be expunged. Thus, BRW created a Gnostic diffusion between science and theology, thus insuring the primacy of matter in the halls of scientific inquiry (*(Tarpley).

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 5, Trial of Infinitea
            Sir Plydell continues….
            May I recall to you an interesting conversation Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias encountered with the ‘official church’ of this cult, Academia itself. In casual conversation with scientists, he asked, “If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded it?” Their answer was the universe was shrunk down to a singularity. I then asked, isn’t it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?”
            “That is correct,” they replied.
            “Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either.”
            There was silence, their expressions betraying mental scurrying for an escape hatch. I then asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy.
            I added, “When quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?”
            Again, silence. With a self-deprecating smile one man said, ‘We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don’t.”
            This ‘selective sovereignty’ vigorously marginalized dissenters, as Hoffman explains:
            ‘The cryptocracy has promoted its secret political-occult agendas to the public, by presenting them as unassailable ‘objective scientific truth.’ Opponents of these agendas promoted through the propaganda of scientism are quicklky stigmatized as ‘Neanderthal,’ especially with regard to their opposition to Darwinism, a doctrine proved false by many, including Norman Macbeth in his magisterial ‘Darwin Retried’ and exposed as a cult by Getrude Himmelfarb in ‘Darwin.’ (Hoffman, 49).
            The opponents of Darwinism were ‘burned at the academic stake’ and other secular institutions. Today, I have known people who were rejected for their Ph.Ds because of their opposition to Darwinism, and others who have lost their tenure and so on. We should also keep in mind that the financial means of the creation scientists are tiny compared to the virtually unlimited capital of evolutionism, who control much of the popular media, as well. And so, the general public, in addition to the ‘scientists’ promoting Darwinism are indoctrinated from an early age. It is the fortunate soul who has a solid scientific background from an early age, along with a sound introduction to the validity of the Scriptures. Only then can the person have the means to unmask the ‘wizard behind the curtain’ as a total sham.
            This doctrine of man playing God reaches in nadir in scientism, making possible the complete mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through technologies (Hoffman, 50). May I emphasize that ‘evolutionism’ IS the trigger for their weapon of mass disinformation.
            With the inculcation of the masses into scientism, the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. dollar bill is almost complete, symbolizing complete enslavement. The masses are taught to parrot ‘evolution is proven true, and that anyone opposing it is an idiot.’

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 6, The Trial of Infinitea
            Sir Plydell continues…..
            Whatever ‘science’ the founding members of the BSR designed would be derivative of their Masonic doctrine. In ‘the Meaning of Masonry,’ Wilhurst reveals their underlying worldview of their new ‘science’ :
            This ‘evolution’ of man into superman was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries (satanic teachings). Its real purpose is to expedite the spiritual evolution of those aspiring to perfect their ‘god-like’ qualities. Note this was inferred in satan’s lie to Adam and Eve in his lie “Did God really mean what he said?” (Wilmhurst, 47).
            Wilmhurst continues: Man …. has sprung from earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature to his present state, has yet to complete his ‘evolution’ to becoming god-like. (94).
            With God’s (supposed) ouster from science, Freemasonry could introduce its satanic doctrine of ‘becoming,’ man’s gradual evolution towards perfection. We see similarities in Hinduism, etc. which all have a single origin, simply different shells. Darwinism was presented as scientific, hiding its true goal of ‘evolution.’
            Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, was the first man in England to promote the concept of evolution (Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry). He was founder of the Lunar Society, active from 1764 – 1800, and its influence continued under the BRS banner. They met monthly under the full moon. Among its ‘luminaries’ (pardon the pun) included Ben Franklin. Members were called ‘Merchants of Light,’ a very esoteric title.
            In 1794, Erasmus wrote a book ‘Zoonomia’ which introduced his theory of evolution (Taylor, 58). As a Freemason, there is little doubt he cribbed liberally from their occult doctrine of ‘becoming’ gods (while rejecting God under the guise of naturalism / atheism). Before Erasmus penned his notions of progressive biological development, Freemason John Locke (1632 – 1704) extrapolated the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation into the context of metaphysical naturalism and formulated a theory of evolution. (Daniel, 33-34).
            The British East India Company had imported the Hindu reincarnation belief to England where it would be adopted by the BRS. (Note that in America, for example, reincarnation is sold as ‘upwards only’ while in India a human can also be reborn ‘downward’ to a worse state of human or even an animal..) Locke was a prominent member of BRS and developed his own evolutionary ideas from his reincarnation studies as inspiration (that is, satanic influences). Two centuries later, this satanic concept of ‘becoming like gods’ would be transmitted to Charles Darwin.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 7 The Trial of Infinitea
            A core belief of metaphysical naturalism (MN) is that life originated from lifeless matter, dubbed ‘spontaneous generation,’ excluding the involvement of a supernatural Creator. So, Mother Nature became a god along with Father Time. With sufficient time, anything can happen! A ten year old can see through this ruse quickly, unless of course he’s already been mind-washed. Plus, regards to time, the earth shows definite signs of being young, not millions of years… but we’ll have another witness for that later.
            Pasteur (a devout Christian and a man who has probably saved more lives than anyone in history, humanly speaking) said that
            “Spontaneous generation … would mean creating life from matter through conditions of environment and of lifeless material. God as author would no longer be needed. Matter would replace Him. God would need to be invoked only as author of the motions of the universe.” (Dubos, 395).
            Like all false gods of antiquity, this new god of abiogenesis (new name, old god) was soon demolished by Pasteur in a series of experiments before a large audience, including the queen of France. This fact did not stop some men of ‘science’ from deifying nature. For example, Charles Darwin revealed his unconscious idolatrous impulses through statements like ‘natural selection picks out with unerring skill the best varieties.’ (Hooykaas, 18.) In such statements, nature is sentient; only a sentient being can ‘pick out’ the recipients of its favor. Nature itself is a deity acting as the arbiter of life and death. This meme has metastasized, today as the Gaia Hypothesis: the biosphere is a self-creating, self-sustaining, and self-regenerating entity. Central to this thesis is the contention that both living and non-living are inseparable. (Lovelock, 31-32).
            Why, although ‘abiogenesis’ has been proven scientifically bankrupt 150 years ago, do many continue to resuscitate its corpse? As a personal example, I was in Mainland China to open a bank account for business purposes, where I deposited USD 3,000 cash / $100 bills. The teller quickly ran them through her hands, knowing real bills from counterfeit. A few weeks later, I was with friends walking in the dark after a picnic in a large nature preserve back to our cars. My friend was paying the fellow who had rented our site, and suddenly there was a commotion. He said the RMB were counterfeit; he could tell this by touch. My friend, also a tourist, had exchanged his bills through a secondary source, and didn’t know they were fakes. Point is, when you deal with the real, you can recognize the false. So when I recognize the red flags in Darwinism, it was a relatively simple matter to find that evolutionism is indeed a cult, and not real science. As for abiogenesis, it’s from an old idea, the golem, presented in the Kabbalah. The golem was an artificially created man whose life was the result of supernatural intervention.
            Isaac Singer: “The golem is based on faith that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life.” (Hoffman, 115).

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 8, The Trial of Infinitea
            Drawing on their esoteric (satanic) doctrines, the BRS’ Freemasons introduced the golem to the public mind UNDER THE MASK of metaphysical naturalism. Nature’s miraculous machinations supplanted the miraculous Creator. Of course, these machinations were only intelligible to anointed scientists of the autocracy. “You just don’t understand evolution, or science,” is the repeated outcry from their parrots today.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 9 The Trial of Infinitea
            (There is also a direct relationship between Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, and evolutionary theory, a separate focus which with the permission of the court will be later….)
            Now. With the publicity campaigns of the British Royal Society and the avid defense of evolutionism by T. H. Huxley, Darwin’s theory would be popularized. Huxley was a Freemason; with no apparent achievements to claim as his own, he was made a Fellow of the Royal at age 26.
            The court will now recess. When we return we will go back further in time to the prime originator of the evolutionism. It will come as no surprise that this being is the greatest enemy of God. He has apparently forgotten that he himself is a being created by God. Perhaps he is so deluded that he believes that he is the product of evolution.
            Prior to the above, we will also introduce a very interesting exhibit of the possible time dilation (TD) in the universe

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 10 The Trial of Infinite
            For the past few years there have been discoveries of dinosaur bones that, as the first discover remarked after examining a T-rex bone under her microscope: “It was like looking at a young bone; but how could that be if it is millions of years old?” This is incredible to evolutionism since it directly flies in the face of the doctrine of ‘billions of years.’ It is not familiar to ‘some’ students of the Bible which infers that the earth and universe are actually very young. We will present witnesses on the ‘astounding’ exhibits of a young earth, such as the recession of the moon: if the moon is moving at so and so a rate, how close was it a million years ago, etc. Would it be actually touching the earth? Can we measure the sun’s rates and can its maximum age be actually only 100 million years? Or that earth’s magnetic field can be only 20,000 years old maximum? Or even the rate of population growth: is it true that at current rates (using uniformitarianism’s principle of steady rates) if the earth were 1 million years old, the population would be a ludicrous 10^4200? We will even look at Charles Lyell visit to Niagara Falls where he assume false rates against the observations of people living there.
            We have mentioned the dinosaur bones which appear young and are no surprise to believers in the Bible. This amazing news, however is not publicized in the mainstream media. As we can see in our exhibit of the propaganda machine of the British Royal Society, the elite continue this practice. Here we have a story of a discovery by evolutionism scientists themselves and relatively few people are aware of it! Of course, the bare inference is that if these bones are only thousands of years old, does that mean that dinosaurs did in fact co-exist with recent humans? Are the reports in the middle ages of ‘dragons’ based on actual encounters? Would this then imply that dinosaurs did not live ‘millions of years ago’ which is another nail in the coffin of old Father Time, who is necessary for the evolutionary fiction.
            We will also introduce a witness for another alternate theory to the age of the universe: the possible time dilation of the universe which may explain the disparity between the two viewpoints of old vs. young creation. In brief, time dilation (TD) produces timeless zones; this would reconcile earth and cosmic time, and explain why we ‘see’ stars ‘apparently’ millions of years old. We will also present the phenomena of Pioneer 10’s anomalous acceleration towards our sun and its implications for this theory. We will also present, the phenomena that other stars and galaxies (OSAG) are centered on our earth; if true, this would mean earth is indeed the center of the universe. The bottom line in all this is that TD (if true) would explain that 15 billion light years equals (eg) 2000 years. A clue is that when God created galaxies He ‘stretched’ (Hebrew Natah) space; this would create ‘timeless zones.’
            It would also be relevant, if time permits (!) to introduce the anomalies of blue stars. These are very young stars, burning 200,000 times hotter than our sun. Their existence implies very young areas. And there are blue stars ‘everywhere’ in universe.
            But at the same time, we must never lose sight of the actual instigator behind ‘evolutionism’ and concentrate on only the science vs. false flag science. If we keep our eyes on the wizard behind the curtain, his blandishments will have no effect.
            Humans can decide for their own selves based on the actual evidence what is the true worldview: your mother is just an advanced ape or that she is made by the Creator and can have an eternal destiny: first, a new earth and new universe which she can explore and have truly ‘all the time in the world’ and second (actually this should be the first) she will know face to face the Creator. The Creator has made humans with free will. This is the cause of the initial Fall. It is the cause why such free-willed beings can scoff at their Creator. It is not that God made a mistake and had to become a Man to rectify it. It was because He allowed free will; this is why He came to earth, to actually die a physical death to pay for the physical death which ensued from the Fall. And may I add that this same God, this same Jesus will return again, but not as a suffering servant, but as Lord of Lords, King of Kings. Then, ‘every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that He is the I AM’ …. believers will go with Him; non-believers will go to ‘places’ that want nothing to do with God, and with beings that want nothing to do with Him. There, they will see if they can continue their scoffing and wonder “How was I fooled by that Darwin, a tool of the biggest fool in creation, who ignored the Scripture even he knew: The fool says in his heart there is no God.”

          • YouNoWho

            One could remark at length in response to your posts. I won’t, but several rather blatant errors pop out. The Hindu concept of reincarnation is not “evolution.” That’s silly. Your comments on archaeology proving the Bible are merely self-serving, proving nothing of consequence. For example, if the Ark of the Covenant was ever found (for real), it would support a historical portion of the biblical narrative; it would not mean the Bible is of divine origin, nor that it is all true and people can come back from the dead. If a big boat is ever found, it wouldn’t prove the notion of a world-wide flood or that people can come back from the dead. And just because the Bible says Jesus did, doesn’t make it true. (Numerous gods of the day claimed the same; you reject all but the one you grew up with.) There is not a single prophecy in the Bible or elsewhere in the history of humankind that proves anyone can tell the future, including supernatural gods, real or fiction.

            I understand Christians like to believe just as you, that there many examples of fulfilled prophecies. But there are none. No REAL, HONEST prophecies. Now if you want to define a prophecy as some cryptic words that can later be said to have predicted something, then you win—there are billions of fulfilled prophecies. But the only real prophecy would be specific, unmistakable, not…. well, whole books have been written on this topic. Believers will believe what they want to believe. But honest people understand that a REAL prophecy, one that actually proves a supernatural ability to predict the future, would go something like this: “On Tuesday, March 4, 2017 at 3:42 pm, lightning will strike the bell tower at St. Billy’s Cathedral in Triesta, Peru and topple the east side of it; 3 horses 3 miles away will also be struck and killed 6 minutes later.”

            THAT would be a prophecy to wake people up. Biblical “prophecies,” such as Daniel’s image, are cryptic writings that are “interpreted” after the fact—and are meaningless. The prove nothing, certainly not an ability to predict the future. Not even Isaiah 53 is a real prophecy. I wonder how people can be so gullible as to say “The place of Jesus’ birth, even the time of birth is in the historic record, along with hundreds of other prophecies foretelling events of people, countries to an precise degree.” LOL Hundreds? Foretelling events to a precise degree? Get real!

            As for all your scientific assertions, I look at it this way: You are agreeing with an extremely tiny number of real scientists (qualified in relevant fields) who are no doubt fundamentalists (so have an “agenda”). I would rather trust the overwhelming, vast majority of qualified scientists who see overwhelming evidence of evolution. That easily settles it for me. Enormous scientific proof vs. religious people claiming there’s no proof at all, but that some ancient sacred scrolls that talk about coming back from the dead are accurate.

            It is a no-brainer to me.

            Of course it is always THEIR sacred writings, THEIR preferred god… which is always the god THEY grew up with. Funny how that works.

            Science vs. an ancient religion based on a book ordinary people could have written, and did. It is a no-brainer to me.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            If you can suggest one or two atheist websites I will be glad to read them; I suggest a website in England, home of Darwin: UK Apologetics, which goes into more detail than a posting here. But some excepts, for your viewing pleasure… (I will paraphrase for simplicity in some cases)…
            * “The bright red editor’s pen must be applied in masking Darwin’s strongly racist views. He believed blacks were inferior, that women were intellectually inferior.
            * Genetics… the great pioneer was Mendel, whose work was contemporary with Darwin, whose works Neo-Darwinism has attempted to lease. From “Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm… ;According to this paradigm, evolution is driven by chance. Chance mutation affect one or a few nucleotides of DNA per occurrence. Bigger changes come from recombination, a genetic process in which longer strands of DNA are swapped, transferred, or doubled. These two processes, mutation and recombination, created meaning in DNA by lucky accident. According to this prevailing paradigm, this is the mechanism behind evolution. One problem with this story is that it is implausible …”
            * The problem is that science (good, empirical science) has already demonstrated that mutations are either neutral or positively damaging yet Neo-Darwinism has put itself into the surely highly precarious position of coming to rely on mutations to save what is left of Darwin’s teachings. The public at large (instant replay that), meanwhile, are truly unaware of the extremely serious predicament which evolutionists now find themselves. Numerous education courses, evolution websites and TV programmes continue to merrily go along in support of Darwin in blithe ignorance of the fact that Neo-Darwinism now stands before a precipice…
            * Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, even Mao ‘believed’ in evolution. If there is no God, just survival of the fittest, why we can kill off millions. Nietzsche, Marx, Freud but most of all Darwin must bear much of the blood and suffering of the 20th century.” (not that ‘Christians in name only’ have also caused great suffering in God’s name, such as in the dark ages. But these do not follow the original teachings.)
            I will also include another example from the 20th c: Japan. Their native belief system has gods and goddesses forming their islands, and that their emperor was seen as a god.
            * On the Hindu concept of reincarnation: it is a belief that rocks evolve to higher and higher forms, over millions and millions of years. They do not have any historical documents, as neither do other false beliefs. I understand that is an emotionally charged statement to some. Even those who believe in God may say, well God is the same no matter what faith.
            * On archeology, I will repeat that NO archeological discovery has every disproved the Bible’s historicity.
            There is ‘nothing new under the sun’ in regards to attacking the Bible. It has always withstood attacks from the most powerful forces in society. Yet is it coincidence that the ‘A-List in human endeavor happen to support the concept of God who is revealed in the Bible? I understand that it is written in a language and style to ancient people, and that we in the 20th century see it through our lenses. If you were attempting to communicate to an ant, that is nothing compared to what God must undergo to communicate with us!
            * As for the ark of the covenant: that is an entirely different artifact that you may have seen in the Indiana Jones movies. The Ark of Noah is the ‘big barge’ which survived the worldwide flood. Whether it is found or not is not relevant to confirming the Bible. If it survives it is in probably the most dangerous place on earth, Mt. Ararat. In mass, its larger than Everest. Mostly its covered in ice; the times that it may have been sighted was during warm seasons. I read a book by ‘Cummings’ a husband and wife team who studied the subject for thirty years (remember I am actually speaking to believers here and open researchers). Some of their findings were that the Russian government just before the Tsar’s fall launched a military team to the ark after one of their airplanes flew over it (during thaw). Other sightings by I would say at least reputable witnesses who add credence in numerous separate sightings over the years described the ‘ark’ in similar descriptions, highly coincidental. In the region itself, there are stories of several of the people who live there who have traveled to it. One man, a famous explorer brought a large piece of cut wood that was ‘very interesting’ (you’ll need to read the book). One I found fascinating is the authors interviewed a retired naval ship builder. He designed a battleship according to the ark’s specifications and it was virtually an unsinkable ship (of course, it could be torpedoed, etc.) As for a big barge found atop a 14,000 ‘ mountain, I suppose one could ‘assume’ (borrowing one of Darwin’s 600+ assumptions) that someone deposited it there, and not that it was brought there by water.
            * As for the ‘numerous gods say the say’ this is somewhat of da Vinci Code thinking. Such fictions are built on spurious research, such as one manuscript found of the ‘gospel of Henry’ written hundreds of years after Jesus’ time. I would suggest you read Lee Strobel’s interviews with world-class scholars, who have certainly debated spurious scholars. One example is the Jesus Seminar, who were demolished by serious scholars. Their premise, borrowed from ‘higher criticism’ is that ‘since miracles are not real, anything we find in the Bible that smacks of the supernatural we can omit as mythical.’ When one reads of the ‘dark day when Jesus was crucified’ this was reported in Rome. I would assume that a researcher could possibly find reports from all over the world of this event. I have heard a report that an eclipse occurred, although an eclipse would not be possible at that time.
            * As for your ‘overwhelming evidence of evolution’ vs. underwhelming evidence for the authenticity of the Bible as God’s Word, well ‘that does it for me’ too. Both scripturally and scientifically I find zero report for evolution. Here we have a ‘theory’ that was initially applied to biology and then has extended to all human fields, even the origin of the universe. Even though it contradicts what is actual reality. The first and second thermodynamic laws are not arbitrary ‘take it or leave it’ but apply universally, as anything in science can be applied to the material universe. First Law: matter cannot be created or destroyed. Yet, some evolutionists say exactly that matter/energy was created; if one doesn’t understand what the law of conservation means, well that does it for me! Second Law: in reality things do not get better and better, higher and higher. We see things in the real world becoming extinct. What do we see in the fossil record? Giant cousins so several of our present day animals, even giant people. But evolution says that someone energy and matter were created by itself, and hm hydrogen was born. And this did what? Created stars and planets! And then placed them in precision orbits, at the same time hydrogen began to evolve into the other elements. At the same time, mathematics evolved. A 2 became a 3.
            * as for the ‘vast overwhelming majority’ I would suggest a study of world history, in reality, and not what is indoctrination. You will find that there is certainly at the minimum a financial ‘elite’ who have funded both sides of world wars. As Nathan Rothschild said, “I care not who is elected, only that I control the banks.” What does this have to do with evolution? Just this: evolution is a card played by the ‘elite’ humanists, atheists to brainwash the naïve. If man is merely an animal, well anything goes. Since such a ‘scientist’ believes he’s an animal, he can also deliberately publish false ‘science’ that will impress the unknowing public who “I will go with the majority because they know best.” This was the mindset of the 1935+ Germans.
            * The human mind is a strange thing. It will see what it wants to see. Some will look at the earth’s formations and believe ‘millions of years’ while another will see Mt. St. Helens and other recent earth catastrophes and see Hm, this was done in just a few years.
            * It is observationally valid that what appears to be ‘old’ may not actually be ‘old.’ Eg., the Washington Monument was found to have stalactites when these are ‘supposed’ to be millions of years in formation. The ‘slow processes’ assumption is, as I noted before, even being questioned by evolutionary geologists. They now state that some sort of local catastrophe cause such and such. Now, if this is apparent, why can’t the ‘hypothesis’ be that a year-long catastrophe created what we see today? This would be a more elegant explanation of why we find sea fossils atop mountains. This would better explain the massive undersea ridge in the Atlantic Ocean running north to south … note the Bible describes ‘the fountains of the deep.’ I believe it was last year that an ocean beneath the oceans have been found. Hm, another coincidence. If these ‘fountains’ exploded during the Flood, one estimate is that they were equal to 100 million nuclear bombs (an estimate, I don’t know the K of this). When one looks at this massive ridge, one interpretation is that it could possibly be the remnant of an undersea explosion of waters that would be thrown miles into the air.
            * As far as paleontology goes, even evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not show any transitional fossils of true transmutation. The ‘geologic column’ is also an embarrassment, because it doesn’t exist in the real world! The fossil record instead shows what the Bible states: fully formed creatures. But some will not admit these facts for themselves.
            * Darwin’s ‘tree of life’ is likewise an embarrassment, but I’ll just address the branch of apes and humans. !912 Piltdown England pieces of a skull and jawbone were found. It amazed the scientists, who saw ape-like formations in the largely human skull, and the ape-like jaw. For nearly 50 years Piltdown Man was known as a genuine subhuman ancestor; about 500 books and magazines were written. In 1950 it was found that someone had taken an ape jawbone and skull of a human, treating them chemically to make them appear old, filed the teeth so they would look human. Why didn’t the ‘experts’ see the scratch marks made by the file? Or the brown stain was only on the surface? Or “see” human characteristics in the ape jaw and “see” ape characteristics in the human skull? Because the evolutionists believed so strongly they saw the things they expected to find, and failed to see what they didn’t want to see. A person who sees real evidence pays little attention to something that contradicts to something he believes.
            *Evolution is a massive propaganda ploy which has fooled a great majority of the world. It is literally a trillion dollar business.
            * And on the Bible’s prophecies, yes, they are exactly as precise as you state that a true prophecy must be. It is “you will meet a cute girl on December 5 of this year, standing on the north side of the Empire State Building’s viewing level, just to the right of the elevator. She will be wearing a green hat and red shoes and a Patek watch on her right wrist, where there will be a small scar in the shape of a fish. In fact, the Bible says, the sign of a true prophet is that he must be 100% accurate. I am surprised in such Christian websites that atheists visit to denounce God. Do people who believe in God regularly visit atheist websites? a ‘recent’ example of the Bible’s authenticity are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among them was found an exact copy of the Book of Isaiah; this is dated a minimum of 100 years before Christ … curious because it is a major prophetic book. This copy is identical to copies written hundreds of years later. You may not understand what textual accuracy means, since I’ve mentioned it before. But the Bible has the very highest rating of any ancient book, far above that of (all) others such as Socrates, Plato, etc etc etc. Over 5000 copies of the Hebrew OT and over 25,000 of the NT in different languages, 5000 in Greek alone. Compare this to the other ancient writings which average 20 copies or less, and written hundreds of years after the subject’s life. The NT was written within a few decades after Jesus; there is even insurmountable circumstantial evidence which I’ve noted, among them being the explosion of the ‘faith’ among Jews! Of fearful apostles who within weeks of Jesus’ resurrection were in Jerusalem proclaiming He was alive. No longer were they afraid of the Roman powers. Why did Jesus’ own half-brothers become believers after He was crucified? — when they laughed at Him previously all through their lives, probably. All the criticism you may care to make have been answered with extremely strong documentation by the top scholars … any atheist champions you may have in mind, you are certain invited to compare them with. Or arrange a debate. There are several debates on the books, and the atheist ‘happen’ to lose very big time.
            * As for’ ancient religions based on a book ordinary could have written, and did.’ Again, this is an assertion made by atheists through the ages, and they have always been demolished in debate. There is no other book that can compare. It is the book that has been the bedrock of the greatest scientific minds who were largely responsible for science as we know it today. It is the bedrock of the greatest legal minds who understand chain of evidence.
            * The Bible itself does not even try to prove God. It merely states “In the beginning God….” Unlike all other founders of ‘religions’ or ‘isms’ there is only ONE who came back from the dead, and this is a proof undeniable. These proofs have convinced the most hardened, honest skeptics. The modern example is Antony Flew; you could have called the atheist’s heavyweight champion. Yet he debated a Christian historian on Jesus’s physical resurrection. He wrote “There is a God” with appendix on Jesus. I have read this book. Btw it also includes a denunciation of Dawkin’s intellectual chicanery. I’ve been told on atheist websites that Flew was raked over the coals. I
            * In my ref. previous on the former atheist: asked his professor on the Bible’s contradictions, because at the introduction he claimed the Bible was full of contradictions. But when the then-atheist student questioned him, the professor admitted, “Well, if you really study it, there are no contradictions.”
            * You repeat ‘science vs. ancient religion’ but the science you are relying on isn’t fact-based science. It’s strange, evolutionists understand the enormous chasm between what they want to be true and what they actually observe in the real world. Case in point are the recent dinosaur flexible tissues. Really, you should have a hypothesis. They are either millions of years old, or just a few thousand years old. This isn’t even just one discovery, but several. Yet, this isn’t front page news in the media! But we will have front page coverage ‘new possible missing link found!’
            * But let me close with a reminder that Jesus verified the OT. He verified Genesis as authentic history. He quoted that Adam and Eve were real people, created ‘on the spot’ by God. Adam is listed in the genealogy of Jesus. It was because of Adam’s Fall (ignoring God) that necessitated that Jesus had to die a physical death in addition to atoning the spiritual death, which in our language is the 2nd thermodynamic law. If you want to laugh, then that is your choice. If you want to slap God, you won’t be the first one. You won’t be the first one to call Him a myth and you won’t be the last. But I do know I have been at the death beds of believers that Jesus is God and that they trusted Him, and not some humanistic philosophy. I would not want to be at the deathbed of an atheist. This is a person who denies God, and believes he’s an animal and is proud of it, and wants his loved ones to be the same! I will go with Col. Henry Mucci, who was in charge of the World War 2 rescue of American and Filipino POWs in the Philippines, of the Rangers’ first mission. He said, “I don’t want any atheists in this. We’ll all get on our knees before God.” “There are no atheists in foxholes'” is probably one of the truer statements in reality, which is testified by people who have been there. In POW camps it is the atheist who falls apart, and the God-believer who perseveres, or at least tries to. When you need to be rescued, ‘odds’ are it won’t be the atheist who goes out of his way to help you. But of course, all of this isn’t ‘scientific’ but it is reality — which is what authentic science is supposed to be about.

          • YouNoWho

            I just don’t have time to debate this ad infinitum with you. Just a couple of things that stand out. Your example of a true kind of prophecy fails for one simple but excellent reason: a human being could make it come true. You simply get a girl, dress her up like that and put her in that place. That’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy; you can make it come true yourself.

            Hindus believe rocks evolve? There’s a huge article on Wikipedia titled “Hindu views on evolution,” and nowhere in it is the word “rock” or “rocks” to be found. To the contrary, quote:

            “In a survey of 909 people, 77% of its respondents in India agreed that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and 85% of God-believing people said they agree with evolution as well.[5][6] According to the survey conducted by Pew Forum in the United States, 80% of Hindus agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth.[7]”

            As for giving you atheist websites to read, I find it hard to believe you really would. But in any case, all you have to do is google it and you’ll get all you can handle.

            Oh… I just happened to glance up and see your closing remarks on “no atheists in foxholes.” That is so ridiculous on several levels, and your remarks are positively false. Just apply a little common sense and logic. You don’t believe Santa exists, right? Will you be begging Santa to give you certain gifts this Christmas? Of course not. You would be insane to ask a fictional person for anything at all. Atheists do not believe God exists. They wouldn’t pray to a fictional character of any kind, gods, Santa, unicorns…. Anyone who beseeches a fictional character would frankly have a mental problem.

            Now you can say there are no BACKSLIDERS in foxholes, and I’m pretty sure that would be true. They believe God exists but haven’t been living right. So they call upon God when in the hour of need. That is a whole different thing from atheists. Atheists do not suddenly find evidence of God’s existence just because they’re in danger. They would think it more sane to pray to their general for backup!

            Do check out THIS website for list of atheists in foxholes:

            http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

          • Don Fernando de SF

            My example of a true kind of prophecy assumed we were dealing with people of integrity and not con artists. Two, relating this to the intentional fulfillment argument that Jesus maneuvered his life to fulfill the prophecies written hundreds of years and more before He was born. Yes, a dishonest person could do this for a few of the prophecies, such as riding a donkey into Jerusalem. But this doesn’t wash with the Sanhedrin (high council) offering Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray Him, or arrange for His ancestry, or the place of His birth, or even His method of execution, unknown at the time of the written prophecy. Nor His time of birth. Louis S. Lapides spends a lot of his time dealing with skeptics whose arguments generally fall into four categories, 1/ the coincidence argument 2/ the altered Gospel argument 3/ the intentional fulfillment argument and 4/ the context argument. Lapides said he reads the skeptic books to look at each objection individually and to research the context and wording in the original language. He says, “Every single time , the prophecies have stood up and shown themselves to be true. Don’t accept my word for it, or your rabbi’s either. Spend the time to research it yourself. Today nobody can say ‘there’s no information.’ And one more thing: ask God to show you whether Jesus is the Messiah or not.” Louis is Jewish by background and grew up being taught that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. I can ‘semi prophesize’ of course that you won’t ask God to show you anything, but there are others who may be reading this that will.
            * Btw, I have visited the ‘Atheists in Foxholes’ website, it’s interesting reading. I am especially impressed by the guy who had good relations with the military chaplains he met. This is a level headed guy, who ‘could be’ a future Antony Flew.
            * It was also interesting to note Gov. Bob Kerrey is listed there, although elsewhere he’s listed as an agnostic. In any case, a few months prior to his Medal of Honor action, in Feb 25, 1969, he led a team to Hamlet 5, Thanh Phu, Vietnam. They cut the throats of grandpa and grandma and pulled their grandkids from their hiding places. They killed two, disemboweling one. They then killed 15 civilians, including three pregnant women. A 12 year old girl was sole survivor. Only until 2001 did Kerrey confess his crimes to the int’l public.
            * But to your statement that ‘would consider it more sane to pray to their general’ there are plenty of historical accounts where a professed atheist in said foxhole has suddenly prayed to God when the bleep hits the fan. On a tangent, reminded by Bob Kerrey: Navy Seal ‘pups’ undergoing jump training at Ft. Benning thought it fashionable to make their jumps screaming obscenities to God. This cause some seniors to shake their heads. Within a few years it was reported that these ‘pups’ changed their behavior.
            * Hinduism … inert objects such as rocks to trees and upwards. I have studied the original Patanjali sutras, which is one of the classics of yogic literature, and I will definitely state this teaching is there, wiki nothwithstanding. And with the 77% of 909 people who believe in Darwin’s evolution, we can see what the concept of evolutionary doctrine has wrought in India; with horrible conditions because some people are classified as ‘brahmins’ and others are ‘untouchables’ and even ‘lower’ in the evolutionary chain. This is a direct result of the belief that some classes are innately superior or inferior.
            * As I visited your recommended website I hope you can spend a few minutes with mine, UK Apologetics with expose on Darwin.
            * But I did infer a personal question to you. Have you ever been at the deathbed of an atheist? What was the experience like? And: were all the people around the bed atheists or were there some Christians or whatever? And what was the dynamic?
            * Another Q: in your initial posts you wrote you ‘pastoral studies’ or something like that; would you please elucidate on that?
            * And what are your thoughts that Darwin was a chief influence in the minds of the madmen of the 20th century, Hitler et al?
            * I will reiterate that a huge cabal finances Darwinism. An evident tentacle is their influence over the bogus Nobel awards for physics in 1978, 2004, 2006, 2011 — to propagandize the Big Bang Cosmology. These Nobels have been called by an esteemed physicist who has remained unchallenged by the physics establishment as 1978 “bad science to scam science: 2004 “scam science to fraud science” 2006 “fraud science to Hitleresque science.” Again as we can see from the First Law/Conservation matter/energy can’t be created. If only more evolutionists understood the implication of the First and Second Laws, there would be fewer evolutionists. Another obvious tentacle is John Rockefeller’s funding of anti-God seminaries like Union Theological, the National Education Assn, the country’s chief education lobby; Rock’s Federal Council of Churches became the National Council of Churches.
            * This is obvious in my previous example of the bogus Piltdown Man. First, who do you think perpetuated this hoax? Plausible it was evolutionists? Second, what does that imply….? For fifty years evolutionists believed it, to the detriment of society as a whole and honest science. My implication is: if you were living at that time, would YOU have accepted this as ‘fact of evolution’? Further, all other so-called half ape/half humans have all be proven as false. Even the famous ‘Lucy’ is known to be a fraud: a human knee joint was taken from 200 feet further in the stone and added to Lucy the chimp to ‘prove’ she could walk like a human.
            * Btw, I have composed today an original hypothesis. I haven’t copied it from anyone, although of course I am influenced by my studies, so here goes:
            Statement of a Believer in a Creator
            * I acknowledge that I don’t have the totality of human knowledge;
            * Neither do I know whether there is an absolute limit to the totality of human knowledge;
            * Consequently, I have studied extremely brilliant minds who have proposed the evidences for this Creator as revealed in the ‘Bible’ whereas the Old Testament is also known as the Jewish Scriptures; these evidences have withstood skeptical attacks for 2000 years; consequently, while I don’t have the sum total of human knowledge or anything approaching the limit, I have reasonable assurance that would surpass a court of law’s chain of legal evidence that the God of the Bible is indeed the Creator of the universe, and the one true God, politically incorrect as that may be.
            Signed, a believer.
            Statement of Believer in Atheistic Evolution (or amended title)
            * I have the totality of human knowledge;
            * Further, my knowledge is the absolute limit of human knowledge; consequently, there can be nothing known that cannot be known by me; ie, I know it all;
            * Consequently, I have explored every part of the universe, both material and immaterial, both mass and energy ‘realms’;
            * I therefore conclude from the above that there is no Creator of ‘all that is’ and that all is the result of natural evolution.
            Signed, KIA.

          • YouNoWho

            Sorry, but I just don’t have the time to keep this up.

            Final couple of remarks…

            You can’t assume no con artists in prophecies, LOL! Look, whole books have been written to show that NO prophecy has ever shown that any being, human or supernatural, has foretold the future. I understand there are books that claim the Bible accurately foretold the future. Read a different book to see how it’s really not true.

            NO atheists have turned to god in the face of death. An atheist does not believe God exists. Sane people don’t pray to characters they understand to be fictional. Only a mentally disturbed adult would write to Santa asking for a certain present. Adults do not have imaginary friends (unless mentally disturbed), and even worse if they actually talk to them as if they were real.

            Anybody who turns to God in a bad situation isn’t an atheist, or if he is, then he is mentally disturbed.

            There are many cases, I think, where people say “I used to be an atheist, but now I’m….” Or they may say, “I was an atheist, but when I faced death, I became a believer.” Logic dictates that what those people are really saying is something to the effect of: “Until then, I really hadn’t given God much thought, I wasn’t a believer.”

            That’s not the same as being an atheist. Being a non-believer is not the same thing as being an atheist. An atheist has thought about it and concludes that he finds no evidence that a god exists; therefore, he sees “god” as fictional. A non-believer, however, may never have given it any thought at all, and may never have concluded, in any conscious way, that he sees no evidence for the existence of a god.

            Therefore, I don’t find any inconsistency between the fact that no atheists turn to god in foxholes and a person’s comment of “I was an atheist in a foxhole.” The latter, unless mentally disturbed, simply means he was not a believer and never called upon God until he was in dire danger. This is a true case of needing to interpret what is said. (This is not a case of the No True Scotsman rhetorical fallacy.)

            I’m sorry, but I cannot respond further. I just have too many things I need to do instead of spending time on here. That is why THIS response is inadequate to answer all you’ve said and why your future comments will not receive responses from me. You can feel satisfied that perhaps others are reading and benefiting from our posts.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Yes, I agree: that this is getting too much like homework. This began as a chemist’s comment that in private scientists (I assume at least in the physical sciences) tell him that they don’t ‘understand’ the impossibility of self-formation of molecules, etc. I grew up with scientists; my mom has a PhD in chemistry. And definitely, ‘behind closed doors’ scientists will not agree with mega-evolution. Of course, for the past few decades many have come out from behind those doors; the decision for the remainder is theirs to make.
            Anyway, I don’t expect you personally to respond. I also will not issue specific rebuttals, but I will spend a little time here in a ‘Trial of Infinity’ where I will present a case for Creation vs. Naturalism (or whatever label that suits one). It’s addressed to general posters; if anyone wants to be ‘opposing counsel’ then just present your case, without expectation of rebuttal. Continuing….

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Hm, just lost my post… can I, in my madness recollect it?
            On the self fulfilling prophecy, I was assuming the subjects were honest. It’s the assumption of the dishonest that others are automatically dishonest in their actions. There are four general categories of skeptics in the Biblical prophecies, and the one you mention has been soundly defeated. I can recall Louis Lapides who has spent much of his time in reading all the skeptical books and he concludes the prophecies always stand up to the severest scrutiny; later maybe I’ll look it up for you. But briefly, A/ one person could self fulfill for a prophecy such as Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, but a person would not be able to fulfill the place and date of his birth, nor influence the Sanhendrin high council to pay off Judas with 30 pieces of silver, nor the method of execution, unknown t the time of the prophecy hundreds of years prior; nor that Jesus would be buried in a rich man’s tomb, or that the soldiers would gamble for his clothes. There were over 30 fulfilled on the day of crucifixion; for 48 the odds are 1 in 10^156. As you note, I make a lot of probabilities. They reflect reality; casinos know this and that is why they stack the odds in their favor. On a personal note, I have been tried card counting in blackjack; at certain times of the play the odds can increase for the player. It isn’t foolproof, it’s just the odds. But when there is such a run of the cards, you can place larger bets and win in the medium run. That’s when you leave the table with winnings. When a person is successful for a long time, the casinos will boot him out. While you seem to scoff at probabilities, they do reflect reality, and it is mathematically impossible for life to form from inert substances, not to mention where the inert elements originated in the first place! Likewise it is impossible for life forms to become ‘more and more ‘higher and higher.’ But I won’t repeat myself.
            * Yes, I have just visited your recommended atheists in foxholes website. I am impressed by the atheist who says he had good relationships with his military chaplains. Perhaps he will be a future Antony Flew. I wonder about Gov Bob Kerrey as in other sites he’s listed as agnostic. Also, a few months prior to his Medal of Honor action, he led a team that slit the throats of grandma and grandpa (Vietnam Feb 1969), killed three of their grandkids (disemboweling one) and killing 15 villagers, including three pregnant women. He didn’t confess this until 2001. While not all atheists (if he is) have these tendencies, they are far more prone than a believer in God, if only for the knowledge that one’s actions have eternal consequences. The more one actually knows God, the less they would be prone to such actions.
            * Continuing … there are plenty of accounts of atheists who have suddenly ‘converted’ in ‘foxholes’ …
            * On Hindus believing in rocks evolving by the process of reincarnation: unlike the Wiki article, there is far more information on this. I have studied Pantajali’s original sutras and they definitely include the teaching of rocks to higher and higher forms > plants > insects > etc. This is in fact the basis of karma/reincarnation. A ‘good’ person evolves higher, and a ‘bad’ one may devolve into a lower form. This is the rationale for the Brahmin (highest caste) who can treat an ‘untouchable’ like a virtual dog. Because of this evolutionary mindset, untouchables have been historically known to be abused as lower animals. The Indian ‘classics’ such as Vedas and Bhaghavad Gita do not have any historical proofs of their authenticity. Nor do they have prophecies, of course, since this is an obvious red flag. All false religions have false ‘bibles.’ When you study the real one, you understand the false. This is why when one understands that God is recorded accurately as stating (through Moses) that God created the heavens and the earth…. in six literal days, one is assured, unlike false beliefs such as evolution. Btw, the Bible does not contain the age of the earth; some have taught the genealogy from Adam > can be around 5000 years or so. But the gaps between names can be a century. We don’t know. But it is obvious from the text (even unbelieving Hebrew scholars admit this) that six literal days are denoted. It does not state God created over billions of years. And again, (for those believers and on the fencers) Jesus confirmed the Old Testament as historical fact when it is written as historical narrative.
            * In the survey of Indian populace, it is confirmation that if they believe evolution, then there are higher and lower races of humans, as noted above. Again, I reiterate that Darwin’s views influenced greatly the despots of the 20th century and the present one. If there is no God, and we are beasts with no souls, what does it matter? We are just matter! However, consider the implications that matter/energy can never be destroyed, only transformed. When you die, hm, is it possible you still exist?
            * Also I did visit your recommended website, so I hope you’ll spend a few minutes at least at UK Apologetics / expose on Darwin. For real scholars and readers, I suggest you read the entire article(s), including the author’s interview with students in Singapore questioning him about evolution.
            part 2 follows on the statements of an atheist and believer:!

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 2 I thought of this just today; it’s a rough draft, what do you think:
            Statement of a believer in a disbeliever in a Creator
            * I have the totality of human knowledge;
            * Further, my knowledge is the absolute limit of human knowledge possible. There is nothing new that can be known. In summation, I know it all!
            * Consequently, I have examined every part of the universe, all ‘realms’ of matter and energy;
            * Therefore, I conclude that there is no Creator, that there is no need for a Creator to create all that we know.
            Signed, KIA

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Part 1 / (seems to be missing linking here)… so will just say thank you You for your graciousness. There are plenty of commenters on both sides who tend to be ‘animalistic. I understand you may not wish to continue, so am addressing this in general. I also understand the views of atheists, which is a surprise as you attended theological schools. I am wondering if the school was the Union Theological type? We can put forth the ‘theory’ that the textual accuracy of the Bible is second to none; and that it also contains many proofs such as its OT prophecies, its indestructibility despite attacks over 2,000 years from emperors and other despots, its unfailing archaeological support (no discovery has ever disproved the history of the Bible …. an example are the naval journeys of Paul; modern sailors say that his descriptions can be taken as navigational). And of course the witnesses, of whom I’ve mentioned a few. Here I will mention the disciples, who were understandably terrorized by Jesus’ crucifixion. They ran away. Yet, ‘something’ happened that within a few weeks they were back in Jerusalem proclaiming Jesus had come back from the dead — they spent the remainder of their lives proclaiming this with dangerous results. Jesus’ half brothers James and Jude derided Him; but after the resurrection they wrote the books of Jude and James. Btw, some may note the da Vinci code type of scholarship, which are based on things like lost gospels by Thomas, or Mary or Seymour, etc. These have only one copy usually and written hundreds of years after the NT. The NT was written 30 – 60 years after Jesus’ resurrection. Christianity exploded despite the Roman Empire’s terror.
            * We could go on and on with the evidences of the Bible; but I will concentrate on the textual accuracy. Hebrew and Greek scholars agree what it says; they disagree the meaning of the words. Some conclude that ‘Jesus was a great teacher” but I don’t accept him as God. No ‘great teacher’ would make Jesus’ claims of Himself; he would be a cruel Liar and or a Loon. He would knowingly claim that He is God and that His followers would suffer because of His fraud. He is either a liar, loon or Lord, as C. S. Lewis (who was ‘kicking and screaming away from his atheism.’). Reminds me: note > Does God Exist? Why I Left Atheism/John D. Clayton, who asked telling questions to his astronomy professor which left in a intellectual sand pit.
            * It does not take great intellectual genius to believe Scripture, although many A-list minds in history have been students of the Bible, such as the aforementioned giants of science, eg., Newton, Lister, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Cuvier, Mendels, Agassiz, Ramsay, Bacon, Linnaeus; mentioning three who were instrumental in formulating thermodynamics — Kelvin, Joule and Davy; in law, Simon Greenleaf, who wrote the ‘bible’ of legal evidence and Sir Lawrence Luckhoo, twice knighted by Queen Liz. Both were atheists; both became Christians after studying the proofs of the Bible.
            * Some make the mistake of ‘hypocritical Christians’ with the original Teacher/Jesus. Study the original first, and the counterfeits are easier to spot. Eg., I don’t agree with most of today’s churches where there’s one guy speaking in front, and everyone just listening. In 1 Cor. 14 we see that the first believers were participants.
            * Evolution is not a new concept. The ancient Greeks thought matter evolved from mushy mud; and they explained the universe in similar terms. Hinduism teaches that in reincarnation a rock may evolve higher and higher to plants, bugs, animals, humans; its caste system is evolutionary — some are lower humans, and the higher ones are the Brahmins. Origin of Species is subtitled ‘The favoured races in the struggle for life’ …. the thought that man is just an animal has fueled the Hitlers of history. If there are higher and lower men, then we can do whatever we want to the lower classes. Not to mention the British caste system. It is ironic that people would wish to convince others that we are all just beasts and we come from nothing and go to nothing — despite the matter/energy equivalence and what that implies. But a primary Red Flag is that no man-made religion or thought system can offer a prophetic record, which foretells what will happen in centuries to come. The place of Jesus’ birth, even the time of birth is in the historic record, along with hundreds of other prophecies foretelling events of people, countries to an precise degree. One can ignore this or deride it. But the fact is that many of the greatest minds in history do not ignore this Signal (and others) from the Creator. The film contact has radio signals being received in sequence of six or so numbers, repeated over and over. This is acceptable to build a theory of an intelligent lifeform attempting to communicate. In reality, if six numbers are acceptable to begin searching, what are a zillion zillion zillion numbers in sequence? The logical person would say, Hm, let’s look into this……………

      • Devient Genie

        So is zeus, thor and allah matters of faith. Wow youre in the same boat as the Elivs is alive crew with their faith
        Try not to be such an embarrassment to intellect, its shameful :)_

        • Reason2012

          Hello. Your ad hominem attacks do not refute what I said. Take care.

    • Tom T

      O.K., educate us all. Name one, just one biological fact that doesn’t make sense in the absence of macroevolution. You should have a boat load of facts as you are obviously much more intelligent than this “overrated idiotic chemist.” We idiots await your response; however, if you don’t intelligently respond, guess what that makes you?

    • Don Fernando de SF

      After 150 years the ‘theory of macro-evolution’ remains a theory. What isn’t it a scientific law by now? It should be provable like the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the law of gravity. Yet this ‘theory’ contradicts known scientific laws. See UK Apologetics for fair understanding of Darwin. Everyone has a god or a God. I don’t choose to have Darwin as my god, based on the evidence. The theory of non life to life has been demolished since Louis Pasteur. This is absolute scientific law, not scenario writing: life only comes from life. There is not other way. Until one can prove than non life creates life, one is building on a guess, and one piles guess atop the bottom guesses. Prove that first guess, and that will fulfill the scientific method of observation and experimentation; and replication by others.

      • Don Fernando de SF

        Returning to Dr. Tour: I think what he is saying is the purported mechanism of macro evolution cannot be explain by anyone. It is a guess. What caused non life to form life? Who saw this happen? Can this be proven today?

        • tplay official

          Please define life, nonlife, and macroevolution.

      • tplay official

        theories don’t become laws
        evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of life

      • Devient Genie

        Theories Never become laws. As in Never! You know science like a lady bug understands white water rafting 🙂

        • Don Fernando de SF

          My lady bug does understand wwrafting. Note the 1st Law of thermodynamics first started as hypothesis, then theory and then guess what. Btw it observes what is reality: energy is never created, which contradictions the notion of ‘somehow we’re here because of energy creating itself from what’ maybe a lady bug.

          • Devient Genie

            Keep digging yourself a hole like a religitard does best. Unintelligent refutation is the language of the religitard.

            Show me anywhere that it was ever the theory of thermodynamics, and now is no longer such, but has graduated to being labeled law of thermodynamics.

            What year did it become a law after being a theory first?

            You’re done 😉

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Thank you for displaying your intelligent refutation, in bringing up the age old theory of the religitard. I am commenting more fully in a post to YouNoWho … it will not be specific rebuttals, but stating the case for God vs. etc. in a ‘Court of Eternity.’ If anyone wishes to be ‘opposing counsel’ state your case.

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Hi Devient (spellcheck)… kindly study your scientific history, so you won’t be doomed (to repeat yourself), especially the history of !st and 2nd Laws. You’ll have to read about six hours before understanding, likely. Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates which are PROPOSED DURING THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS before and during validation by experiment and observation. H and P are not laws since they have not been verified to the same degree and may ot be sufficiently general, although they may lead to a formulation of laws. A law is a more solidified and formal statement, distilled from repeated experiments …. scientific laws are practical conclusions reached by the scientific method (empirical science). I have started the ‘Trial of Eternity’ here; hope you have time to read.

          • Devient Genie

            No spell check necessary, you are just not familiar with TRUE SCRIPTURE

            DEVIENTGENIE 2:7–The Genie is Not deviant in any evil way, the second ‘E’ in his name is testament to that fact. He is simply splashing the world with a huge glass of ice water 🙂

            You act like you know so much about science yet you claim theories become laws. You are an idiot. And if you were so scientifically inclined, you would understand evolution is fact you bible drunk sky daddy lover 🙂

          • Don Fernando de SF

            Hope you’re following my ‘Trial of Infinitea’ which is beginning as we speak…. we start off with the occult origins of Darwinism. As for Bible drunk etc…. I share this accolade with the founders / giants of science > Newton, Faraday, Boyle, Pasteur, Copernicus, Mendels, etc etc etc …. without whom we would not have modern scientific method, which is based on rigorous observation and experiment, not Hollywood scenarios.

          • Devient Genie

            At the end of the day, nothing yo can say will support or justify the idea that my planet was created by a an admittedly jealous sky daddy.

            you are apathetic example of intellect, and a shameful example of a man.

            Real men need jesus like a submarine needs a screen door

  • alnga

    When the greatest mind that this generation has ever heard through a computer voice, Dr. Steven Hawking has stated that there is no God and frankly admits that you can not make something out of nothing and that something had to be in place before you could morph something into something else. So something had to be a creator but he was sure that this is not a god. I would say the scientific world is without answers because they are looking at their agenda and not their quest to find the creator.

    • Pax Humana

      Please look to my response to EmpiricalPierce on the matter, okay, alnga? You are welcome.

  • http://chaoskeptic.blogspot.com Rev. Ouabache

    “I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you…”

    That’s really all that needs to be said about this article. Why should we listen to someone opine on a subject he admits to not understanding?

    • Daniel Foley

      You are aware that he is not speaking on evolution, but rather on the fact that there are so many publicly outspoken supporters of evolution that admit that they don’t even understand it themselves? I guess not, because you appear to not have read it but have merely dismissed anything said as irrelevant.

  • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

    The origin of life is a different issue from how life has developed and evolved since its origination. To say that we cannot understand how life has evolved without understanding how it came to exist in the first place is analogous to saying we cannot understand and predict how gravity will effect certain objects without knowing how gravity came to exist – and yet I suspect most people here will board an airplane without a second thought.

    I know it makes you happy to think there’s an all-powerful master of the universe that created the universe just for us (seriously? the entire universe for the sake of one planet out of billions in the galaxy, and one galaxy out of billions in the universe?), but believing we were created in our current form instead of mutating from other forms of life requires ignoring swathes of biological evidence, and if forced to choose, I prefer my beliefs to accurately reflect reality instead of give me warm fuzzy feelings. For the sake of brevity I’ll list only one example (though I’ll gladly provide more if asked): The laryngeal nerve.

    In biological homology, the laryngeal nerve can be spotted in a wide variety of animals, from fish to mammals.The structures around the nerve and the nerve itself are homologous to each other and so evolutionary theory postulates that animals evolve from others by distortions and changes in these structures. In fish, considered to be more evolutionarily primitive, the nerve heads straightfrom the brain, down to the larynx. However, in mammals, the structure of the head and development of the neck from fish-like organisms cause the recurrent laryngeal nerve to become “trapped” under the aortic arch in the thorax. Given a slow and gradual evolution from the biology of a fish to the biology of a mammal, there is no way for the nerve to magically jump from one side of the aortic arch to the other. And so, in mammals the nerve controlling the larynx first delves deep into the chest cavity and then finally up to the larynx.

    This considerable detour is consistent with how embryological development entwines with evolution. Any intelligent designer who would create such a needlessly circuitous system does not deserve the description “intelligent”.

    Trying to explain biological oddities like the laryngeal nerve while denying the existence of evolution is like trying to explain bullet wounds while denying the existence of guns.

    • Reason2012

      It makes others happy to pretend a watch could “just happen” (well really not a watch, but things millions of times more complex, like a cell, or a living being), so they can ignore their consciences that has them spending much time convincing themselves such a thing could “just happen”.

      Giving reasons to believe in the claim that populations of fish can “evolve” over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish does not make it science. Science is about things that actually happen – not things we can only give reasons to believe in it. This is why the various origin topics are beyond science: beliefs are all that anyone can bring to the table – beliefs that start with one’s world view.

      That said, it’ logically undeniable we were created – the only faith part is God.

      • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

        A. Once again, the origin of life and development of life are different issues. It’s entirely possible some form of being we would consider a God originated life; it’s also possible that there is some as of yet unknown natural process that originated life. Either way, the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of all modern life on this planet having evolved from earlier and simpler life forms.

        B. “Ignore their consciences?” I could just as easily say people become Christians to ignore their consciences – “Jesus forgives us no matter what we do, so stop harping on about me molesting children!” – Catholic Church. I don’t buy the concept of “instant forgiveness, just add Jesus!”; people actually need to make up for the harm they’ve done.

        C. Reasons to believe are all we can give for anything. Nothing can be proven 100% certain; there’s always the possibility, for example, that everything we think we know about the world is false and we are simply trapped in the matrix. Most people don’t believe that given there’s insufficient evidence to support such a dramatic claim, but it’s still technically possible.

        Likewise, it’s still technically possible life forms were designed by a thinking being, but most people don’t believe that given the evidence that there is no intelligence driving our design.

        • Reason2012

          A. I never said the origin of life and development of life were the same – but the fact is both are beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table. No, making up belief about fossils does not make fossils “evidence” of the belief. It’s logically undeniable we were created, unless a person wants to believe a watch could “just happen”. A cell is millions of times far more complex and ingenious than a mere watch.

          B. Sure a person could just as easily claim “I am a Christian” – claiming it doesn’t make it true – but you’re on to something: it’s the same reason people will cling to a false religion: to ease their consciences. Evolutionism is just as much a false belief system.

          C. False. We can SEE gravity doing what we say it does, so we make up beliefs about how it happens. It’s a FACT that “it” happens as the human race sees it – so even if we get it wrong about how “it” happens, it’s still science. The human race has never seen the mythological beliefs of evolutionists – huge difference evolutionists are determined to ignore and distort.

          Science is not about “well most believe xyz” – most believed the world was flat – how’d that turn out? This is about science, so trying to invoke “well most believe in it” is again more anti-science. The FACT is it doesn’t happen until anyone shows it to happen.

          Attacking belief in God doesn’t make evolutionism science, but it does show yet again what the real motivation of the anti-science beliefs of evolutionists is.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            If anything productive is to result from this conversation, we’re going to need to focus on one issue at a time. I can already see three individual topics I want to address in A, but if we get to the point where every response is an essay, odds are we’re just going to talk past each other without understanding. I’ll be glad to address the other points later, assuming this discussion lasts long enough for us to get to that point.

            To be fair, I’m willing to move to the next point of your choosing after this one, whether it be within A, B, C, or something else entirely you think is more immediately relevant.

            Within A, I want to discuss

            1. the watch remark
            2. the origins of complexity

            But before those, this:

            A. You say that the origin and development of life are beyond the scope of science – and then turn around and say it’s logically undeniable we were created. If it is indeed logically undeniable, that would mean you have evidence, correct? And since scientific theories require evidence, wouldn’t the existence of evidence mean that the topic is, in fact, within the scope of science?

          • Reason2012

            Hello. Yes, it’s logically undeniable we were created: the idea of irreducible complexity. But I didn’t say it’s logically undeniable God is that creator.

            Evidence: the human race HAS observed this concept of irreducible complexity: something where it has to have all of it’s current parts or it does not function, hence a “less complex” “version” of it (that it supposedly evolved from) is not possible, hence it did not evolve but was created: multiple parts that ALL must be in place for it to function at all… ANY of it missing, it ceases to function. A cell alone is an example of this. The human body is another.

            More evidence: information. Information (meaningfully encoded information that is then decoded and acted upon for a meaningful end result) is proof of intelligent design. No information that was then used in a meaningful way was ever created by natural chance. DNA has an incredible amount of information that is meaningfully decoded and acted upon to build organic machines. There’s a mechanism to copy this information.

            So the human race has observed both of these facts, and hence it’s logically undeniable we were created. But it still leaves the issue of “well what created the creator” and so on, until you either arrive at nothing, or arrive at something existing for an eternity and not requiring a creator. But again, where does it get us? Science is about things that actually happen, and delving into origins is pointless as it’s already clear we were created.

            But to say Who or what the Creator was would be a belief, not science.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            Before I respond, I’d like you to clarify your position for me. You state that we were created, but do not discuss this creation in detail. Do you believe all life was created in more or less its current form, as a YEC might state? Do you believe that basic cellular life forms were created, which then evolved into the variety of species we see today, as a deist or OEC might state? Or do you believe something other than one of these premises?

          • Reason2012

            See you never respond to anything but continue going off on tangent after tangent. The facts are there – believing in God is irrelevant to the FACT that we were created by something yet you keep changing the subject and flat out ignoring what is presented. Take care.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            I’m not ignoring what you’ve presented, I’m asking you to clarify your position in greater detail before I respond. If I assume to know what your position is and respond to a belief that you do not actually hold, then my response is going to look like it’s simply attacking a strawman.

            Are you unwilling to clarify your belief in creation in detail? It shouldn’t be difficult to explain what you believe. Whatever you may think the “facts” are for me to go out and find, the fact is that both of the beliefs I outlined (creation of all life in its current form vs. creation of basic cells which then evolved into all species) are ones that different groups of people consider fact. Until I know what beliefs you actually hold, I can’t respond to you effectively.

          • Reason2012

            You’re ignoring what I wrote as you have not addressed any of it yet.

            Secondly you do not need to know my BELIEFS because we’re talking about science, and as I said, it’s logically undeniable we were created, no matter what one’s belief about who the creator is. Yet you ignore this fact as well and pretend you need to know what my beliefs are as to what created us. You don’t, as my beliefs about what created us are irrelevant to the discussion.

            Are you unwilling to address the facts I’ve presented? It shouldn’t be difficult to address them. It’s not my beliefs that are the topic, the topic is science, and the FACT is what evolutionists believe in is just a belief that cannot be called science, that it’s logically undeniable we were created

            You cannot address the facts, and that’s the only thing that’s relevant here, not my beliefs which you now pretend is what needs to be addressed. You cannot address the facts and that says it all.

            Thanks for posting.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            Very well then. I’ll start with the claim you’ve made that seems most blatantly erroneous.

            You stated that the human body is irreducibly complex… except both of us grew into our current forms from microscopic cells.

            Furthermore, by merely acknowledging the existence of DNA, you admit to the veracity of evolution. It’s been observed that all known life forms operate off the same “programming language” of DNA, and that through mutations this code can be modified, lengthened, and shortened. Just by acknowledging that much, you acknowledge it is possible for the DNA of a creature currently recognized as a human to change by mutating through the generations until it more closely matches the recipe of a creature we would recognize as a chimpanzee (or any other existing species, or far more mathematically likely, an essentially infinite amount of other species capable of being produced by changing DNA into a combination that has not been tried yet).

            And in fact, portions of our genetic code indicate this is exactly what has happened. I’ll provide two examples directly relevant to human evolution:

            1. There is an enzyme called gulonolactone oxidase; This enzyme catalyzes the reactions needed to produce ascorbic acid (vitamin C). While the gene used to produce this enzyme is present in most animals, it has been inactivated in others due to mutation. Animals that can no longer synthesize vitamin C include simians, guinea pigs, and several species of fruit bats.

            The mutation that causes inactivation of the L-gulonolactone oxidase gene is different depending on the group the organism is in. All extant guinea pigs share the same inactivation mutation, while all extant simians share a different mutation. The likelihood of two different species sharing the same inactivation mutation is statistically improbable; a better explanation is that the sharing is actually due to common inheritance. The most recent common ancestor of all extant guineapigs developed one mutation in the gene, while a different mutation developed in the most recent common ancestor in simians.

            2. Another piece of evidence that makes clear the factual reality of common descent is chromosome fusion that occurs across a wide variety of species in different ways.Fusion of chromosomes decreases the chromosome numbers in a descendant species. (Alternatively, a split in a chromosome increases the chromosome number.) The pattern of these fusion events generates characteristic phylogenetic trees offering proof of common descent.

            One famous example is a fusion event that indicates the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.While all other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 looks almost identical to two of the chimpanzee’s chromosomes stacked on one on top of the other, indicating chromosome fusion.

            Chromosomes form light and dark bands on a karyotype that can be compared to see how similar they are. The light and dark banding patterns of the two chimp chromosomes match that of the single human one. Also, on the end of each chromosome are a series of repetitive DNA sequences called telomeres. These sequences are found typically only on
            the tips of the chromosome. For chromosome 2, scientists find them in the middle, as if the tips of two chromosomes merged together.

            In addition, chromosomes have a centromere which link the two sister chromatids together. While there are usually only one of these distinct regions on a chromosome, there are two centromeres on chromosome 2. One is “non-functional”, but its genetic code matches the other centromere from the second chimpanzee chromosome.

            Clearly from this evidence human chromosome 2 is a fusion event between two chromosomes found in chimpanzees in distinct form. This means that humans inherited these chromosomes from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

            Of course, that doesn’t address the issue of whether or not the cell itself is irreducibly complex, but that can wait. For now, do you have any rebuttals to the argument that humans are not irreducibly complex, and that DNA stands as evidence that all species are related and can mutate into other species?

          • Reason2012

            You forget that cells themselves are irreducibly complex and do not “grow into their current forms”

            Secondly, you forget that a human body cannot live outside the womb if not given the time to grow and have put in place all the parts necessary: heart, brain, lungs, skeletal system and so on. You can have all the pieces needed to make a watch, but it’s proof someone had to put them all together that they must ALL be put in place to have a functional watch. Even a watch has all the separate pieces, but until they are put together it’s not a watch.

            Third, show a human being no longer in the womb that has a missing heart. Show one with no physical brain. Show one with no skeletal system. Irreducibly complex. You want to pretend the building process, that decodes information and meaningfully acts upon it to creat an organic machine is just “natural chance”. Information and the ability to for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon by following those instructions are each in and of themselves proof of intelligent design.

            “Furthermore, by merely acknowledging the existence of DNA, you admit to the veracity of evolution.” False. The acknowledging of the existence of DNA does not equate to the made up beliefs ABOUT them that never happens must also be true. Just because DNA is not 100% unique does not mean “this evolved from that” – if that were true, then computer programs not being 100% unique must mean they evolved rather than the truth of common designer.

            1 See above. Beliefs ABOUT DNA that never happen do not equate to DNA being ‘evidence’ of the belief just made up about them.

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins!”

            “How do you know it does?”

            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”

            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”

            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins!”

            2 See 1. More made up beliefs about Chromosomes when the beliefs themselves never happen. You’re free to believe in it of course – cannot call it science as it’s just again circular reasoning.

            So you’ve only offered reasons to BELIEVE in evolution, but the topic is SCIENCE – as such you have to show it actually happen, not the belief it does and the reasons you believe in it.

            Not to mention the topic of cells themselves being irreducibly complex avoided by you.

            I didn’t ask for reasons you believe in evolutionism, I asked you to show it to ever happen.

            So can you? Of course not – no one can because it’s just a belief. No one needs to believe in gravity, because we can see it doing what we say it does, even if we end up being wrong about how it works – that’s science.

            Thanks for posting.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            “You forget that cells themselves are irreducibly complex”

            Citation needed. If your argument is “We don’t know how cells evolved, therefore God”, may I remind you that people have made assumptions like that all throughout history? “We don’t know where lightning comes from, therefore Zeus” was false, even when lightning was a mystery to us. The assumption of a sky wizard who magically generates what we don’t understand has been proven wrong over and over and over again throughout history, and never once proven right.

            [Watches don’t evolve]

            Watches don’t self replicate and mutate. We do. Self replication and mutation are required for evolution to occur, therefore comparing us to watches serves only to demonstrate your lack of understanding of what evolution is.

            “Beliefs ABOUT DNA that never happen do not equate to DNA being ‘evidence’ of the belief just made up about them.”

            So are you denying that all known living creatures operate off the same basic DNA “language”, and that is has been observed lengthening, shortening, and modifying through mutation? Because again, that’s all that’s needed for the DNA of one species to progressively change through the generations to match another – and when that occurs, the DNA would now be producing creatures we would consider a different species. Unless you’re proposing there are magical invisible walls preventing this from happening, it’s a logically undeniable conclusion of evolution’s capabilities from what has been observed.

            I’m not sure what the logical disconnect for you is. At the rate mutation occurs for more complex organisms like mammals, it would take millions of years to produce the kinds of dramatic changes indicated in the genetic evidence left over from prior changes. Another part of reality operating on a long timescale is continental drift – it’s happening so slowly as to be barely noticeable, but currently North America is drifting towards Asia at the rate of a few inches a year. If this pace is maintained, the two continents will close the gap and collide in around 50 million years, as that is the logical consequence of two objects growing closer until they touch.

            By saying that evolution between species cannot occur, even on a long timeframe, even though all the processes necessary for that to happen have been observed (DNA and its mutation), and even though there is evidence that it already has happened in the past (shared genes with identical malfunctions, matching chromosomes, the laryngeal nerve, atavisms, etc.) is logically equivalent to saying continents could never possibly collide, even though they’re steadily growing closer to each other.

            “I didn’t ask for reasons you believe in evolutionism, I asked you to show it to ever happen. So can you? Of course not – no one can because it’s just a belief.”

            If you saw a corpse with bullet wounds, and with ballistic fingerprinting on the bullets matching a gun found on the scene – would you deny that said gun was used to shoot the victim simply because the actual shooting was never witnessed, and instead insist that a sky wizard conjured bullets from the ether, scorched them with a fire spell to just so happen to match the gun’s ballistic fingerprint on a lark, and then telekinetically launched them into the victim?

          • Pax Humana

            You have witnessed nothing and you have also learned nothing but stupidity in your own posts. I will end your little rant with a quote from a movie with questionable morals but with a nevertheless true statement about you and your like-minded ilk. “EmpiricalPierce et al, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic
            things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent
            response were you even close to anything that could be considered a
            rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having
            listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your
            soul.” However, as for myself, I will also award absolutely NO mercy on ALL of your souls yourselves, period, full stop.

          • tplay official

            cool story bro

          • Pax Humana

            Yes, I am awesome and you and your friend are not…so, do you and your friend want to really go at me, you sub-par knock-offs of Beavis and Butt-Head, or have you learned to had enough of my awesomeness for one lifetime?

          • tplay official

            two thumbs up

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            If my arguments are stupid, you should be able to rebut them. Instead you have made no attempt to do so and instead engaged in nothing but an ad hominem fallacy.

            If you can’t actually address my points, perhaps it’s because I am correct and you are unable to defend your position?

          • Pax Humana

            I can address your points, but the only one that you REALLY have is currently on your head.

          • Pax Humana

            I can defend my position…this is how I do it, sir. Watch every martial arts film and understand every form of fighting that has ever been made…and then amp that up infinitely…yes, I am THAT awesome both intellectually AND physically. Do you feel like challenging me NOW?

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            I’ve seen Ong Bak. Until you post a video of yourself doing a roundhouse kick while on fire, I’m not impressed.

          • Reason2012

            “Citation needed.”

            Show a cell in lesser form growing into the cells today, since you’re the one claiming it. Part of the cell stops working, cell dies. Observable, repeatable, scientific fact. Want to claim otherwise? You need a citatation needed showing it.

            “If your argument is “We don’t know how cells evolved, therefore God””

            No, the argument is it’s irreducibly complex, therefore it was designed. I never said God but you’re determined to use belief in God to ignore what’s logically undeniable. The faith part is the designer. For me it’s God.

            “Watches don’t self replicate and mutate.”

            Doesn’t matter – when we have an entity that requires multiple parts to be put in place for the thing to function on it’s own, that’s irreducible complexity.

            “So are you denying that all known living creatures operate off the same basic DNA “language””

            No more than I’m denying all known computers operate off the same basic machine language. But in that case it’s

            – information

            – said information has meaning

            – said meaningful information is then meaningfully decoded

            – said decoded information is then acted upon to build organic machines

            For us to claim that’s all “just natural chance” is nothing short of intentional, or willful ignorance.

            ‘I’m not sure what the logical disconnect for you is. At the rate mutation occurs for more complex organisms like mammals, it would take millions of years to produce the kinds of dramatic changes”

            You’re free to believe what might happen in a million years, but this is about science. As such science is about things that do happen where we then find out how it might happen. Science is not about making up beliefs about what we think will happen or did happen (that the human race has never seen once) then claim it’s science.

            “By saying that evolution between species cannot occur, even on a long timeframe, even though all the processes necessary for that to happen have been observed (DNA and its mutation)..”

            False. All the processes you BELIEVE are necessary for evolutionism that you can only BELIEVE In to occur. Again, anti-science.

            “If you saw a corpse with bullet wounds, and with ballistic fingerprinting on the bullets matching a gun found on the scene”

            Ah the crime analogy. Utterly flawed. The human race has OBSERVED murders, bullets being fired, people being shot. So now it makes sense to look at evidence of ANOTHER possible such occurence that perhaps no one’s around to bear witness.

            The correct analogy is to pretend to have “evidence” someone turned your friend into a tree. You woul be laughed out of a courtroom until you FIRST establish it as scientific fact that such a thing has ever happened. Only then will they look at your “evidence” for it happening yet again.

            “And again, we’ve witnessed all we need to to know that evolution can occur”

            And yet earlier you said it takes too long to observe or witness. You seem to say whatever is convenient for the most recent thing you’re trying to say about evolutionism, not even noticing you contradict yourself.

            Please think again. It will not work when we face God to say “well how was I supposed to know? I thought nothing did it and it was all just natural chance”.

            As Jesus said, that so few churches will let people know:

            Luke 12:4-5 “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            Okay. Until you actually comprehend how DNA works and what that logically entails, there is no use whatsoever trying to have a reasonable discussion with you due to your failure to follow observed facts to their logical conclusion. So let’s focus on this one important issue and walk step by step to make sure you understand.

            DNA: Via mutation, it can mutate so that it lengthens, shortens, or modifies.

            Let’s make a hypothetical DNA string: ACAGTT.

            This code can lengthen: ACAGTT -> ACAGTTTCA

            This code can shorten: ACAGTTTCA -> GTTTCA

            And this code can modify: GTTTCA ->GCTCCA

            All of these phenomena – lengthening, shortening, and modification have been observed to happen. We are discussing indisputable facts of DNA.

            Now, all known living creatures operate off DNA, though differences in the string result in differences in the creatures. However, as has been observed and is indisputable in science, this DNA can change via mutations. Now, let’s have the following codes stand in as shorthand versions for known creatures: GTTTCATAA Is the code for a creature we would identify as a chimpanzee, and AATCCGACATTC is the code for a creature we would identify as a human.

            Now, let us watch as only processes that have been indisputably observed and confirmed to happen take place!

            GTTTCATAA -> AATTCATAA -> AATTCATAATCC -> AATTCAACATCC -> AATCCGACATTC

            Amazing! By using only processes that have been observed and confirmed as fact, we have shown that it is logically indisputable that DNA can change from the code for one creature to the code for another – in this case, the code of a creature considered a chimpanzee has used the observed processes of changing and lengthening to match the code of a creature considered a human!

            To deny this is possible, you must deny that DNA can lengthen, shorten, and change – all processes that have been observed and confirmed as fact.

            I repeat, to deny that this is possible is to deny the _OBSERVED REALITY OF WHAT DNA HAS DONE_.

            Denying this is equivalent to saying “Sure, the continents are getting closer to each other, and when objects get too close to each other they collide, but despite these observed facts, continents could never possibly collide!”

            It’s like saying “Sure, you can add one and one together to get the higher number of two, but no matter how many ones you add, you’ll never get to one million!” Even though that would be the inevitable result of adding a million ones together.

            And again, biological leftovers like shared genes and malfunctions, the oddity of our second
            chromosome, the laryngeal nerve, atavisms, etc. stand as evidence that something like this is not only possible, but has in fact already occurred in the past.

          • Reason2012

            Sorry but just because a perso does not have your evolutionary beliefs about DNA that never happen does not mean people do not understand how DNA works or what that logically entails – logical fallacy.

            DNA: it’s INFORMATION. It’s existence alone is proof of intelligent design, not proof of “nothing did it”.

            DNA: It’s meaningfully decoded. That alone is proof of intelligent design, not proof of “nothing did it”.

            DNA: It’s information that is then followed to build organic machines. That alone is proof of intelligent design, not proof of “nothing did it”.

            You continue to ignore this fact and instead move on to the mythological beliefs of evolutoinists. Stay on topic.

            Mutation of DNA has never been shown to lead to the mythological beliefs evolutionists, something else you also continue to ignore. So this means it’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact that mutations, nor anything else, leads to what evolutionists believe in. So not only is evolutionism a belief that does not happen, it’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact it does not. Want to claim otherwise? Need to SHOW it. But no one can because the human race has never seen any such thing. This is where evolutionists imply “well it takes too long, so that’s why no one will ever see it – so take my word for it that it happens anyway and call it science”.

            To “deny this possibility” that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish is observable, repeatable, scientific fact. You might as well start complaining that we are “denying the possibility” that there will be pink elephants with extra large ears they can flap to fly. Science is not about “well I believe it could happen, so call it science that it does” – science is about what DOES happen – what the human race sees doing. We can observe gravity DOING what we say it does. The human race has never observed the mythological beliefs of evolutionists to ever happen.

            All you have is wishful thinking and trying to distort science to pass off that wishful thinking as fact when it never happens. I would advise you not to bet on “There is no God b/c my great……..great grandparents were reptiles”.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            “Sorry but just because a perso does not have your evolutionary beliefs about DNA that never happen does not mean people do not understand how DNA works or what that logically entails – logical fallacy.”

            Are you denying, then, the observed fact that DNA can mutate to lengthen, shorten, and change? Because all three of those processes are, again, observed fact, and nothing more than those processes are required for the scenario I proposed to therefore be a logically undeniable possibility.

            “DNA is proof of intelligent design”

            DNA can be generated by bacteria and viruses; do they fit your definition of “intelligent?”

            Beyond that, RNA is also information, and it has been tested and confirmed capable of spontaneously generating.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801553

            So, in fact, your claim “information requires intelligence to generate!” has already been disproven.

            If you don’t think that satisfactorily rebuts all your assertions about DNA, remember that they’re just that: assertions. If you want to claim DNA requires intelligence, it’s your job to prove it.

            “Mutation of DNA has never been shown to lead to the mythological beliefs evolutionists”

            So are you saying “Since we’ve never seen continents collide, they never will, even though they’re getting closer together and we’ve seen that objects collide when they get too close!”? Because continental collision is a logically undeniable possibility of observed facts, just as the capability of DNA of one species to mutate into the DNA of a different species is a logically undeniable possibility of observed facts.

            “populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish”

            Speaking of fish, did you know that the laryngeal nerve makes far more sense in their body structure, but in mammals it has shoddy “design” and wraps around the aortic arch, making it several inches longer than it needs to be? It’s as though in mammals it’s been jury-rigged to suit a different body structure, while in fish it has not. Almost as though mammals are descended from fish ancestors, just as DNA indicates that all life is related.

            Alternately, it could have been “intelligently” designed – by a designer that is either lazy, moronic, or both. Could you clarify for me, when you’re arguing life must be “intelligently” designed, are you arguing for a lazy designer, a moronic designer, or both?

            “All you have is wishful thinking”

            Oh, that’s a riot! You see, up until recently I had been under the impression you were some sort of deist, which meant you at least recognized all religions as the obvious shams they are. That was, I thought that until you quoted “Jesus” as though the Bible is anything more than another book of human mythology.

            Do yourself a favor: Next time night falls, head outside, and think about how incredibly tiny we are next to the sun – and then recognize that the sun itself is a yellow dwarf star, a runt amongst its brothers – and that this galaxy alone has about a hundred billion stars in it.

            Now hold your outstretched to the sky. Behind just that one fingernail is a million galaxies.

            Not stars, galaxies. Each containing around a hundred billion stars. Past your fingernail lies ONE HUNDRED QUADRILLION STARS, 100,000,000,000,000,000 stars, and we are less than specks next to any one of them. Now consider just how many fingernails it would take to cover the night sky entirely.

            When the scope of the universe begins to sink in, I understand – and on some level am even tempted to agree with – the notion that a being immeasurably greater than us exists. An infinite entity worthy of the word God.

            But at the same time, there is something I simply cannot understand: I cannot understand how someone could realize the magnificence of the universe, and yet somehow still believe that an amazingly powerful God came to a single part of a single planet of a single solar system of a single galaxy of a single supercluster of our universe – a speck in a speck in a speck in a speck in a speck – and found it important to tell the people there not to trim the edges of their beards.

            What? Just… What? Of all the wisdom and knowledge we have collected since ancient times, of all the manifold mysteries we have yet to solve, people actually believe that this fucking sham of an insight merited mention over a nigh infinite number of alternatives that would be superior simply by grace of not being utterly worthless? People actually believe this book, with all its commanded genocide and nonsensical and vile laws is the work of a being capable of creating our wondrous universe? People actually believe a being so amazingly grand could be so incredibly small-minded?

            What a joke.

            The idea that the Bible was created by an entity greater than the universe is laughable. But the idea that the Bible was created by small-minded humans, who made the small-minded god Yahweh in their own image, that makes sense. The Abrahamic religions are simply mortal inventions like all the others.

            Do yourself a favor and leave your so-called holy book behind. Whether or not any being worthy of being called God exists, if any answer exists to be found, it will be found out in the vast cosmos, not inside the superstitious ramblings of bronze age goatherders.

          • Reason2012

            “Are you denying, then, the observed fact that DNA can mutate to lengthen, shorten, and change?”

            No, I’m denying the FACT that it never leads to the mythological claims evolutionists say it does. Please show an observation of that or ANYTHING leading to populations of fish “evolving” over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Show that for ANY animal: the observable, repeatable FACT is no such thing has never happen in the entire existence of the human race. Why do you hate such scientific fact?

            “…the scenario I proposed to therefore be a logically undeniable possibility.”

            And therein lies your issue. You think science is about making up mythological beliefs about things you claim are possible. Science is about things that DO happen. Huge difference.

            “DNA can be generated by bacteria and viruses;”

            No, they can only CORRUPT what’s already there – they can never create it to begin with. The flat out EXISTENCE of DNA is proof of intelligent design. Hard drives can corrupt computer programs – doesn’t make hard drive corruption intelligent either, which is your flawed analogy.

            “Beyond that, RNA is also information, and it has been tested and confirmed capable of spontaneously generating.”

            No, it’s only been shown to be corrupted, not to be created when there was none before. Huge difference.

            “If you want to claim DNA requires intelligence, it’s your job to prove it.”

            No one needs to prove that information (meaning it has MEANING) is proof of intelligent design – only someone who is determined to be willfully ignorant would even begin to deny such common sense. But it’s worse: this information is then decoded and acted upon to build organic machines. Willful ignorance to pretend “nothing did it” or “it just happened”

            “So are you saying “Since we’ve never seen continents collide, they never will, even though they’re getting closer together and we’ve seen that objects collide when they get too close!”? Because continental collision is a logically undeniable possibility of observed facts, just as the capability of DNA of one species to mutate into the DNA of a different species is a logically undeniable possibility of observed facts.”

            False. Making up mythological beliefs that corruption of DNA will lead to populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations to grow lungs, legs, breath air and walk on land is just mythological storytelling and hardly the same thing as us being able to see land move and then say “well it will move some more”. The correct analogy would be “the continents will move and eventually make their way to the moon”.

            “Speaking of fish, did you know that the laryngeal nerve makes far more sense in their body structure, …”

            You seem to forget this is about science, not about mythological storytelling wrapped around “well this makes more sense to me so take my word for it that it happens and call it science anyway”..

            “Oh, that’s a riot! You see, up until recently I had been under the impression you were some sort of deist, which meant you at least recognized all religions as the obvious shams they are. That was, I thought that until you quoted “Jesus” as though the Bible is anything more than another book of human mythology.”

            Attacking belief in God doesn’t make evolutionism science. But it does show time and again what evolutionism is really about.

            “When the scope of the universe begins to sink in, I understand – and on some level am even tempted to agree with – the notion that a being immeasurably greater than us exists. An infinite entity worthy of the word God.”

            Bingo.

            Psalms 97:6 “The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.”

            “But at the same time, there is something I simply cannot understand: I cannot understand how someone could realize the magnificence of the universe, and yet somehow still believe that an amazingly powerful God came to a single part of a single planet of a single solar system of a single galaxy of a single supercluster of our universe – a speck in a speck in a speck in a speck in a speck – and found it important to tell the people there not to trim the edges of their beards.”

            How many planets would He have to do that to before you’d then say “ok – there is God”? Answer? No amount – you would just seek another reason to reject Him, as would I before I had faith in Him.

            Did God have to make the universe small to satisfy you?

            Only one planet to satisfy you?

            Because, as you point out, He shows His glory, you reject Him because He should have only created a couple of planets instead?

            You’re only seeking reasons to reject Him – you’re only fooling yourself.

            “What? Just… What? Of all the wisdom and knowledge we have collected since ancient times, of all the manifold mysteries we have yet to solve, people actually believe that this ****** sham of an insight merited mention over a nigh infinite number of alternatives that would be superior simply by grace of not being utterly worthless?”

            Assume God exists. If there’s only one truth about God, why should other “alternatives” mean He doesn’t exist? Again it’s just an excuse to reject Him, kidding ourselves that this will allow us to spit on Him now and have Him just forgive us when we die and face Him.

            “People actually believe this book, with all its commanded genocide ”

            No, it’s judgment upon nations that sinned for generations and centuries and refused to repent. What did the 55 MILLION sons/daughters that get slain by their own parents in the past few decades do (called abortion)? Not a thing – yet you completely ignore it, which exposes your hypocrisy at pretending to judge God for genocide while those who do not really believe in God have made it nice and legal to slaughter 55 MILLION sons/daughters with over a million more every year.

            “..and nonsensical and vile laws is the work of a being capable of creating our wondrous universe? People actually believe a being so amazingly grand could be so incredibly small-minded?”

            See above. You judge Him while supporting genocide of 100% innnocents – 55 MILLION of them in the past few decades. Making a pretense for us to judge God falls completely and utterly flat, or as you put it, is a complete joke.

            “The idea that the Bible was created by an entity greater than the universe is laughable.”

            So because God gave us His Word, that means He doesn’t exist? So if He never gave us His word, NOW you’ll believe in Him? Hardly. Just another excuse you’ve been fed, friend.

            “But the idea that the Bible was created by small-minded humans, who made the small-minded god Yahweh in their own image, that makes sense. The Abrahamic religions are simply mortal inventions like all the others.”

            Small minded? Fact, friend: There are scientific facts IN the Bible that were known hundres and THOUSANDS of years before scientists ever figured them out. These “small minded” people wrote about things they could not have possibly known about, which further condemns us.

            Scientific facts in the Bible thousands of years before scientists ever discovered them, when people could not have possibly figured such things out yet, which is more proof there’s far more to the Bible than just another “man-made book”.

            http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

            1 Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

            2 Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

            At a time when it was believed that the earth sat? on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

            3 Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists “discovered” them. “The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits” (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

            4 The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled,” and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

            5 Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean” (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.”

            6 Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.

            7 “During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’ However, careful attention to the medical commands of God as revealed in Leviticus would have saved untold millions of lives. Arturo Castiglione wrote about the overwhelming importance of this biblical medical law: ‘The laws against leprosyin Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first model of sanitary legislation’ (A History of Medicine).” Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God With all these truths revealed in Scripture,how could a thinking person deny that the Bible is supernatural in origin? There is no other book in any of the world’s religions (Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) that contains scientific truth. In fact, they contain statements that are clearly unscientific. Hank Hanegraaff said, “Faith in Christ is not some blind leap into a dark chasm, but a faith based on established evidence.” (11:3 continued)

            8 At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

            9 The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world

            10 God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?” (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when “British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing” (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

            There’s many more than this. We will be without excuse when we face God – forgiveness is available now, but will not be when it’s too late. You do realize the devil would do all he can to deceive as many as he can, do you not? Jesus spent more time warning about avoiding hell than about gaining heaven. Please think on these things.

            Thanks for posting.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            “Show that for ANY animal”

            OK.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

            Look at how all the different creationists argue over these transitional skull fossils between humans and an apelike ancestor. To quote: “As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to agree on which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Now we’re even seeing the phenomenon of creationists who can’t quite decide if an individual skull is human or ape – and yet they’re quite sure it can’t be an intermediate”

            The obvious answer is right in front of them, that these are in fact transitional fossils between species and thus blur the line between humans and apes, but they’re emotionally committed to believing they’re Jesus’s special little snowflakes, so they refuse to accept the reality staring them right in the face.

            “Science is about things that DO happen.”

            Here’s something we’ve confirmed does happen: DNA can mutate to lengthen, shorten, and change its code. Unless you have compelling evidence that there is some invisible wall saying “NO MUTATION BEYOND THIS POINT” to prevent these changes from modifying the code of one recognized species into another, such is in fact possible. Just as collision of continents is possible unless there are invisible walls saying “NO CONTINENTAL DRIFT BEYOND THIS POINT”.

            “No, they can only CORRUPT what’s already there”

            Define “corruption”, and explain how it is different from the creation of new DNA or RNA in your lexicon.

            “No one needs to prove that information (meaning it has MEANING) is proof of intelligent design – only someone who is determined to be willfully ignorant would even begin to deny such common sense.”

            It was once common sense that the sun orbited the Earth. After all, we feel stationary and we see the glowing light moving through the sky!

            In other words, your argument is nonsense. Prove DNA requires intelligence.

            “False. Making up mythological beliefs that corruption of DNA will lead to populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations to grow lungs, legs, breath air and walk on land is just mythological storytelling”

            Except the only thing separating one species from another is the length and order of the letters in DNA, and both have been observed to change via reproduction and mutation. Again, unless you have evidence of a magical inivisble wall to prevent these changes from stacking up until the DNA of one species has finished changing to match the DNA of another, what you call “mythology” has been undeniably proven possible.

            “You seem to forget this is about science, not about mythological storytelling wrapped around “well this makes more sense to me so take my word for it that it happens and call it science anyway””

            In other words, “I don’t want to talk about the laryngeal nerve because its structure is a severe challenge to the notion of an intelligent designer and powerful evidence of the significant modification of body structures through evolution, therefore I will try and dismiss it without providing any actual argument”.

            No dice. If you don’t have a rebuttal for the evidence that the laryngeal nerve both contradicts your notions of an intelligent designer and supports evolution, then admit it.

            “Attacking belief in God doesn’t make evolutionism science.”

            I never said it did. I’m just calling you out for pretending to be concerned about evidence and logic while sacrificing your brain on the altar of a nonsensical bronze age sky deity.

            “How many planets would He have to do that to before you’d then say “ok – there is God”?”

            At the very least he could have done one full planet, instead of allegedly visiting a single backwards tribal culture to tell them his grand divine message of not trimming their beards, and his brilliant(ly false) insight that rabbits chew the cud, or that goats looking at striped rods makes them have spotted foals.

            Then he spends however many centuries dicking around with this one tribe before deciding that maybe he should get on telling the whole world he’s the one true god – and his master plan is supposedly to provide evidence at one time and place two millennia ago, then rely on word of mouth and a book which has been altered significantly altered since its original writing as his “divine message”. A “divine message” with many verifiably false claims, such as a global flood and miraculously powerful prayer exceeding the alleged feats of Jesus.

            Ol’ Yahweh is incredibly incompetent and inefficient for a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient deity.

            “You’re only seeking reasons to reject Him – you’re only fooling yourself.”

            You’re only seeking to reject Vishnu – you’re only fooling yourself.

            Why should I take you seriously, but not Hindus, Muslims, or any other religious follower?

            “No, it’s judgment upon nations that sinned for generations and centuries and refused to repent. What did the 55 MILLION sons/daughters that get slain by their own parents in the past few decades do (called abortion)? Not a thing – yet you completely ignore it, which exposes your hypocrisy at pretending to judge God for genocide while those who do not really believe in God have made it nice and legal to slaughter 55 MILLION sons/daughters with over a million more every year.”

            I’m going to put aside for the moment the argument one whether or not fetuses deserve the same moral consideration as born humans. For the moment, let’s assume you’re correct and say that aborting a fetus is murder, and abortion on the whole is equivalent to genocide.

            Pause a moment and look at what you’re arguing here: A tu quoque, saying “You can’t judge Yahweh for supporting genocide because you do it too!” while at the same time denouncing it as evil.

            This puts you in an incredibly awkward position with two unenviable choices:

            1. Genocide is acceptable – exonerating Yahweh, but meaning abortion is okay

            2. Genocide is unacceptable – making abortion and your mass-murdering Yahweh both evil.

            Or, there is a third option I commonly see: It’s OK when Yahweh does it because he’s a supreme being. In other words, might makes right – tyrants are allowed to do anything they want and those weaker just have to accept it, no matter how horrific.

            “So because God gave us His Word, that means He doesn’t exist? ”

            No. What I’m saying is that the Bible is a pile of superstitious tripe and nonsense, making the notion that a divine being had anything to do with its authorship complete nonsense. If a divine being capable of creating this vast universe does indeed exist, comparing it to the small minded, petty, and ignorant Yahweh invented by a bronze age tribe is an insult to the actual divine being, whatever it is.

            “1 Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.””

            Careful straining your metaphors. Considering the superstious beliefs of the ancients in invisible beings like souls and demons, this is more likely an argument for those.

            Speaking of which, there’s no evidence that souls or demons exist. A shame no one told the author of the new testament that when he was inventing stories about a magical rabbi driving pigs off cliffs.

            “2 Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.”

            More logical explanation: The tribe of genital mutilators found the least terrible day for chopping off part of an infant’s penis through trial and fatal error, then wrote it in a book and claimed it was divine wisdom. Meanwhile, many other civilizations never engaged in this grotesque practice.

            “At a time when it was believed that the earth sat? on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He…hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).”

            If that passage is evidence the Hebrews believed the Earth floated in space, then by the same standard Isaiah 11:12 is evidence they believed the Earth had four corners – which would require it to be a flat plane, since oblate spheroids don’t have corners. Likewise, Psalms 104:5 is evidence they believed the Earth was immobile, as opposed to rotating around the sun. Sorry, but an omniscient God should by its very nature get all answers correct – instead the evidence suggests they guessed one right and two wrong, indicating the Bible contains the insight of fallible bronze age humans, not an infallible God.

            “3 Solomon described a “cycle” of air currents”

            The scientific discovery was actually mapping them out and explaining the mechanism. If noticing the wind blows from a certain direction without specifics or explanation of mechanisms counts as a “scientific discovery”, then children “scientifically discover” gravity the first time they see something fall.

            “the importance of blood”

            Sure, they’ve got one up on the people who ever got it in their heads that bleeding a patient was a good idea.

            “However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.””

            Sound advice. Too bad Jesus revoked it in John 13:10 and Mark 7:1-15. Jesus is supposed to be Yahweh, right? What’s an omniscient, perfect deity doing contradicting itself?

            “6 Luke 17:34–36 says the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field.”

            And Matthew 24:29 describes some incredible, unmissable signs of the second coming, such as the sun and moon darkening and the stars falling… Then says in 24:34 that “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

            That generation has been dead for nearly 2,000 years, and the prophecied signs have not happened. The prophecy failed.

            “This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.”

            And the Greeks already knew this around 5th century BC. It seems that the writers of the new testament learned from more advanced civilizations that the Earth is in fact round, unlike old testament Isaiah’s claim to a flat and cornered Earth. Funny how “omniscient” Yahweh’s knowledge was originally incorrect, then suddenly updates itself according to the progressing knowledge of humans.

            “7 “During the devastating Black Death of the fourteenth century, patients who were sick or dead were kept in the same rooms as the rest of the family. People often wondered why the disease was affecting so many people at one time. They attributed these epidemics to ‘bad air’ or ‘evil spirits.’”

            You mean kind of like how Jesus blamed what was apparently epileptic seizures on demons in Matthew 17:15-18?

            Quick reminder: The existence of demons, souls, and the like is unsupported by evidence.

            “8”

            Already mentioned that one.

            “9 The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth””

            Again, by the same standards the reference to four corners earlier in Isaiah means the Earth is flat and has corners. Plus claims like Matthew 4:8, where supposedly the devil took Jesus up on a mountain to see “all the kingdoms of the world”, a feat only possible on a flat Earth. Yahweh can’t seem to make up his mind!

            “10 God told Job in 1500 B.C.: “Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?””

            By the same standard, any culture that posited a god of lightning such as Zeus or Thor was making an accurate scientific claim.

            “Jesus spent more time warning about avoiding hell than about gaining heaven.”

            Speaking of which, did you know that the concept of places of reward and torture in the afterlife are inventions produced later in the development of Abrahamic beliefs? Ecclesiastes 9:5-6: “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.”

            Which directly contradicts the notion of a heavenly reward, plus the picture painted of hell in Luke 16:22-24, which paints hell as a place of active torment.

            Again, the Bible keeps changing its story and contradicting itself! It’s almost as if the Bible was not written by an omniscient and infallible god, but by multiple humans with no divine inspiration with contradictory theological ideas that they made up as they went along.

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t say show your BELIEF about fossils that never happens and claim it happened – I said to show the human race ever seeing it happen.

            So we agree you cannot. You are free to believe in it, but cannot call it science as it’s observable, repeatable, scientific fact it has not.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            I notice you have not replied to anything except for a single portion of my post. You also have not acknowledged what was written to express the intent to come back and address it later. Are you conceding that you cannot defend those beliefs, then? You can’t argue against the evidence of the Bible having both natural and miraculous claims that are contradicted by reality, that the Bible repeatedly contradicts itself, and that the prophecy of Jesus returning has blatantly failed?

            This brings me to an interesting issue I’ve noticed with your belief-forming process. You reject the mountains of circumstantial evidence that indicates common descent is true, even though the observational evidence of DNA clearly demonstrates it’s something within the realm of possibility and makes evolution the single most compelling explanation of the facts available, above and beyond every other alternative.

            Instead, you believe in intelligent design, which is sharply contradicted by evidence in the human body that shows that if we did indeed have a designer, said designer is incredibly stupid and did an incompetent hack job of it (which makes sense for a mindless process of evolution, but does not make sense with the belief that humans were designed from the ground up expressly to exist in our current forms).

            And you also believe in the Bible, despite all the contradictions with itself and reality I listed above and more.

            Why the incredibly flagrant double standard? If evolution with all its evidential support does not meet your standards, then intelligent design and Christianity certainly shouldn’t. You should be laughing at such religious nonsense as hopelessly ridiculous in the extreme.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. You cannot even refute the one thing I pointed out and the rest of your post is nothing but more of the same: reasons you BELIEVE what you do. But this is about science, which is things that actually happen, not what you BELIEVE will eventually happen.

            So that you cannot even address the FACT that you only offer beliefs about fossils is just a belief, you make it clear you’re not interested in what’s science, only in what you demand be called science even though it’s anti-science.

            So again: making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens does not instantly make fossils “evidence” of that belief you just made up about them that never happens.

            Your refutation? You haven’t given one.

            Not to mention you ignored when I pointed out in the above post: “I’m denying the FACT that it never leads to the mythological claims evolutionists say it does. Please show an observation of that or ANYTHING leading to populations of fish “evolving” over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Show that for ANY animal: the observable, repeatable FACT is no such thing has never happen in the entire existence of the human race. Why do you hate such scientific fact?”

            Your refutation? You haven’t given one. You instead go on to other topics, which shows you’re not interested in having your points addressed.

            And creation by God cannot be called science either. So attacking the Bible does not make the mythology of evolutionism science. The bottom line is the topics of origins (of life, or of all biological diversity of life, or of the universe itself) is beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            From Dictionary.com: Science is “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.”

            The theory of evolution combined both both the circumstantial facts and truths of the state of the world we live in with the observed processes of DNA to compose a coherent and consistent framework to explain why the world is the way it is. That is sufficient to be called science.

            You are simply imposing your own personal definition on science, whatever that definition may be, which you designed to purposely exclude evolution so that you can say evolution “isn’t science”, and then you’ve acted as though the mere act of redefining words has given you an argument. Your claim that analyzing circumstantial evidence cannot be considered science is simply delusion on your part.

            Evolution is the only explanation we have consistent with all the evidence. Circumstantial evidence powerfully supports common descent, and observational evidence of DNA proves such claims are realistic. Yet for some reason you disbelieve it while believing in Christian intelligent design, which not only sharply contradicts the evidence of reality in multiple places, but even frequently contradicts itself, rendering it inconsistent and incoherent.

            What do you have to say about your flagrant double standard, which rejects the strongly supported and embraces the ridiculous and self-contradictory?

          • Reason2012

            Nowhere in that definition does it say “making up beliefs about fossils (or anything) else that never happens”. Science is about things that actually happen – then we come up with theories about how it happens. It’s not about making up mythological beliefs that never happen like evolutionism and giving us reasons to believe in it.

            So again, you haven’t addressed what I pointed out about fossils: evolutionists make up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happen, then pretend that instantly makes fossils “evidence” of the belief they just made up about it.

            Might as well call it science that trees evolved into people and claim dug up tree branches are “evidence” of it – just as anti-science.

            Science is not “well evolutionism is the made up belief I like best that in my opinion makes the most sense”. Feel free to believe in it. Want to call it science? have to show it to actually happen.

            What double standard? I already told you creation by God cannot be called science either. The topic of origins (of life, of the universe, of biological diversity of life) are beyond the scope of SCIENCE as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table).

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            In other words, you believe “Continental collision could never happen since I’ve never personally witnessed it happening, even though the continents are drifting closer to each other and objects that get too close to each other collide!”

            We have directly observed all the components necessary for interspecies evolution to occur. The only thing separating one species from another is the length and letters of DNA, and we’ve observed both of those changing via mutation – which means even if you stubbornly insist that interspecies change has never happened in the past despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence, denying that it _can_ happen requires denial of observed scientific fact.

            Since we know for a fact that interspecies change can happen due to the functionality of DNA, there’s really no reason to deny the circumstantial evidence that it already has happened except for willful denial of reality whenever it contradicts your wishful religious delusions.

            Speaking of which, there actually is one important part of Christianity that is scientifically testable by your definition: Prayer. The Bible makes a testable claim about prayer in John 14:12-14, saying that Christians will be able to accomplish greater miracles than those allegedly accomplished by Jesus in the Bible, and further says “If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.” Not “Ask and I’ll probably say no”, not “Ask and I’ll do it for certain types of requests”, the Bible says anything a believer asks for will be done.

            Which means that either A: There are a grand total of zero Christians in the world or B: The claims about prayer are blatantly false. Because any and every person in the world can try and ask for Jesus to instantly heal a wound or illness, yet they will not vanish upon the moment of request. Any and every person can pray for an amputated limb to regenerate, but it never, ever has. This is why hospitals are staffed by nurses and doctors instead of faith healers: Because faith healers are all charlatans taking advantage of human superstition and gullibility.

            And again: The Bible also made a testable claim that the sun and moon would darken and the stars would fall before the generation Jesus was speaking to had all died. That generation has been dead for nearly 2,000 years and it didn’t happen. The test failed. The Bible is false.

            So since the Bible has blatantly failed its testable claims, are you going to stop believing in it now? Or are you going to persist because you prefer your wishful delusions to reality?

          • Reason2012

            No, we observe what we call “tectonic plates” moving. So we can say “tectonic plates will move some MORE”. Evolutoinists’ version of it would be “eventually the continents could collide with the moon” and pretend “tectonic plates moving” is ‘evidence’ of it.

            “We have observed all the components necessary for continents to collide with the moon” would be the similar anti-science “logic”

            No, evolutionists only BELIEVE there are “components” to evolutionism.

            No, science is not “there’s no reasons to not BELIEVE that what we believe in could happen”. Science is not about mythology that can only be BELIEVED in and can only be given reasons to BELIEVE in it.

            So you admit it can’t be observed but must be taken by faith. I rest my case.

            And for the fourth time now you STILL haven’t addressed the fact that evolutionists make up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happen, then pretend that instantly makes fossils “evidence” of the belief they just made up about it.

            Might as well call it science that trees evolved into people and claim dug up tree branches are “evidence” of it – just as anti-science.

            Science is not “well evolutionism is the made up belief I like best that in my opinion makes the most sense”. Feel free to believe in it. Want to call it science? have to show it to actually happen.

            Attacking the Bible and what Christians believe does not make evolutionism science, but it does show yet again what evolutionism is REALLY about. And post after post, reasons to BELIEVE in evolution, and attacks on the Bible and Christianity is all you can bring to the table where this is supposed to be about science.

            I rest my case. Take care.

          • http://empiricalpierce.wordpress.com/ EmpiricalPierce

            And time after time, you ignore the fact that DNA is what defines how species are formed, the only thing separating species is the length and arrangement of the DNA code, and that both length and arrangement have been observed changing through mutation. Not a single bit of that is “made up beliefs”, as much as you’d like to drag science down to the level of your superstitious mythology.

            Unless you have evidence of some magical invisible wall preventing DNA from mutating beyond a certain point, you have no case. I’m tired of putting up with you pretending everyone operates off wishful thinking and reality denial like you.

    • deb

      I don’t pretend to “know” how it all evolved but I recently read an interesting article about the possibility that the bible was written by people who were schizophrenic. Just another “possibility.” No one knows. Science can only tell us so much and the bible…well…I rest my case. Being religious (a believer in God or whatever) or being an atheist is to say you “know” the answers. That seems to me to be very arrogant.

  • Jerry Wilson

    First of all this guy doesn’t understand evolution because he’s not a biologist. Of all the scientists who signed the dissent paper, almost none were biologists. Second, he’s dissing the wrong theory about life’s origins. Evolution does not address that issue. Third, to say he or any other scientist doesn’t know how life originated is not an indictment against science. Science is all about finding answers. Sometimes it gets it wrong. But it always corrects itself. Jumping to the conclusion that God did it just because you don’t understand it is abdicating your scientific responsibilities. Finally, it is not necessary to observe something in progress for it to have been discovered. Some things act so slowly that observation is not possible. Does that mean they can’t have happened? Of course not. There are countless clues to how evolution proceeded, in the First of all this guy doesn’t understand evolution because he’s not a biologist. Of all the scientists who signed the dissent paper, almost none were biologists. Second, he’s dissing the wrong theory about life’s origins. Evolution does not address that issue. Third, to say he or any other scientist doesn’t know how life originated is not an indictment against science. Science is all about finding answers. Sometimes it gets it wrong. But it always corrects itself. Jumping to the conclusion that God did it just because you don’t understand it is abdicating your scientific responsibilities. Finally, it is not necessary to observe something in progress for it to have been discovered. Some things act so slowly that observation is not possible. Does that mean they can’t have happened? Of course not. There are countless clues to how evolution proceeded, in the rocks, in fossils, and most telling, in dna sampling. Evolution, even macro evolution, is a fact. And this scientists inability to understand it says far more about his credentials than it says about any weakness in the science. rocks, in fossils, and most telling, in dna sampling. Evolution, even macro evolution, is a fact.

    • Daniel Foley

      The reason that most of the people who signed the dissent paper were non-biologists is because physicists, chemists, and mathematicians have all ultimately concluded that even the slightest bit of proposed macroevolution is so improbable that it is just not a valid hypothesis.

      Secondly, he’s not dissing evolution over the origin of life. He’s saying that public proponents of evolution admit to not even understanding it themselves.

      Thirdly, you call DNA sampling into question. Well, here’s the thing: we all live in the same universe. And what’s so special about that, you may say? Well, it puts commonalities in everything, because we all have to survive on this planet. Evolutionists take these commonalities and say “oh look, humans are similar to apes, they must have common ancestors!” Yes, we are similar to apes, but that does not prove anything. We live in the same universe, so of course we’re going to have commonalities. Diversity and similarity proves neither ID or evolution. It merely shows that we live in a common universe.

      • CarbonUnitDale

        Those physicists, chemists, and mathematicians just need to add millions and/or billions of years for the macroevolution hypothesis to work (of course you really need 10^googol years).

  • MEP1101

    GODLESS EVOLUTION is just a Marxist, “Secular Humanist” religious doctrine. So true believing G.Eers will just dismiss the 900 dissenting scientists as ” religious fanatics”.

    • Don Fernando de SF

      It’s interesting to research the ‘thought bombs’ that have exploded for the past few centuries destroying the ability for critical thinking. I’ll mention just two major influences. 1/ John D. Rockefeller funded seminaries, such as Union Theological that imported German ‘higher criticism’ that basically said a/ miracles are not possible b/ any mention in the Bible of miracles proves it’s a false book c/ the Bible is not the historic Word of God. These teachings have infiltrated ‘Christian’ academia where about 60% teach God used evolution. However, the Hebrew word for ‘day’ (yom) is used overwhelmingly in the Bible to denote a normal 24 hour day (over a 1000 times in the Old Test.). Further in the 10 Commandments it is clear that ‘day’ is meant as a 24 hour day. Therefore, the belief that God used millions of years of evolution, death and decay before Adam and Eve is not in the Bible. God didn’t put into motion to the half-man/half ape lineage of Adam and Eve. The record states He made them fully formed in one day. Btw, it is also strange to think accidents created the first man; and then where did woman come from? Did a man morph into a woman? That reminds me of some who believe that a cow wandered into the ocean and eventually became the first whale — this is actually serious! 2/ in 1948 an American communist revealed that the communists aim was to destroy America from within, ie, ‘thought bombs.’ Their primary target was God and the Bible; they didn’t focus on other beliefs, because they knew this was the main opponent. We see today that any belief can be taught in schools, from witchcraft to earth worship, or Hindu religion / yoga (they are glued together). The man was murdered for his disclosures. In the Humanist Manifesto(s) we see the same target: destroy the belief in God and the Bible. And so I would put forth the very great possibility that the teaching of evolution is actually an indoctrination by ‘elite’ because if people believe they are descended (ascended?) from animals God will be forgotten. Every despot used evolution as an excuse. We see that Darwin’s Origin is subtitled ‘the favored races in the struggle for life’ (paraphrase). To be an evolutionist is to believe there are superior and inferior races. The Bible states that all are of ‘one blood’ there is only one human race, not races. Further, the law of God states that 1/ life only comes from life 2/ kinds only produce their kinds; cats always remain cats, even though there are many varieties. There is no evidence at all in the fossil record of anything morphing into another species. Also, in cases of animals, they often show signs of horrible instant deaths, they were not dead first and then buried. They were buried in cataclysmic forces. The curator for the London museum, among many other scientists have said that the museums should be filled with transitional fossils, but they have zero. All we find are complete forms, just as the Bible states. And why should Noah’s flood be discounted, when it is just as a good ‘starting point’ to explain the very existence of fossils and the earth’s geology. Example is Mt. St. Helens; after a few dozen years the land exhibits the seeming nature of ‘millions of years’ of slow processes, including ‘mini Grand Canyon’… local floods produce such mini Grand Canyons. AND sedimentary rock itself is formed by water and sediment, and most of the earth’s rocks are sedimentary. AND sea creatures are found atop mountains. Further, more than 300 ancient civilizations record a great flood; are we to ignore this when the other historical records by these civilizations are studied as true accounts? It is fairer to offer both sides in schools, yet the ‘elite’ stranglehold on ‘education’ says only evolution should be taught in schools, that creationism is religion, not science. Yet, modern science itself was for the most part developed by Bible-believing scientific giants such as Newton (#1 scientist of all time), Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Mendels, Agassiz, da Vinci, Pascal, Ramsay, Joule, Linnaeus and several dozen other giants; Joule, Davy, Kelvin I will mention especially because they formulated thermodynamics, which are scientific laws as proven as any have been. And they contradict evolution. Why, after 150 years is evolution still a ‘theory’ and not a scientific law? Why does it contradict proven scientific laws such as life only from life, kind only from kind, precision only from precision, etc. Species are becoming extinct, not improving; the universe is winding down, not winding ‘up.’

  • deb

    No one really “knows.” That is the problem, if you want to call it that. It is also the reason I’m sort of an agnostic who “hopes” that there is something else (God) out there. No one can really know. “Belief” is just that…belief. Doesn’t mean a thing.

  • wfraser11

    Dear renowned chemist. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life.
    what an intentionally ignorant assault on established sciences like geology, paleontology, biology and astronomy, earth science etc. What a sad commentary on a religious life so distorted it has to resort to assaults on the basics of science.
    The 9th Commandmanet is clear about not bearing false witness. This “scientist” has intentionally failed to even grasp that evolution is not involved in abiogenesis at all. It sis the study of the evolution of life through time on the planet, something we see going on
    in the rock record, biology and many other related sciences. Assaulting established science with misinfom=rmation is not Christian. And science has NOTHING to do with one’s religious faith. What a sick sick man and a sad commentary that this publication would print something so intentionally ignorant and deceptive. Shame on you CBN

    • CarbonUnitDale

      I see that same old canard on most discussions like this – “Origins has nothing to do with evolution!”. Without the Origin of Life there is nothing for your precious evolution to work with! I like the way all you evolutionists just add up a bunch of little steps that mysteriously become the big/macro steps needed to jump the kind/species barriers and while you’re at it you may as well add in millions and/or billions of years (you really need 10^googol years).

  • Siim Tuulik

    Well it’s all nice and dandy but the evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, evolution is just there to explain the complexity of lifeforms. It’s a pointless article, it is as “Renowned marine biologists says chemists do not understand whales.

    • CarbonUnitDale

      What a dodge; can’t answer the problem – just ignore it as though it isn’t an issue, I see that same old canard on most discussions like this – “Origins has nothing to do with evolution!”. Without the Origin of Life there is nothing for your precious evolution to work with! I like the way all you evolutionists just add up a bunch of little steps that mysteriously become the big/macro steps needed to jump the kind/species barriers and while you’re at it you may as well add in millions and/or billions of years (you really need 10^googol years).

      • tplay official

        He just gave you an example that you can actually go to Europe and look at.

        • Pax Humana

          Your example is a lie.

          • tplay official

            you don’t even understand what has been posted

          • Pax Humana

            You do not even understand that you have already lost when you chose me as an opponent.

          • tplay official

            I did not chose you for anything. You are completely irrelevant to the whole worldwide scientific community. No one will ever look to you for answers on any important matter. Your entire life’s impact will be limited to the handful people unlucky enough to glance at your internet detritus on their way to do better things.

  • Jeremy Berryman

    Goddidit – I dunno, so that must be the answer. My god, not your god or any other god, but my god.

  • YemiO

    As with barrels, so with scientists – the empty ones show the least faith.

  • Richard Forrest

    Do you suppose that if he doesn’t know the answer to a problem in his particular field of chemistry, he invokes the intervention of “intelligent agency”, using unspecified but possibly supernatural methods as an explanation?

    Of course he doesn’t!

    Science exists not because of what we know, but because of what we don’t known. In science, if we don’t have a robust answer to a question, we say I don’t know and carry on looking. We don’t abandon science in favour of supernatural explanations, and no honest scientist demands that we redefine the fundamental nature of science so that supernatural explanations can be accommodated.

    Contrary to the implications of the DI’s “Dissent from Darwinism” document, “Darwinian theory” has been subject to considerable skeptical investigation, and has been revised in the light to our vastly increased body of knowledge so far beyond Darwin’s original formulation to the extent that very few evolutionary biologists would refer to themselves as “Darwinists” or to evolutionary theory as “Darwinism”. So far, his theory of evolution by natural selection – which is only a part of how we define evolutionary theory today – has proved to be remarkably robust, and has been studied down to the level of the individual genetic mutations which are propagated through populations of organisms by the environmental forces of selection.

    The distinction between micro- and macroevolution is a straw man much beloved by creationists, but which either from ignorance or design misrepresents the meaning of those terms. They were coined by evolutionary biologists to refer to evolution above and below the level of speciation, and as numerous observed instances of speciation are recorded in the scientific literature, it is no more than a statement of simple fact that we have observed macroevolutionary events. That creationists dissemble over this, and demand evidence for evolution between “kinds” demonstrates only the weakness of their arguments as creationists can’t agree on any biologically meaningful and logically coherent way of identifying kinds.

  • Dave Falanga

    Dr. Don Patton’s Play List
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4F3A606F56B06D3F
    The Giants in Genesis 6 Play List …12 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHVzHmC8eh9Nsr-_gq6wdI-NacbM_jbSp
    Ian Juby…7 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHVzHmC8eh9MUzdoTrzDJjBn1z9eu-pwB
    Evolution Handbook…54 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHVzHmC8eh9MnN4MfrAeyLz-A0aFRjS0V
    Karl Priest 107 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2017A89796441B37
    ICR 1…189 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7E728A3BC1BCCF4A
    ICR 2…192 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL282CFC439E4A4C53
    ICR 3…32 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0C405901404E5B72
    Creation
    / Evolution 1…181 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC78AB652F6856E5C
    Creation / Evolution 2…180 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFD4C1442022FFFF2
    Neanderthal…13 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA23280A14AC9F2A6
    Dinosaurs…18 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFE5931483BDDB3B8
    Carl Baugh
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD1E0A4EFA11EB0EC
    CM 1… 192 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0E5D976888F442BC
    CM 2… 200 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC063FCB1E9AF0470
    CM 3
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHVzHmC8eh9PGo85vWYcGozGjIEO6aBk4
    CM 4…118 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHVzHmC8eh9MxNeLF2_JTsKO-lLBh1SFu
    Chimp to Man…13 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC0EF7496C8C721DD
    CMI…69 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2283CD81F3788F1B
    Eye…21 videos
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL27A24E718989BAAA
    Bees 11 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4F1EF9E1B49F210B
    Kent Hovind…various languages…12 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF6FD9D7CAA6F00D1
    Kent Hovind with subtitles… Dinos and Bible…17 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDEFFAAB371BAFF2B
    Kent Hovind Lies in Textbooks subtitles…9 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL064A609A54ED5C85
    Kent Hovind Garden of Eden subtitles…8 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDEFFAAB371BAFF2B
    Edinburgh Creation Group…32 videos
    http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL648792ACAA789544

  • tplay official

    If you believe Jesus sneaks into labs and uses his magic to trick scientists, then
    a) There is nothing that would prove anything to you about anything because you could always blame it on trickster Jesus
    b) Can you really blame scientists for falling for Jesus’s magic tricks?

  • NotRight

    I like this guy. Finally a highly qualified scientist who follows scientific theory and CANNOT get to “evolution” using that or any form of real logic.

  • Evolution is a fact

    The theory of evolution has never claimed knowledge of the origins of life. It only explains the diversity of life.

    • CarbonUnitDale

      What a dodge; can’t answer the problem – just ignore it as though it isn’t an issue.

  • Donni Steen

    Yeah, well he’s not that intelligent then. http://m.msb.embopress.org/content/10/4/725

  • angry mom

    All you people arguing are hilarious. “Evolutionists are wrong. They keep saying it’s science but it’s not provable AT ALL so it must be GOD THAT DID IT.” Yeah, that is a totally scientifically provable theory. How about, just because we don’t understand the science behind creation doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I mean, we did once believe that the Earth was the center of the universe after all. In that vein, we should all also except the theory of ancient aliens advancing the human species. At that point, it is just as proveable as the “God (creation)” theory.

    • Pax Humana

      angry mom, why not go into the kitchen where you belong and go make a sandwich?

      • angry mom

        Did it take you a while to come up with that one? Must have…

        • Pax Humana

          Right back at you, miss.

  • Ladeef

    LOL I’ll put this here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf

    • Pax Humana

      Nice try, but no prize….yawn.

  • Dene Godfrey

    I find it very disappointing that any scientist would be so confused as to be unable to distinguish between the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. Given that the theory of evolution doesn’t even attempt to explain how life began,this guy clearly doesn’t have a clue. He is an embarrassment to his profession.

  • http://pdhemsley.com/ Phil Hemsley

    For reference, neither Darwin nor Dawkins claim to know how life began. The beginning of life is not a claim of evolution. But let’s get away from the idea that evolution has anything to say about God’s existence. It only has something to say about a particular and unnecessary interpretation of the book of Genesis. If you want a balanced view of things try: http://citybookreview.com/the-big-picture-an-honest-examination-of-god-science-and-purpose/

  • Pax Humana

    No, the concept of micro-evolution is also a lie, despite what he and the author of this article claim otherwise. What is REALLY happening is the concept that is called adaptation. Let us imagine a year in time. We can imagine the spring and things begin to become warm. We wear less bulky clothes, but nothing that lacks TOO much bulk, for things are still a bit cold, despite the fact that last winter was over. However, as time marches on, the leaves grow on trees, plants begin to grow more, and things become greener. More and more animals come out of hibernation, and the air becomes warmer and warmer. The summer comes and things are considerably hotter than they were during the spring, so, as a result, we wear less clothing and we also use this substance that is called sun screen to prevent this thing called sunburn on our bare skin. However, alternatively, should people NOT want to use sun screen, people begin to wear clothes not unlike what is in the deserts of the Middle East and Africa. The summer passes and the fall happens again. The air begins to get colder and people bundle up more as it gets closer and closer to winter. The plants begin to shed their leaves if they shed leaves, they die, or they simply stay the same way as in the summer and in the spring. However, when winter comes, then out comes the bulky clothes once again, the animals go into hibernation, and the trees either have lots of naked branches or that they are covered with this stuff called snow.

    However, with that being said, did the humans change ONCE during the four seasons, or did they simply end up being smart, they learned to adapt to their environment, and did they merely adapt to the climate and air temperature to when they were doing their business all throughout the year? This is MORE than enough proof to disprove that micro-evolution exists, for if micro-evolution was true, then that would also mean that the concept of micro-evolution would be a series of small and gradual changes that would have had to happen over time, thus, like evolution, or, more accurately, macro-evolution, it would essentially say that YAHWEH EL ELOHIM was not only NOT perfect with His initial designs with humans and all forms of life, but that it would ALSO negate His Perfect and Divine Nature AND that it would ALSO disprove the fact that He has ALSO built in certain codes that are hidden within the DNA of ALL living creatures about how they should react not only within different times of the year, but also within the years of an organism as it grows and matures throughout its existence and for the whole span of its life, period, full stop. The bottom line is that the concept of micro-evolution is ALSO a lie that is from Lucifer AND that it is NOT how things really work, for YAHWEH EL ELOHIM makes things work right the FIRST time, period, full stop. You all need to fix your error and to repent of your wicked ways in your lives, period, full stop!

    • happylada

      I differ on the details. I have NO problem with the term micro-evolution except for the bait and switch use of it by the evolutionists when they try to hijack the term for changes in body plans etc.

      It is OBVIOUS to the believer in creation that the Creator included a lot of unnecessary potential in the genome – hence the parts for making a poodle from a wolf were already there, which, added to some shuffling of genes and even perhaps some deleterious mutations (sry, I repeat myself) new species arise from the old. This is, as you say, adaption, NOT evolution, an its a one way street – there is NO going back.

      One way to imagine how it works is the subroutine library of a computer program. Its always there while programming, BUT only the subroutines called in that program are included in the finished product.

  • Melody Rainer Tregear

    Amen and Amen. We humans like to complicate things. The origin of life is not complicated. God created us and everything else. Period. A small child can understand it.

    • Evolution is a fact

      It takes a small child’s mentality to believe it.

      • Melody Rainer Tregear

        Evolution is anything BUT a fact.

        • Evolution is a fact
          • Melody Rainer Tregear

            I guess we’ll just have to wait and find out. But I know I’m won’t be the one that’s wrong.

          • Evolution is a fact

            Yes, you will be wrong. Sadly, you won’t realize it because you’ll be dead.

          • Melody Rainer Tregear

            You believe in evolution but you don’t believe in life after death? Shame.

          • Evolution is a fact

            Same to you, but in reverse.

          • Melody Rainer Tregear

            Now how did I know you were going to say that 🙂

        • CarbonUnitDale

          Evolution is a fact just like Star Trek is a fact! When I say Star Trek you immediately know what I am talking about and when you say evolution I also know what you are talking about. But ‘What is Truth’? Evolution and Star Trek are science fiction, as far fetched as can be, couched in plausible sounding stories. You are under ‘strong delusion’ (2 Thessalonians 2:11} and your prospects for a bright future are very dim (DARK, I’d say).

  • Stormus

    There’s a reason the first two paragraphs of this article are spent building this guy’s reputation. Otherwise, no one would take this crank seriously.

    When he says, “The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.” When you concede microevolution exist, you concede macroevolution exist. As macroevolution is just lots and lots of microevolution over a very long, long period of time. I’m not well educated on this subject, and even I know this much.

    Next, the article reads, “Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence.” Well, that’s because evolution CANNOT account for the creation of life. Evolutionist do not set out to find how life started. Evolution demands a base organism to evolve from, it isn’t concerned how it got there. We are, and we still don’t know.

    Finally, in the last sentence of the article he sells out in a complete non sequitur. Paraphrasing, “Since we don’t know, GOD” — He can be satisfied with that answer, but somehow I think scientist are going to keep looking for the right answers.

  • William 1

    True science is seeing the factual results of what happens when God speaks and actions occur! Trees continually reproducing is factual evidence of God saying -“Every seed producing its own kind, etc.

  • Raphael

    Scientists should stop deceiving the uninformed with evolution theory because they stand to be judged by the creator of life-God.

    • Evolution is a fact

      Cool story, bro.

  • Don Fernando de SF

    Evolutionists point out miniscule ‘changes’ in a species and say this is proof of morphing into another species (they may not put it that way); yet, for 150 years no proof of one species morphing into another has been found. It is especially telling that there is nothing in the fossil record of ‘missing’ links, which there should be many, not just one ‘missing link’ as is popularly described in the media. All forms appear complete. Cats remain cats …. there are many varieties but they remain cats. This Law of God remains throughout the world. When scientists attempted to morph the fruit fly (representing millions of generations) by radiation, etc. after a decade and more they had only fruit flies. Some with different colored wings, or number of eyes, legs, etc. But no morphing. There are cash prizes offered to anyone who can provide absolute proof of macroevolution. Such a person would no doubt receive worldwide acclaim and the Nobel. But evolution remains a ‘theory’ not a scientific law.

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    //Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence//

    This proves that he has no idea what the theory of evolution predicts. It does not make ANY claim about how life came about, and if he was a real scientist or had not been misquoted, then he would know this.

    This is yet another reason to hate the theists, they always lie. And we always catch them at it. You people are the reason your Jesus killed himself, because you are such evil liars.

    • CarbonUnitDale

      See above!

  • Chet Atkins

    —“Despite his experiences and expertise, Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence.”—

    This sentence makes me laugh. If any scientist claims or states that evolution has ANYTHING to do with life’s existence, they are in no way a scientist. Dr. James Tour is a joke like most Christian scientists who claim this crap and spread misinformation, and twist words and evidence to justify their belief in a god. You Christians need to pop the ignorance bubble of religious faith and broaden you mind to real information and study. Websites like these only fortify your bubble and make you more ignorant.

    • CarbonUnitDale

      What a dodge; can’t answer the problem – just ignore it as though it isn’t an issue, I see that same old canard on most discussions like this – “Origins has nothing to do with evolution!”. Without the Origin of Life there is nothing for your precious evolution to work with! I like the way all you evolutionists just add up a bunch of little steps that mysteriously become the big/macro steps needed to jump the kind/species barriers and while you’re at it you may as well add in millions and/or billions of years (you really need 10^googol years).

  • James Cunningham

    Some Christians believe in evolution, but still acknowledge that God is behind the incredible design. Atheists acknowledge the incredible design but they argue the god of chance is behind this. I use the word ‘god’ because of course they have not provided any empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. In my conversations with many well meaning atheists they attack Christians because they put their faith in an unprovable entity such as the Christian God. They claim God is unprovable because they base their arguments that only a materialist approach can arrive at truth. As David Bentley Hart points out, there is no empirical evidence or good deductive argument that allows you to arrive at this position. In other words their arguments for arriving at ‘truth’ are ultimately based on an assumption which is not proveable.

  • Proteios

    Speaking as a scientist, the scientific method is centered on methodology. The goal is decreasing uncertainty. Any theory is up for challenge. If that ceases to be true, we enter the realm of faith and dogma. That is not science. That’s forming a religion around science. So challenge Darwinism as a form of evolution because that is what science did. If we never challenged the values widely held, we wouldn’t have quantum mechanics. Besides. Evolution has ‘evolved’ well past Darwin’s basic observations and explanations of those observations. Why? Because we scientists don’t limit our analyses to conform with this theory. We observe and when the theory no longer holds, we develop new theories. If scientists are not allowed to speak out against any theory, then science ceases to be science and we should kneel at the alter of Darwinism. But I think we all know that is already occurring. Go and ask a person if they ‘believe’ in evolution. Its fun to watch them affirm this and then offer scraps of explanation. They accept it. THey truly ‘believe’. Belief is accepting as true in the absence of facts.

  • Don Fernando de SF

    To: general posters cc: YouNoWho and DeviantGenie. As YouNoWho has said, this is getting tedious. It’s a lot like homework! However, it does remind me to sharpen my pencil. So I will use this as my personal notebook that I can refer when I visit a God-believers site that is visited by non-believers. This will be in the form of a Trial of Eternity.
    Imagine:
    A beautiful courtroom in a starship of our Milky Way. The roof is transparent so the beauty of our ‘Way is almost mesmerizing. There are hundreds of spectators in this Trial of Eternity. We will issue our viewpoints. There is no judge, no jury. Btw, if we had a jury, it would be under the jury nullification system, where the jury has the power, not the judge.
    Opening Statement
    In the following I will present the case that 1/ God is real 2/ this God is the personal God depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures — what Christians call the Old Testament — and the New Testament. 3/ This God created all that we know with His infinite power and intelligence.
    * I will of course bring more light to the matter of mega-evolution, where many scientists have produced full-bodied drawings of our imagined ape-man ‘missing links’ from fragments of bone which have been all been proven totally sham science or/and outright fraud. Despite this, they remain in the public’s awareness and textbooks as if they are fact.
    * I will include the ‘origin of evolutionary ideas’ that began from the mists of time, from false religions and to the humanistic ‘elite’ of today. We will unmask the ‘scientific’ veneer of evolutionism, and what is really behind the OZ-curtain.
    * Hitler proved in a terrible way that the bigger the lie, the bigger the acceptance when you use the necessary mind-washing tools. One of these tools is
    (The TV machine) … holds such a devastating potential for brainwashing, mass programming and the destruction of individualism — with of course, reinforcement from the other mass media. This threat is every bit as disastrous for the future of mankind as is pollution, overpopulation, or atomic and biological warfare. Wilson Bryan Key/Subliminal seduction
    * It is not ultimately ‘science vs. science’ because one, science is limited in answering the ultimate questions of life and death. This trial of eternity has just that — eternal ramifications. Whether one believes that mankind originates from the chance formation of the basic elements and then to living organisms and ongoing until the pinnacle of the man-ape or whether we are just on the first step of eternity, where we will see if energy continues ‘in another form’ and can’t be destroyed.
    Recess….. to be continued.

    • Don Fernando de SF

      Trial of Eternity Part 2
      On the subject of evolution, at its core is a rebellion against God. Because ‘God is not needed’ and everyone are just higher cousins of apes, we can forget the possibility of an eternal existence. We will note there are three basic views of evolution:
      First/ This may be called evolutionism. The universe has been evolving forever from natural processes, mutation, and natural selection.
      Second/ Microevolution, a process > change within a species. These changes may be chromosome changes, gene mutations, or hybridization to produce new varieties — but the change always are known to remain within their species. Or, ‘a horse is still a horse’ or ‘no protozoa to a man.’
      It’s critical to note that a species is one of seven classifications by Linnaeus (who, btw, believed in the Bible): 1/ kingdom 2/ phylum 3/ class 4/ order 5/ family 6/ genus and 7/ species. Species is the smallest group. Members of a species have a high degree of similarity between themselves and general interbreed only with themselves. Microevolution allows for development of a new species, but NOT the development of one species to a higher classification. (we may logically ask about the ‘kinds’ in Genesis, note later)
      Third/ macroevolution or megaevolution, which requires the transfer of genetic information to a higher,m more complex classification, the boundaries crossed by mutation and natural selection. These factors (plus chance) can’t provide the info necessary to build legs onto a fish, thus permitting it to leave the water and to walk on land. Paleontology, again, knows of not missing links between whales and land mammals that have ever been established. Intermediate links of this sort would probably be incapable of living, let alone breeding. For over 150 years geology has been search for these missing links in vain.
      Commercial break to
      Hey what about the age of the earth?
      The exact age of the earth is not in the Bible. It is an error to believe that the genealogical tables show an age of the earth of 6000 years or so. There may be a century or more between names, for example. However, the much-repeated ‘fact’ of ‘billions of years’ is also in very serious doubt. Scripture does record God’s own words where He denotes ‘day’ as in the Sabbath day of rest for the Jews as the same ‘day’ (same word in this context) used in the Creation Week. We can be assured Creation week was six literal days. For further example, during the Creation week it’s noted “and there was morning and evening, the first day” and so on. The “God of the gaps” theory where God used evolution of millions of years between lines of Scripture is fairly shot t pieces. Genesis implies that physical deaths of creatures was not present until until Adam’s rebellion where he (and Eve) listened to satan’s great lie: “Did God really mean what He said?” This lie has been repeated through the ages by the unwitting. Evolution is all about death and struggle.
      Return to the trial ….
      G. A. Kerkut, an evolutionist, noted that his present-day undergrads were succumbing to the same group-think as theology students at Cambridge, who didn’t investigate for themselves. From the ‘Implications of Evolution’ I would recommend the entire reading where he excoriates an undergrad (almost 2,000 words), but will just Readers Digest excerpts:
      Kerkut: “What is the evidence for evolution?”
      Student: “Well, paleontology, embryology, systematics, geo distributions …”
      Kerkut: “Do you think evolutionary theory is the best explanation yet advanced to explain animal interrelationships?”
      Student: “Well, of course … except for the fundamentalist Christians — although the most up to date churchmen no longer hold those views.”
      Kerkut: “Have you ever read any book on evolution?”
      Student: He mentions some popular books, “And of course, that book by Darwin, the Origin of Species.”
      Kerkut: “Have you read this book?”
      Student: “Um, about the first fifty pages.”
      Kerkut: “Explain to me some of the arguments against evolution.”
      Student: “But there aren’t any, sir.”
      ‘Here the student would look at me as if I were playing an unfair game. He would take it very badly if I suggested he was not being very scientific if he swallowed the latest dogma and, when questioned, repeat parrot-fashion the views of the current Bishop of Evolution. He would acting like those religious students he despised. He would take on faith what he could not understand. When questioned, he would appeal to the authority of ‘a good book’ (which he hadn’t even read completely -ed).
      Continuing … Kerkut talks about assumptions…..

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    //Despite his experiences and expertise, Tour admits that he does not understand how evolution could account for life’s existence.//

    How many times must we explain to you cretinists, that the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. Anyone who suggests that it does, either is lying, ignorant or evil.

    • CarbonUnitDale

      What a dodge; can’t answer the problem – just ignore it as though it isn’t an issue, I see that same old canard on most discussions like this – “Origins has nothing to do with evolution!”. Without the Origin of Life there is nothing for your precious evolution to work with! I like the way all you evolutionists just add up a bunch of little steps that mysteriously become the big/macro steps needed to jump the kind/species barriers and while you’re at it you may as well add in millions and/or billions of years (you really need 10^googol years).

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    //Tour joined nearly 900 other scientists in signing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,//

    You might want to have a look at this examination of the names on this list.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

  • Arthur Dallas Appelgren

    He is absolutely correct. Evolution does not account for the origin of life. But that is a different branch of Biology called Abiogenesis. Evolution accounts for the origin of the diversity of life, not life itself. Although the study of Evolutionary Theory does provide clues for Abiogenesis, and so does chemistry itself. As of yet we do not have a working theory of Abiogenesis, just a couple of good hypothesis’.

    All of which is besides the point because it a false correlation to make evolutionary theory as the theory of the origin of life. It is not, it never was.

    But not knowing something does not mean therefore something else, especially when that something else has a lack of facts and evidence for it. To assert “God” as a solution without evidence for a “God” is called the “God of the Gaps” argument.

  • D. Mitchell Sweatt

    “…and though I can speak authoritatively on complex
    chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on
    evolution vs. creation.” – Professor

    James M Tour http://911billofrights.blogspot.com/2014/10/if-jesus-never-existed-would-there-not.html

  • Johnnes Teixeira

    A logical fallacy has been committed in this text. See, this is an appeal to authority (a chemist says evolution is false, therefore it is false). This scientist is a CHEMIST, NOT a biologist. He attempts to invalidade evolutionary theory when he’s graduated in a different discipline, so he’s committing a logical fallacy. In order to say something about evolution, he must be graduated in Biology.

    And, what? You’re trying to invalidate the evolutionary theory by claiming “it hasn’t been observed”?

    See: the scientific method is not limited to direct observation. If you are to argue that evolution is not science because it has not been directly observed, then you must agree that ALL the other scientific facts which also haven’t been directly observed ALSO are not science, right? Otherwise, you’re a hypocrite.

    It’s like trying to invalidate the theory of continental drift by saying: “No one has ever seen the map changing or continents moving.”.

    It’s amusing that creationists have sought to divide the evolutionary theory into two parts (micro and macro) to more easily attack it. Evolutionary theory IS NOT divided into two parts. It is just one.

    Arguing that small-scale changes are possible, but that large-scale ones are not, is like trying to invalidate continental drift by saying:

    “Earthquakes and small movements caused by plate tectonics are possible and facts, but those movementes that change the location of the continents in the map must be taken by faith and are impossible”.

    In both cases, such changes take MILLIONS of years to happen. Furthermore, as explained before, the scientific method is not limited to direct observation or experimental tests.

    Moreover, evolution doesn’t explain the origins of life, it explains the DEVELOPMENT of biodiversity, AFTER life arose. Arguing that evolution must explain the origin of life would be like arguing that you must know how your car was made in order to drive it.

    Study more.

  • onelovehill

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html?m=1
    It warms my heart to realize, just by reading this, that the truth does not stretch that far. Confirmation bias anyone?

  • http://www.sheldonthinks.com/ Andrew Sheldon

    It is fair to say that evolutionists know a lot or ‘enough’, but it will never be enough to satisfy Christians whose belief rests on ‘faith’, which is a repudiation of evidence or argument. Evolution remains a theory, but that does not dispel the value of the theory, or warrant total disregard for it. I myself find flaws in it, but its basic premise holds a lot of credibility. For those who profess such a respect for rationality, there are 3 choices:
    a. Repudiating faith – as I did
    b. Compartmentalising – putting one’s faith in one box and one’s reasoning in another and undermining one’s personal integrity with ‘white lies’ to keep them apart. This unfortunately has more destructive consequences over time, i.e. the lies grow.
    c. Retaining the illusion of faith, as some 1st Testament Christian or Muslim would do. This is not possible, so one just becomes are more mystical ‘compartmentaliser’ acting on ‘mindless’ unidentified ideas, at considerable threat to oneself and/or society.
    Obviously, most Christians lie in the middle.