New Museum to Present ‘Overwhelming Evidence for Creation’

Northwest Science MuseumBOISE – A Christian group in Idaho has unveiled plans for a new creation museum that would display scientific evidence for the Bible’s creation account and expose weaknesses in the evolutionary theory.

Northwest Science Museum is an organization headquartered in Boise that aspires to construct a large natural history museum with exhibits detailing the earth’s history according to the biblical worldview. If built, the museum would likely be located on Interstate 84, somewhere between Boise and Nampa.

“We want to show a lot of science that’s being censored and not presented to the public,” Doug Bennett, the museum’s executive director, told the Idaho Statesman.

Currently, the group is operating a small “Vision Center” in Boise that houses various scientific specimens and artifacts, including fossils, petrified relics, and ancient dinosaur eggs. Eventually, the museum team hopes to display these and many other exhibits in the full museum.

“Providing relevant and current creation science information to the public is what Northwest Science Museum is all about,” Bennett told Christian News Network. “The museum will create permanent exhibits that will educate people of all ages about the most exciting emerging creation science in an accessible and interactive manner.”

The museum’s board of directors hopes to show Christians that science, correctly understood, corroborates the Bible’s accounts.

“They need to know that there is true science that backs up creation,” Bennett asserted. “The church as a whole has shied away from this issue. Our goal is to help pastors and lay teachers understand the overwhelming evidence for creation from a scientific point of view, and that we don’t need to be afraid to talk about origins.”

  • Connect with Christian News

According to the Los Angeles Times, plans for the Northwest Science Museum call for a $150 million, 350,000-square-foot facility, as well as a full-sized replica of Noah’s Ark. The museum would showcase various pieces of scientific evidence, along with explanations of the evidence from both the creation and evolution perspectives.

Bennett, who has a background in geology, believes the exhibits would help museum-goers recognize the validity of the Bible’s historical and scientific records.

“I think that most people say that creation is religion and evolution is science,” he explained. “That couldn’t be farther from the truth. True science is observable, testable, and repeatable. Evolution has never been observed, is not testable and has never been repeated, so it is outside the realm of true science as defined by the scientific method.”

“However, so is creation science,” he continued. “It also has never been repeated and was not observed. So both are theories about the past, trying to explain how things that exist in the present got here. … The difference is that Christians have someone who knows everything, who doesn’t lie, and who was there at the beginning and he told us in the Bible how it happened.”

Stan Lutz, the museum’s cofounder, told Christian News Network that the creation vs. evolution discussion is important, because belief in evolutionism can lead to hopelessness and violence.

“If you will recall the Columbine shooting spree, those young men were taught they came from slime, which evolved into things that eventually evolved into an ape, then to you,” Lutz said. “We have allowed the schools and evolutionism to steal away all their hope. We then wonder how this could happen. They only acted out what they have been taught by the evolutionism paradigm.”

That is why the Northwest Science Museum’s biblical message is important, say Bennett and Lutz. When visitors understand the soundness of the Scriptures and the emptiness of evolutionism, they can come to know Jesus as their savior.

“One of the most philosophical questions that individuals (and even society as a whole) asks is, ‘How did I get here, and what is my purpose in life?’” Bennett said. “You have to understand your origins to understand your purpose in life. There is only one faith that explains origins, and why there is death, sin and suffering in this world, and why there is a need for a creator and a redeemer.”

“You see,” he added, “all Christian doctrine is based in Genesis and most within the first 11 chapters of Genesis. So it’s extremely important to understand origins. Understanding origins leads one to have to make a decision about God as a creator, and if God created you, then He makes the rules and you are accountable to Him; and if you are accountable, then you have to either accept Jesus as Lord and savior or reject Him. That’s one of the goals of the Northwest Science Museum: to bring people to the point where they have to make a decision about God.”

Photo: NorthwestScienceMuseum.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
  • UmustBKiddinMe

    ““We want to show a lot of science that’s being censored and not presented to the public,” ”

    Well if they are able to put it in a museum then it obviously is not being censored. What is keeping them from presenting it to the public now? The internet is by far a more effective media to reach the public than a museum in Idaho.

    ““If you will recall the Columbine shooting spree, those young men were taught they came from slime, which evolved into things that eventually evolved into an ape, then to you,” Lutz said. “We have allowed the schools and evolutionism to steal away all their hope. We then wonder how this could happen. They only acted out what they have been taught by the evolutionism paradigm.””

    Unbelievable. To suggest that the teaching of the theory of evolution was the basis for the actions at Columbine is simply without merit.

    • Reason2012

      Peer-reviewed papers are quite available – secularists will not publish them, then claim “victory” as you have done that they’re “not published” in their precious journals.

      • Paul Hiett

        Let me see if I have this straight…you think that there are “peer reviewed” papers that we aren’t publishing so we can claim that there are no such published papers?

        Is that correct?

        • Reason2012

          No, there are papers they will not publish, so of course they ignore them and will not look at them.
          Then they brag about how there aren’t any such “peer reviewed” papers published.

          • Paul Hiett

            So yeah, I’m right…you think atheists and purposefully making sure these “peer reviewed” papers don’t get published.

            Do you have any proof of this?

          • Joshua Pierce

            Did you ever think it’s possible that the papers aren’t published because they aren’t good science?

            And no one is stopping them from creating their own peer review process and having their own journals (which already exist). But sadly none of their “scientific” work stands up because it isn’t good science, or it some cases isn’t even science at all.

            I have one of these poorly peer reviewed “science” articles that tries to explain how and why Satan exists. It is so poorly executed a child could poke holes in the hypothesis.

            There is an interview with Dr. Georgia Purdom from Answers in Genesis where she is talking about researching why viruses change enough to become different strains or become immune to meds. She is basically seeing evolution happen and refuses to think it is even possible. She is doing actual good science and out right ignoring the rational conclusion.

          • Reason2012

            And yet they cannot show it’s not – the claim is simply made and the papers are never published. That’s censorship, not science.

          • Paul Hiett

            When you have people making claims such as the Columbine one, why would you ever publish a paper they wrote?

          • Geoff Offermann

            “And yet they cannot show it’s not – the claim is simply made and the papers are never published. That’s censorship, not science.”

            I’ve read plenty of papers from AiG and ICR over the years. If you need a clue as to why they are poor science, why they wouldn’t pass peer review muster or even post-publication critique, I would be glad to oblige.

          • Reason2012

            The fact they’re ignored and not published says it all. If it was easy to expose as nonsense, they’d PUBLISH them to SHOW everyone else how supposedly “bad” they are.
            But instead they censor them, which says it all.

          • Geoff Offermann

            Ignored? Do you understand the peer review process? It’s not like someone writes a paper and a journal seeks it out or ignores it as you presume. One submits a paper for review to a journal, the journal then sends it to several professionals who have relevant expertise. The peers then either accept it or return it to the author with critiques on how to improve the methodology, the statistics, the presentation, etc. Upon publication, the article then goes through post-publication review by the general interested public at which point it may be retracted if there is sufficiently unfavorable reception.

            These articles aren’t ignored. By their own admission, the ICR and AIG do not bother to submit their works. There’s no money to be made in it. Instead they publish “educational” materials like FTE’s Of Pandas and People, the book that ignited Kitzmiller v. Dover. That book was childish and its lack of scientific rigor was obvious to anyone with more than half a brain.

            There is no censorship. Religious articles don’t belong in scientific journals any more than an electron microscope belongs in a church.

            This museum is not a science museum. It’s an attraction akin to Disneyland for creationists where they can bask in the echo chamber of pseudoscience. Slapping the label “science” and “museum” on it is mere affectation without meaning.

          • Reason2012

            No, something gets published, so that it can be peer reviewed.

            If it’s not published, no one else gets to see it and critique and review it. So evolutionists in charge of what’s acceptable to be published to be peer-reviewed will simply claim “it’s not valid”, not back it up by refuting anything in the paper, and it never gets published to then be reviewed and critiqued by others. Censorship plain and simple.

            Please show me ANY peer-reviewed paper that dares question evolutionism. You won’t find any b/c they’re all censored, which only shows how anti-science that “field” is.

            Then they claim victory “you don’t have any peer-reviewed publications”.

          • Jake Maason

            Your personal incredulity is evidence that you are naive, not evidence that a single one of those papers is valid science. You sound like a little kid trying to defend the existence of santa clause, you probably don’t even realize how much you are embarrassing yourself

          • Jake Maason

            Lol you’re full of sh][t, if you’re stupid enough to say suvh things then its no wonder you believe the first man was made from mud + magic. keep believing those fairy tales, make sure to throw away extra money in the collection plate next sunday too

          • Reason2012

            No, viruses adapting is not what’s being addressed. What’s being addressed is, for example, the mythological claim that populations of fish that never had lungs can ‘evolve’ lungs over generations to breath air and ‘evolve’ new legs to walk on land to use their new lungs. I.e., populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into organisms we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

            So show that to ever happen in the existence of the human race for any animal. They never can.

            “Well viruses change” is not proof of any such thing – it just shows viruses adapt. To claim it’s the same thing is disingenuous.

          • Joshua Pierce

            Dr. Francis Collins is a biologist, was head of the Human Genome Project, and is a devout Evangelical Christian. He has done decades of work with DNA research. He believes in a literal creation. Through his work with DNA research he has stated it is completely obvious that evolution is true.

            http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/january/32.62.html

          • Reason2012

            So in other words you cannot show it to actually happen.

            Secondly, you can only point to someone making up beliefs ABOUT DNA that never happens and then claim DNA is “evidence” of this belief – that’s anti-science circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “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!”

            It’s why they have to promote the absurdity that bananas and human beings have the same great…………great grandparents.

            Third, if he believes in a literal creation, then by definition that means God created Adam and Eve, not evolution, so if he says that he’s contradicting himself.

            Lastly, so science is “as long as a creationist believes in it (when it doesn’t ever happen) that makes it science”? No.

          • Paul Hiett

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

            I suppose you’ll just ignore that as well?

            And regarding what is and what is not “absurd”, is it not absurd to believe that all of the worlds people today…all of the cultures, societies, races, languages, etc…all came from a small family who landed a boat on the top of a mountain in Turkey.

            Have you really stopped to consider that?

          • Reason2012

            That site is aptly named: “talk” – talking about it is not showing it. So you admit the human race has never seen any such thing and that talk is all you can offer at a talk website. Case closed.

          • Paul Hiett

            You didn’t even bother reading the information provided.

          • Reason2012

            I’ve been pointed to that website before and am well aware of all the TALK it’s about (hence the name of the site). By all means quote the few sentences that SHOWS what they believe in to ever happen.

          • Paul Hiett

            The page I linked to, which you didn’t bother reading, lists out the ancestors of humans, and the evolution of our species.

            But, if you don’t read it, then I guess you can still claim you haven’t been given any facts, right?

          • Reason2012

            No, pointing to fossils and saying “those are ancestors (b/c I said so)” is not SHOWING the belief – just them making the claim.
            So again, quote the few sentences that SHOWS what they believe in to ever happen. You won’t because they can’t.
            Take care.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, the page, which you haven’t even looked at, gives you the facts. You should at least read the information, rather than continue to argue from a point of self inflicted ignorance.

            The page just lists the facts.

          • Reason2012

            More hate now, Paul? So you can’t show it actually happen, but point to reasons they can only BELIEVE in it and call it “facts”? Thank you for proving my point. Ad hominem is all you have left.
            Take care.

          • Paul Hiett

            You don’t even understand what an ad hominem argument is, at this point.

            Again, read the page, then address the facts that you have been provided. You’re the one who claims no facts exist…I guess if you don’t read them, you can still claim that, right?

          • Reason2012

            AD hominem: making comments about the messenger, Paul. You know, like when you say about me: “self-inflicted ignorance” is addressing me, Paul. Keep it up- helps others to see what kind of people defend evolutoinism.

            Again, cite even a single sentence that SHOWS what evolutionists believe in to actually happen – you cannot. It only TALKS (hence the name) about why they believe in it.

            Still waiting, Paul.

          • Paul Hiett

            Read the page! This is my point, it’s not an ad hom when you refuse to read information that is provided for you, It’s a fact to state that you’re arguing from self inflicted ignorance because you are actively refusing to read the information provided.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not on there Paul. If you want to claim it is and EASILY prove me wrong, then quote even a single sentence that SHOWS what evolutionists believe in to ever happen. You won’t because you’re wrong: its not on that page or anywhere on that entire site. You can easily prove me wrong if it is – but since you know it’s not on there you’re going to have to refuse to do so and just claim “read the page! it’s in there!”, which shows everyone else what the real truth is. For that I thank you.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you’re simply not going to read the information?

          • Reason2012

            Prove I didn’t read it – quote even a single sentence that SHOWS what evolutionists believe in to ever happen to prove “I didn’t read it”. You won’t, because I’m right: it’s not in there. But as I said you would, you ‘ll just say “it’s in there!”. Thank you for proving my point over and over again.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did you read it?

          • absentee landlord

            That is the stupidest argument I’ve ever read honestly no comparison I’m beginning to think you are only hear to possible people off and actually don’t believe the nonsense you’re spouting. I’m getting a kick out of this. Hahaha

          • Joshua Pierce

            Yup, because website URL’s equal evidence that you’re correct. Thanks for playing Lets Be Intellectually Dishonest.

            Join us next week when we’ll have such rousing defenses as “I refuse to read so it doesn’t exist!”

            Good night America!

          • Reason2012

            So in other words ad hominem is all you can fall back on. Ask yourself why you need such tactics to defend what’s supposed to be science.

            So you admit the human race has never seen any such thing.

            You can also only offer circular reasoning: making up beliefs about DNA that does not happen,then claim DNA is then “evidence” of the belief you just made up about it.

            Thank you for proving the point. Offer more ad hominem if it makes you feel better, but instead it just shows everyone else how anti-science evolutionists are.

          • Joshua Pierce

            That is not an ad hominem. You outright refuse to even read the information provided and then say that no one has proven you wrong. No understanding science doesn’t make you right. And claiming “God did it!” doesn’t answer any questions. Even if evolution were wrong that doesn’t automatically make creation the correct answer. It would still have to prove that it was correct.

            And in the entire history of human experience magic has never been the answer for anything. Is it truly impossible that your god could have used evolution as a means of genetic variation?

          • Reason2012

            “let’s be intellectually dishonest”

            “I refuse to read”

            Ad hominem. You can’t even admit that basic fact.

            So you admit the human race has never seen any such thing, just point to reasons you believe in it and then throw ad hominem as if that makes you right.

            You can also only offer circular reasoning: making up beliefs about DNA that does not happen,then claim DNA is then “evidence” of the belief you just made up about it.

            The bottom line is the topic of origins of all 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.

            You want to pretend a prosthetic leg is proof of intelligence, but that the real legs it’s modeled after and that’s far superior to it “nothing did it!!”.

          • Joshua Pierce

            Again even if you’re correct and evolution is wrong “magic” isn’t a very valid answer.

            If your answer is correct what other things do we know to be true because magic?

            I like how you say that the only evidence we have is people writing things that never happened, and yet you take a book as true that has no historical evidence to back it up. Where’s your evidence? You only show that the book says Jesus went to heaven. I’ve never seen it and why should I trust a book. People make things up when they right things so who’s to say it’s true at all?

          • Reason2012

            No, the valid answer is even just a leg is proof of a higher intelligence. We’re free to believe aliens did it if it eases our conscience. But to pretend “nothing did it” when a prosthetic leg no one would deny is proof of intelligence would just be willful ignorance on our part.

            I never said “the only evidence we have” – where did I say that, Joshua?

            But if you want to know my thoughts on this:

            – it’s logically undeniable we were created

            – but it will be a belief as to what that creator was – my belief is in God – we are free to believe aliens did it instead

            Why trust the Bible? It’s a faith issue so it’s between each person and God. But I can offer this: this “ancient book”, although it’s not meant to be a science book, has scientific facts in it that scientists could not figure out until thousands of years later, things that they could NOT have known at the time. That should give us pause.

            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.

            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. “

            Not to mention:
            The Bible is the only ‘religious’ book that dares to make prophecies, not to mention several hundred came true after the fact, even up to thousands of years later.

            The grave of all false religions’ prophets has their bones – the grave of Christ is empty.

            You can_kill thousands in the name of a false religion and people of that country will bend over backwards to help you build a church where you did it. You dare mention Christ, hand out a tract, and you’re met with the utmost hatred.

            People who profess faith in Christ have major changes instantly from the inside out that they were unable to overcome over a lifetime.

            We know all we need to know – but the world seeks to keep us blind to the truth of God. When we face Him, it won’t work to say “well how was I supposed to know?” We know all we need to know and will be without excuse when we face God.

            But make no mistake, it is a faith issue- so me saying it is not going to “prove” a thing. I’m nothing and cannot convince anyone of anything. I can only point these things out – it’s between each person and God.

            Thank you for taking the time to post.

          • Joshua Pierce

            https://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

            Ray Comfort is probably one of the last people you should go to for your debate material. I’ve seen and heard many of his debates and he is just rambles and never has a honest discussion with his debate opponents. I’m pretty sure that most of this is bull, but even if it were true isn’t in strange that only once science said something exists did people notice the book miraculously stated it earlier? All this great information that was inaccessibly hidden in the book until science found it through different means.

            You know the Quran, along with the holy books of several other religions make similar claims. All of which also seem to fail at having provided this information to its people until science showed it to be true. Oh and the bible also says that there is a dome over the Earth (as in a solid dome and not the atmostphere), that the Earth has corners (as in being like a large board), and it mentions at a different point that the Earth sits on columns (so much for that invisible string).

            If I have to pick a claim that is my favorite though I would go with #7. In the Bible it claims that leprosy can be cured by dipping one dove in the blood of another dove and then shaking it on the afflicted. It also says that your house (the physical structure) can get leprosy as well and you can cure it in a similar manner. So when your house gets leprosy does the porch fall off or something?

          • Reason2012

            The information is in the Bible – he just points out what’s in the Bible.

            No other book has published prophecies that came true hundreds or thousands of years later – the Bible has hundreds of such prophecies that have come true.

            So you ignore the points, which only shows how we’re determined to remain willfully ignorant and are without excuse when we face God.

            Take care, Joshua.

          • Joshua Pierce

            Islam
            https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/prophecies.html
            http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophecies_by_prophet_muhammad.htm

            Hindu
            http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/hindusa.htm
            http://www.alamongordo.com/hindu-prophecies/

            Mayan
            http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/mayan.htm

            Native American
            http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/nativeam.htm

            I believe most of these claims of prophecy are mere coincidence if then are even correct at all. I imagine much of what you could provide for your holy book is probably the same. Islam also makes way more claims of fulfilled prophecy and hidden scientific information than is claimed in the bible. So the Muslims must be the right.

          • Paul Hiett

            The truth is, every religion has this kind of stuff, otherwise they wouldn’t have any followers. People will believe anything, and the more people who believe, the easier it is to get a following.

            Mormonism, Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses…all proof.

          • Reason2012

            What about it? They didn’t make prophecies that came true hundreds and thousands of years after being published.

          • Paul Hiett

            Actually, that’s exactly what they claim, just as yours does. Not happy about about not being unique?

          • Nick Bulka

            That is a lie. Please list a dozen or so of these hundreds of so-called” fulfilled prophesies” (with proof that they did occur)

          • Reason2012

            Simple google search. Bible prophecies you’ll get many links.

          • Nick Bulka

            I can search google for “there is no god” and get many links too.

          • Reason2012

            I can search google for “there is a god” and get many links too.

          • Paul M

            “it’s logically undeniable we were created”

            I disagree, as do actual scientists.

            We evolved, here, fact. What Started It All is still up for grabs; maybe you should focus on that.

          • Jake Maason

            Okay I’m done, it’s clear that you are one of the dumbest creationist on the Internet, your own comments confirm this fact.

          • http://www.restlesspixels.com/new markb

            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.”
            Only if you consider ancient Greece to be “recent years.”

          • Reason2012

            You mean philosophy and theological reasoning is now science? No, that’s all they went on – and that explains why their claims of what they look like and behavior were also incorrect. So those who were not scientists offered theological philosophies of such a thing, born from the claims in the Bible no less. Science finally catches up in the 1800s.

          • http://www.restlesspixels.com/new markb

            Not philosophy and certainly not theology, but logic and deduction. Supposedly, Democritus deduced the existence of atoms when smelling freshly-baked bread; he reasoned that some part of the bread must be reaching his nose through the air, thus atoms. And it is exactly equivalent to your Biblical quote, which does not describe the appearance or behavior of “atoms” either (and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t refer to atoms at all, but to spirit, but that’s just a guess). As for your statement, “those who were not scientists offered theological philosophies of such a thing, born from the claims in the Bible”, are you actually saying that Democritus, in 420 BC, was channeling the New Testament?

          • Reason2012

            They were offering philosophical claims and theological reasoning based on what God said, which is why their claims f what they look like and their behavior was so wrong. Science caught up in the 1800s.

            I didn’t say the Bible described their behavior – just pointing out it was right that things are made up by things that are invisible to us, which was beyond human reasoning for mankind before that, and which is even more impressive that “goat herders” point out many things the human race couldn’t have possibly known.

          • http://www.restlesspixels.com/new markb

            And I’m pointing out that Democritus came up with the idea about 400 years before the passage you quote from Hebrews. by a man who was, from what I understand, a “hellenized” Jew and not a goat herder. We’re talking about someone probably imbued with the prevalent Greco-Roman culture of the day.

          • Reason2012

            You claimed he came up with atoms – now you’re changing your claim?
            And it wasn’t scientists that thought of any such thing – it was THEOLOGICAL reasoning/philosophy, things in the Bible pointed out before scientists ever figured it out in the 1800s. So either way we’re talking thousands of years before “scientists” figured it out.
            Not to mention you ignore the dozen other facts science didn’t know.

          • http://www.restlesspixels.com/new markb

            No, I’m still claiming he (Democritus) came up with atoms. Although it was actually a predecessor of his. In either case, 400 years befroe St. Paul, whom you quote. And “natural philosophy” was the science of its day, the scientific method not having been invented yet.

          • Reason2012

            Well he didn’t come up with atoms – that was created in 1800s. It wasn’t “scientists” that made those claims – they were theistic philosophers. Scientists didn’t catch up until the 1800s, no matter how much you need them to do otherwise. Not to mention you ignore dozens of others facts scientists didn’t know and human beings could not have known.

          • Krauss Allie

            Hi Reason2012! Sorry to interrupt, but you’re making such a fool of yourself I felt like I should step in.

            “You are stupid and THAT is why you are wrong!” <–Ad hom!

            Simply insulting you is not an ad hom. Didn't you take rhetoric in college? You seemingly have no understanding of what a logical fallacy actually is.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. “Making a fool of yourself”
            “you are stupid”
            You start with an ad hominem: attacking the messenger.
            I never said “insult” – ad hominem is attacking the messenger.
            Why is it you can only bring hate to defend what’s supposed to be science?
            So you cannot show what evolutionists can only believe in so instead can only resort to hateful ad hominem.
            You proved my point.
            Take care.

          • Krauss Allie

            Actually. despite being an evolutionary biologist, I didn’t say anything about evolution one way or the other, so let’s set evolution aside for a moment. Calm down a little bit and reread my comment to you… I was correcting your error. I didn’t say “You are stupid”, meaning YOU are stupid… I gave an example of an actual ad hom. Joshua Pierce insulted you, but he isn’t guilty of an ad hominem.

            An insult or disparaging remark is not synonymous with an ad hominem, and it most certainly doesn’t mean ‘attacking the messenger’. The ad hom only applies to an argument and it’s only an actual ad hom when it says something to the effect of. “You are wrong BECAUSE you are [some adjective].”

            Although my doctorate is in biology, my undergrad bachelors is in rhetoric & writing…. the two things I know best in this world are evolutionary biology and the usage of logical fallacies like the ad hominem. I was just trying to set you straight. There’s no hate here…. just knowledge and the desire to share it.

          • Mark Swanson

            You are my new favorite person, friend.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. I’m perfectly calm – you might be projecting.

            If you cannot admit saying to someone “you are stupid” is an attack on a person, you make it clear you have no intent on being honest on this issue.

            Ad hominem is attacking the messenger, and that’s what you did. It’s par for the course for evolutionists, and you prove to be no different. Ask yourself why as a “evolutionary biologist” you need to resort to such things as “you are stupid”.

            Telling someone “they are stupid” to, as you admitted your intent was “insulting”, is an ad hominem born of hate, friend. Please try to make your points without resorting to such things -it’s really not that difficult, unless you hate gets the best of you and you cannot help yourself.

            So you cannot show what evolutionists believe in to ever happen? Is “you are stupid” your argument as to why?
            Take care.

          • Jake Maason

            You make religious people look really stupid lol.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Uh.. Basically any person who denies biology for their superstitious book makes religious people look really stupid.

          • Brendon Barr

            Ironically, you committed an ad hominem by accusing him of ad hominem. The only thing your response was is a smokescreen to mask that you’ve been demonstrated to be nonsense who hasn’t actually studied an ounce of evolutionary theory beyond your Christian rejectionist websites.

          • Reason2012

            No, I’m telling him what he’s doing – calling someone a liar is quite another. He could instead prove I know item A, and then show how I’m willingly hiding item A to pretend item B is true – instead of any of that he just calls me a liar.

            To pretend they’re the same is disingenuous.

            And then all you do is say “you put up smokescreen”, “anyone who has studied an ounce” and so on.

            You haven’t refuted a thing but only prove what I said.

            Feel free to ask evolutionists to show what they believe in to ever happen.
            They never can.

          • absentee landlord

            One word amphibians. Explains exactly the link between fish and mammal you should probably think more.

          • Reason2012

            Calling something a transitional animal, which starts with the assumption the belief of evolutionism which never happens does happen, doesn’t make it so.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional animal – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional animal”

          • Paul M

            Every generation is a transition.

            The bones of my buried grandparents are literally transitional fossils. Well, not fossilised yet but you get the point…

          • Reason2012

            If every generation is a translation – it’s still observable, repeatable, scientific fact no matter how many “translations” go by in the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, flies remain flies, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds and so on for all animals.

          • Paul M

            I think you mean “transitional” but yeah, spot on. You’ve clearly explained one part of the modern evolutionary synthesis; it’s impossible for an organism to change its kingdom, class, order, or family. So yep, well done.

          • Reason2012

            Over the entire existence of the human race, it does not happen what evolutionists claim it does so yes it shows how that belief is anti-science.
            Thanks for the spot on translation.

          • Jake Maason

            On the subject of logical fallacies: You fall back on the bible, and that’s a circulus in probando fallacy (circular logic). You also seem to think that arguments from personal incredulity somehow justify your position when in fact they only expose your ignorance. That’s just the tip of the ice burg though, there are several strawman arguments and red herring you try to weasel in as well and hope nobody will catch it. kind of hypocritical of you

          • http://www.restlesspixels.com/new markb

            talk.origins is a newsgroup. They didn’t choose the talk. part of the name any more than you choose the .com or .org part of your website URL. Other newsgroups are under the heading rec. as in rec.arts or alt. as in alt.binaries.music. As for “seeing” evolution, the platypus and echidna are enough for me – mammals that have retained reptilian reproductive systems. Interestingly, the platypus, one of the few venomous mammals, shares a certain trait with a fossil “proto-mammal”: poison spurs on its hind legs. So we’ve got a group of mammals that split off from the main branch before the development of mammalian reproductive systems and they also retain features of an early animal with both mammalian and reptilian features. The only reasonable conclusion, if you start without any preconceptions, is that the platypus evolved from reptiles.

          • Reason2012

            No, he linked the website talkorigins dot org, not a newsgroup.

            It’s a domain they picked – look into how domain names work.

          • Khalid Avito

            A Christian contradicting himself? Nooooo, that would never happen…

            Even if evolution were to be disproven, that would not in any way prove that god exists or prove creationism. Attacking evolution in no way provides any evidence in the existence of your deity…

          • Reason2012

            You cannot “disprove” a made up story that does not happen – you can only point out the fact that it
            – does not happen
            – they only give reasons to believe in it, hence
            – it’s anti-science

            Ask yourself why attacking God is your fallback when it’s supposed to be about beliefs you have that are supposed to be science.
            |
            If it was science you’d show it happen and end the debate. Being unable to do that, and being that it’s a belief meant to be an attack on God, the expected behavior is to attack God instead, and inthat regard evolutionists never disappoint.

          • Jake Maason

            Just because you can’t understand the science doesn’t make it go away lol. you’re such a child

          • Melissa Simpson

            He also believes in Christ and God.

          • Deina

            “the mythological claim that populations of fish that never had lungs can ‘evolve’ lungs over generations to breath air and ‘evolve’ new legs to walk on land to use their new lungs”

            Do you never tire of being wrong?

            https://youtu.be/Or9NUEroVcE

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t ask for a video of them pointing to an organism that DOES have lungs, then the belief that in the past they didn’t used to have lungs.

            So you admit they cannot show populations of fish that never had lungs ‘evolving’ lungs over generations.

            You instead point to organisms with lungs and attach the belief “they used to not have lungs”.

            Might as well point to man Dede, a former Indonesia fisherman, and claim he’s an “observation” of populations of trees evolving over generations eventually into people, and it would be just as much of a farce.

          • Deina

            You probably have no idea how incredibly ignorant that makes you sound.

            Proof of evolution is everywhere: what about the lungfish? It has both gills & lungs. But I’m sure you’ll explain it away, too, so that you don’t have to face anything that makes you question.

            The bacteria that you so blithely discount are adaptations, yes, but also evolution: their DNA has changed such that antibiotics that would kill them in the past will no longer do so.

          • Terry Chesnut

            Fish specie are easily identified by ray counts and counts of lateral line scales as well as other traits. If lung fish once had no lungs just gills where is the example where is the fossil of a lung fish with only gills? Every fossil lung fish is identical to the ones seen today. No change.

          • Deina

            Sure enough?

            While some collagen based soft tissue (tendons, ligaments & etc.) has been found in a handful of T-Rex fossils, which just happened to be buried under just the right circumstances, I haven’t heard of any 4 foot lungfish fossils being recovered with soft tissue intact. Obviously you have, so please share the link!

            Given the fragility of soft tissue, particularly in smaller specimens such as this, it’s unlikely that any gills were fossilized (though the cartilage of the gill flaps may have been fossilized), but lungs are both more frangible than gills, and they have no such distinctive covering.

            Given that, what evidence do you have to support your claim that “Every fossil lung fish is identical to the ones seen today. No change.”?

          • Terry Chesnut

            Modern lungfishes have an orobranchial pump that enables them to
            efficiently gulp air. The pump is associated with the presence of
            cranial ribs and certain features of the skull (i.e., a long stalk on
            the parasphenoid bone and the shape of the ceratohyal bones). These same
            features have been used as morphological evidence for air-gulping in
            some Late Devonian and all post-Devonian genera. Nonetheless, many late
            Paleozoic forms (e.g., Gnathorhiza) still retained large gill chambers and probably depended significantly on gill-breating. These structures as well as the choana are evident and only appear in these lung containing fish. These are hard features and some show externally and show no change. If they were gilled only these features would be useless. Lungfish still lungfish.

          • Deina

            When you cut & paste from an article, it’s considered bad form to fail to cite the source.

            Did you happen to actually read the article you plagiarized quoted from? One must assume not, otherwise one would have to question the ethics involved in skipping the previous paragraph, which gives an overview of where & when the lungs evolved.

            BTW, the article is: Devonian Times – Lungfishes at http://www.devoniantimes.org/who/pages/lungfish.html

          • natan

            This answer to your question comes from the article you later copied to try and defend your point about “No Change”:
            “The evolution of air-breathing by lungfishes has traditionally been associated with their entry into freshwaters. Some Late Devonian genera (e.g., Barwickia and Howidipterus in Australia andSoederberghia in Euamerica) have been recovered from freshwater environments, as have several Carboniferous and Permian genera (e.g.,Megapleuron). However, many of these have also been recovered from estuarine and shallow marine localities. Even the Early Permian genus Gnathorhiza, which presumably engaged in air-breathing while aestivating in its burrows, has been found in nearshore and estuarine deposits.” http://www.devoniantimes.org/who/pages/lungfish.html

          • natan

            Another interesting scientific study on the evolution of lungfish is here.http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/02/04/rsbl.2009.1033.full.pdf+html

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The bacteria that you so blithely discount are adaptations, yes, but also evolution: their DNA has changed such that antibiotics that would kill them in the past will no longer do so.

            Their DNA hasn’t changed, Deina. From where did you get that nonsense?
            The bacteria survived, that’s all. When Ebola wipes out 70% of a village’s inhabitants, did the other 30% evolve? Did their DNA change? Did their children evolve?
            Have I evolved because I’ve survived the flu dozens of times?

          • Terry Chesnut

            Actually if you research it viruses don’t adapt or gain new abilities or information in their dna the thing causing the resistant strains is a loss of information they are less adapted and have lost a protein bonding sight from their code that happens to keep most antibiotics from working on them. It is similar to the harmful cycle cell trait in humans that makes blood less able to carry o2 but due to the deformity has the side effect of protecting from malaria as it can not infect the less functional mutant cells.

          • natan
          • Reason2012

            Hello. THat only shows what I said: that evolutoinism does not happen. What you linked to only shows: that no matter how many generations go by, all populations of: fish remain fish, amphibians remain amphibians, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, and so on. That is observable, repeatable, scientific fact.

            Evolutionists ignore this scientific fact, pretend it’s not true, make up beliefs contrary to it, where these beliefs never happen, then make up theories to explain how their made up belief happens when it never does.

            And yes, Speciation refutes the beliefs of evolutionism showing time and again what they believe in does not happen.

          • natan

            Hi, first of all – it’s not “evolutoinism” it is evolution. You need to assess the definitions of the terms you apply in your arguments. What that link describes is not a worldview or religion, such as what you are mistaking for your ‘scientific’ perspective, but rather the evidence for observable changes in organisms over time, through genetic variations in reproduction. It is simply a mistaken belief of false expectations that you repeat. You’re presuming that evolution must demonstrate a radical evolutionary jump from one Family/Order/Class (yes they have specific taxonomic definitions) of organisms to another totally different category in a short amount of time. That is never what evolutionary science describes or hypothesizes. Or, you may then relent that change only occurs as adaptation or “microevolution” within a species, but that is a misunderstanding as well as it misses the point – that’s exactly what happens on a small time-scale. But when assessed from a larger time-scale, species blend into other species as a result of adaptation, natural selection and other factors, and given enough time, lineage can be traced from one Family, Order and Class to another. Here’s an example: Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

          • Reason2012

            Hello. It’s a belief system, so it’s called evolutionism.

            There’s no “evidence” that populations of fish that never had lungs can ‘evolve’ lungs over generations, and ‘evolve’ legs to then walk on land to use their new lungs (over generations) – that’s just storytelling.

            A ‘radical jump’ in ‘a short amount of time’?

            No, it doesn’t happen over the entire existence of the human race.

            You presume science is presenting beliefs that do not happen, then imply in the fine print in so many words “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, call the reasons I believe in it ‘evidence’, and call it science anyway)”

            Please cite where that definition of science exists. It doesn’t.

            Evolutionism is anti-science, plain and simple, whether someone beliefs in God or not.

            Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens does not make fossils “evidence” of the belief you just made up about them – circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

            So you might as well claim populations of trees ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into people then claim fossilized tree branches are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of a farce.

          • Joe Agnost

            @Reason2012:

            If you doubt transitional fossils exist perhaps you should look up ‘tiktaalik’ and read about the amazing discovery. Evolution predicted where the transitional fossil should be, and they went looking for is specifically… and what they found blows me away!

          • Reason2012

            Calling something a transitional fossil doesn’t make it one. You cannot start with a mythological belief that the human race has never seen happen and hence is just a belief, and then assuming the belief is true call something a transitional fossil. First the belief must be shown to be more than a belief and shown to actually happen.

            Using that logic, all someone has to do is claim populations of trees ‘evolved’ over generations eventually into people, then claim a fossilized tree branch is a “transitional fossil” and it would be just as much of a farce.

          • XLII

            I do not think you understand evolution if demand to see evidence that has happened in the existence of the human race. Well, do you mean in the existence of the species of Homo Sapien, or just the genus Homo? Regardless there is a substancial amount of physical evidence taht is supported by good science. All that is required of you is to live up to your name tag and use reason.

            If you want a proof then you can visit a real museum or visit http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/3d-collection/fossil. You can even compare several skulls from different species that are closely related, yet different. You can see the evolution between skulls if you notice all of the similarities and differences, such as the location of the foraman magnum, or the presence of a sagittal crest. If this doesn’t help you understand evolution in the least bit better, then I can not help you.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. So in other words, you’re claiming science is about presenting mythological beliefs that never happen, then add the fine print in so many words “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 via my reasons I believe in it, and call the reasons I believe in it “evidence” and call it science anyway.

            No, that’s not science.

            Visiting a museum that embellishes what animals looked like does not make it true that “this evolved from that, b/c I said so”.

            They are only giving reasons they believe it happens.

            The bottom line is the topic of origin of all biological diversity of life is beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

            Hope this clarifies.

          • XLII

            The only thing your post clarifies your predisposition of science, and that you believe science is mythological, which is laughable at best. I admire your skepticism, but it is very much ill directed. I will not bother you with any of the substantial amount of evidence on the Theory of Evolution because I’m sure if a mountain of evidence fell on you it would do little to change that predisposition. You are using in essence a strawman argument against science, saying science is making claims without any actuall empirical evidence backing it up when really, they are not making claims on their own beliefs but rather observations on the physical world, which is most certainly not beyond the scope of science. Enough about that, though.

            I will ask, though, if you think the Theory of Evolution is mythological, then how do you feel about the Theory of Gravity? Do you think gravity is a made up force and that you god instead will things to fall towards the center of the Earth? How can you then explain magnetism? Do you think all science in mythological? Do you think that plate tectonics are not to blame for continental drift and mountain formations because we havent observed a mountain form in the span of human existence or even written history? Or do you attribute all geological doings to your deity?

            And remember, when you are answering these questions, you are trying your hardest to convince me that science is bogus.

            Thank you for replying.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. No, science is just fine and is perfectly compatible with the existence of God. It’s the mythology of evolutionism that’s anti-science.

            There’s NO evidence for the mythology that “populations of fish that never had lungs can ‘evolve’ lungs over generations and eventually evolve legs to walk on land to use their new lungs” – i.e., that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that does not happen does not make fossils “evidence” of this belief that does not happen – it’s just anti-science circular reasoning.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “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!”

            Evolutionist “That’s a vestigial structure, and here are reasons I believe it is.”
            “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)

            They give reasons they believe in evolutionism then demand these ‘reasons’ are ‘evidence’ of it.

            Science is about things that ACTUALLY happen, then we move on to the “how” part of how it might actually happen. Evolution is a made up belief that does not happen, ignore that it does not happen, pretend it happens anyway, and move on to the “how” part and hope no one notices.

            We observe fossils. Making up beliefs ABOUT them that does not happen, then claim fossils are now “observations” of this belief is again more anti-science.

            Gravity: the human race SEES things fall to the ground. That’s an observed reality. SO we move on to the theory part, but even if wrong, this thing we call gravity is a reality.

            Magnetism: the human race SEES things get attracted to each other.

            Plate tectonics: the human race can SEE that earth is shifting – tectonics is the theory about how this might happen.

            No, when I respond, I’m not trying to ‘convince you that science is bogus’ – that’s your strawman. Science is fine as I just showed you as it starts with something that actually happens. I’m showing you how evolutionists instead start with something that has NEVER happened, ignored that it does not happen, and pretend it happens anyway.. then they start with theories when it’s all about mythological beliefs that does not happen to begin with.

            HUGE difference.

            So show evolutionism actually happen first, then you can finally start claiming it’s science. No one in the entire human race has ever seen this mythological belief system of theirs.

            Here’s what IS science on that topic: that no matter how many generations go by in the entire existence of the human race, all populations of: fish remain fish, amphibians remain amphibians, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, flies remain flies, birds remain birds, and so on. That is observable, repeatable, scientific fact.

            Evolutionists ignore this scientific fact, pretend it’s not true, make up beliefs contrary to it, where these beliefs never happen, then make up theories to explain how it happens when it never does.

            Please show the definition of science evolutionists use: “Well my beliefs take too long, so that’s why the human race will never see it – so take my word for it that it happens and call it science anyway”

            Thank you for posting.

          • Jake Maason

            You realize that a lung fish (a fish that has both lungs and gills) exist and is living today right? You must have been severely sheltered to be so ignorant of reality. Again your ignorance is evidence for nothing more than the fact that you are uneducated. I feel bad for any kids you might have

          • Jake Maason

            Your conspiracy talk is really stupid.

          • Reason2012

            You mean there are papers published that dare question the belief of evolutionism? No – there are none. That’s a fact, not a conspiracy – and your ad hominem only proves the sort of hateful anti-science censorship that goes on.

          • Jake Maason

            Get over it, nobody cares if you remain a misinformed cretin.

        • The Last Trump

          It’s actual fact.

          Peer review determines if one’s papers ever see the light of day so if the majority of your peers are pro evolution guess what YOUR paper better be?

          Exactly.

          Have a look see at the well know unscientific and severely flawed process of peer review. Actually quite shocking. I used to think scientists were all about objectivity and considering data from all sides. Not so. It’s no wonder why ALL of us have been kept from the knowledge of the truth that leads to Intelligent Design.

          It’s refreshing to hear honest researchers simply report on the data and candidly admit where the evidence appears to lead. But this honesty comes at a terrible price. You would think that the scientific arena would promote objectivity and serious consideration of all ideas. But that’s not what we find. In fact, it’s just the opposite. It is the goal of every researcher to get published. But in academia, peer review is used to determine an academic paper’s suitability for publication. And under this flawed system, the acceptance of a new find trumps its actual validity: “We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” (Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet).

          “The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.The peer review process may suppress dissent against “mainstream” theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts’ are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones.” (Wikipedia, “Peer Review,” various sources, references 41-48.)

          Under such restrictions, as you would expect, researchers are forced to go along if they want to get along. Otherwise their careers are over before they’ve even begun. And it is within this environment that for some bizarre reason intelligent design has been absolutely barred from all discussion.

          Guillermo Gonzalez is one of the astrobiologists who co-wrote the book, “The Privileged Planet,” and is interviewed in the above documentaries. He was an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University. When I checked into his background a little deeper I was disappointed to learn (but certainly not surprised) that after publishing his views in the book that he co-authored, his tenure was subsequently denied by the university when it came due. “Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole may experience pressure to favor noncontroversial lines of academic inquiry. The intent of tenure is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions as they see fit, and to report their honest conclusions.” (Wikipedia). After many appeals he has since moved on and currently resides at Ball State University in Indiana as an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy.

          Two years prior to his consideration for tenure, approximately 130 members of the faculty of Iowa State University signed a statement opposing “all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.” Similar statements were issued by faculty at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa. A total of approximately 400 professors signed the three petitions. Here are a few of the statements made:

          “Intelligent Design has become a significant issue in science education, and it has now established a presence, even if minimal, at Iowa State University. Accordingly, if you are concerned about the NEGATIVE IMPACT (!?) of Intelligent Design on the INTEGRITY (!?) of science and on our university, please consider signing the “Statement on Intelligent Design by Iowa State University Faculty” below. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of “science and technology,” convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and REJECT efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.”

          Wow. Does that sound like objective scientists to anybody? Banding together to pre-emptively strike down any and all theory of intelligent design, regardless of evidence. A Creator is just too unthinkable for these “scientists” regardless of where the evidence leads. Even the TV show, Ancient Aliens, is more objective than this bunch and regularly exposes the ridiculously flawed version of history we are required to believe. They, too, however, have an unthinkable attitude toward God, and so attribute our creation and assistance to aliens. The responsibility for the overwhelming evidence for our design has to belong to someone, right?

          How very strange that any honest research that leads to logical conclusions pointing to intelligent design should be such an affront to the establishment, and so, be discredited straightaway. Once upon a time we formed theories based on evidence. Today we force the “evidence” to fit the theory and discard what doesn’t fit. This inexcusable bias and intolerance to truth is, alas, the reality of the “science” of today. Shameful. We really have to do our own homework and fully utilize the Internet. Mainstream channels are unreliable and you simply won’t find the truth on T.V. Hats off to the folks who are risking everything by resisting these academic bullies, sacrificing promotions and careers to reach us with the facts. We can make up our own minds from there.

          Paul, if you would really like to know why many Christians believe what they believe, I mean REALLY want to know and not just argue your side, I will definitely take the time to provide you with links to hard scientific evidence that completely authenticates the Bible as the Word of God. I was not a Christian in my youth. I became one because Christianity answered more of my questions than any other religion and had hard evidence to back it up. And explained all the rest. Even now, we are exactly where the Bible said we would be and have not strayed at all from the “plan” for mankind that God has laid out in the pages of the Bible all those thousands of years ago. You’ve heard of the Second Coming and no doubt mocked it? Let’s see now:

          Israel had to become a nation after waiting thousands of years, be surrounded by nations committed to her destruction, and completely isolated with nobody else BUT Christ to count on to save them. And this all had to occur in a generation of growing godlessness, defections from the faith (Christianity), anti Semitism, sexual anarchy, financial collapse, wars and revolutions, and high technology.

          How’s God doing, Paul?

          Do you really believe a bunch of shepherds guessed all THAT correctly? How, pray tell?
          If you do your own honest, open minded investigation into the God of the Bible you will find what you seem to be seeking. The TRUTH. God’s got nothing to hide and if His Word is truth, there should be lots of evidence to support it. And there IS.
          Check it out and let me know if I can help. 🙂
          (Sorry this is SO long! That’s the trouble with these forums. There’s just too much information and not nearly enough space!)

        • http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ Rich

          Do you see the truth in this?

          “If the ocean was millions of years old, assuming the rate at which the salinity is rising has always been constant, we should be able to walk on the ocean by now, it would be that salty.”

          Do you know why this won’t even get talked about by those who actually believe the nonsense taught by evolution?

      • UmustBKiddinMe

        So if “peer-reviewed papers are quite available”, they are not being censored. If they were being censored, they would not be available.

        • Reason2012

          They’re being censored from their own journals. Then b/c they don’t get published in THEIR journals, they claim there “are no” peer-reviewed published papers on the subject. Anti-science of them to the core.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            “THEIR journals”

            What journals are you referring to and what examples do you have of articles being rejected by these journals?

            “they claim there “are no” peer-reviewed published papers on the subject.”

            Who is “they” and what examples do you have of their claiming that?

      • http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ Rich

        So true. Even when people investigate and proof such things as:

        “If the ocean was millions of years old, assuming the rate at which the salinity is rising has always been constant, we should be able to walk on the ocean by now, it would be that salty.”

        they still won’t publish them. So much evidence that humans have been here since the beginning, yet no one cares. They think humans and big animals can’t even live at the same time, such as dinosaurs which humans have always known about but called them dragons (with huge land mass don’t need to live in the same area!), yet here we still live at the same time as lions, deadly spiders, sharks, whales and other animals that could easily be a threat to humans, but aren’t so much, why? We don’t share our cities with them!

    • Reason2012
      • UmustBKiddinMe

        Was there a point to your links other than confirming that information about creation is not censored?

        • Reason2012

          You mean the relevant papers were allowed to be published on standard science journals? No, they weren’t. You’re being disingenuous.

          • Paul Hiett

            “Relevant papers”

            And by relevant, are you referring to the idea an Aboriginal from Australia, a Japanese man, a Native American, a Pygmie from Africa, and a Norseman from Scandinavia can all trace their heritage back to Noah?

            I think of a good reason why that wouldn’t be published in a scientific journal.

          • Reason2012

            So now you admit relevant papers are not published in scientific journals. Better tell other poster.

          • Paul Hiett

            Did you not pick up on the idea that such a paper would NOT be relevant in a scientific journal?

          • happylada

            False – what you REALLY mean is NOT that it is not relevant but that its importance is downplayed by those who refuse to allow challenges to their mythology.

            Facts, evidence and relevance have NOTHING to do with publication. Supporting the myth is everything.

            That is why science journals often have “facts” published AFTER the creationist articles are old news.

          • jacuzzi37

            There’s no “facts” that support atheism, pal. The
            big bang, evolution, abiogenesis – none of it has ever been seen and being in the physical universe – there’s no excuse for it not being observed EXCEPT that they do not exist. We see other physical phenomenon every day, such as speciation, reproduction and gravity, so the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis are not science at all because they cannot be tested, measured and observed. So you can stop with the science talk when you mention these theories of lies AND stop w/ the certainty of any of them as they are something YOU HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN.

          • jacuzzi37

            You mean like the big bang, evolution and abiogenesis – ideas that aren’t science at all? You know, the entities that can’t even fit into the scientific method of testing, measuring and observing? You have a lot to learn.

          • Manfred Panning

            The “relevant papers” will not get published if they are not supported by objective evidence.

          • Reason2012

            Same ‘evidence’: fossils, DNA, information in DNA, mechanisms to use this information, decode it to use it to build organic machines and so on. It’s the interpretation of this “evidence” they dismiss and hence censor their analysis.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. How about you stop talking about topics you know nothing about? The radical left wing atheist zealot ideologues control academia and most of the world. Don’t be so quick to gulp down their false propaganda.

          • Manny Panning

            Objective evidence must have a radical left wing atheist predisposition, then.

          • jacuzzi37

            Objective evidence is mine, Dear: Let’s give a quick death to atheism right here and right now: I’m denying the impossible: The atheist claim that mankind came from a rock by purposeless mindless unguided processes. I’m also denying the claim that our life, intelligence, morality and value did not come from a living, intelligent, moral God of absolute worth. God is the only option, as he alone has these attributes to give us and he alone has the tools (diving brilliance & divine power) to give them to us as he designed/created us in his image/likeness. There is no other option. Atheism is destroyed by these facts alone.

          • ChuckyJesus

            Ummm, only real SCIENCE gets to be published in scientific journals. The fact that creationism doesn’t appear in real scientific journals attests to the fact that the system works. If it didn’t work that way, there would be papers published on Alchemy, flat earth theories, astrology, and how to conduct a seance.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. How about you stop talking about topics you know nothing about? There’s no “facts” that support atheism, pal. Thebig bang, evolution, abiogenesis – none of it has ever been seen and being in the physical universe – there’s no excuse for it not being observed EXCEPT that they do not exist. We see other physical phenomenon every day, such as speciation, reproduction and gravity, so the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis are not science at all because they cannot be tested, measured and observed. So you can stop with the science talk when you mention these theories of lies AND stop w/ the certainty of any of them as they are something YOU HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN. The radical left wing atheist ideologues control all of academia and most of the world. WAKE UP! I can debunk atheism all day long, obviously.

          • oregon_man

            They are called that because they are, “not real science”. That’s what peer-review is all about.

          • jacuzzi37

            Not real science such as big bang, abiogenesis and evolution? I agree. NONE of them have ever been observed. It’s all atheism pseudo-science.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Get over yourself, @Reason2012:disqus.

            Learn the difference between “rejection” because you are inappropriate, and “censorship” because people are afraid of what you have to say.

            The vast dialogs out there on evolutionism versus creationism, including this thread, testify that there is no censorship.

            The content of the dialog should explain clearly and succinctly why there is rejection.
            .

          • jacuzzi37

            I think you might want to be the one to get over yourself. Censorship exists by the radical left wing atheist zealot ideologues of the world. WAKE UP!

          • Oboehner

            And by relevant, are you referring to the idea an Aboriginal from Australia, a Japanese man, a Native American, a Pygmie from Africa, and a Norseman from Scandinavia, and every other form of life on this planet can all trace their heritage back to a rock 4.6 billion years ago?

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s certainly more plausible than everything coming from Noah’s family and his boat.

            Ever wonder why kangaroos aren’t found anywhere but in Australia?

          • Oboehner

            Sure it is. Ever consider that the pair of kangaroos ended up there? If they had “evolved” wouldn’t they be everywhere?

          • Paul Hiett

            4000 years isn’t long enough…if that were the case, we’d see not only fossil records from Turkey to Australia, we’d see the progression in the species through those fossil records as well.

            However, that hasn’t happened. There are no fossils of kangaroos outside of Australia. Ergo, where did they come from?

          • The Last Trump

            Please explain with hard scientific data why 4000 years cannot possibly be “long enough”.

          • Paul Hiett

            Just to be clear, you’re asking why I think that 4000 years is not enough time for a family of 8 to repopulate the earth thus creating every race on Earth? You’re asking why I think that 4000 years is not enough time to wipe out evidence of all of the animals of the earth migrating from that mountain in Turkey, and somehow re-establishing every species of land based animals in the world?

            That is what you’re asking, right?

          • The Last Trump

            Absolutely. You made the claim matter of factly.
            Back it up. With facts to conclusively proof it.
            That’s what you expect from every one else, right?
            Unless just opinion. Again.

          • wat

            Simple logic dictates that 4,000 years isn’t enough. The myth of Noah’s Ark simply is not compatible with reality.

            https://youtu.be/aK7i-dtMaWk

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. If the earth were 4 billion years old, we’d have 150,000 people per square inch. I can disprove atheism all day long.

          • Robin Beringer Paley

            Um the FACT that there are trees on this planet that are nearly 10,000 years old for starters…

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. The oldest trees in the world are not over 5,000 years old, which lines up w/ Noah’s flood.

          • http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ Rich

            I’m interested in knowing what hard evidence there is too, especially when you have we have our Creator behind the creation of every atom, molecule, and organism.

            How long would it take to make an iPhone? Would you believe not long? Why? What if you took the creator of the iPhone out of the picture? Then how long would it take?

            Did you know scientists and professors were asked for evidence that it wasn’t God that brought every unique think about and how genetics work, but evolution, and they couldn’t give a single fact?

            Watch: http://www.EvolutionVsGod.com

          • Khalid Avito

            Nor could they probably prove that it wasn’t Zeus, or space aliens, Vampires, werewolves, faeries, Krishna, Allah, Poseiden, or the result of a lost game of PONG. You can’t disprove a negative. It’s up to those making the extraordinary claim that god exists to provide evidence of his existence, and all that other madness you spout. Can you disprove the gods of Mount Olympus and the Titans are not real and the true deities? Can you prove that I’m not the real god, here on the internet to test you?

            No? Then they all must be true by your logic…

          • Yah Saves

            ” extraordinary claim that god exists to provide evidence of his existence”

            The notion that there is no evidence for the existence of God is not only wrong-He told us where to look. Evaluate His prophetic predictions. Last time I checked, only God could accurately and consistently tell the future without err. It’s why you can not produce a single failed prophecy, historical error, or even a scientific blunder.

          • Manny Panning

            Circular reasoning.

            Try again.

          • jacuzzi37

            Prophecies Currently Being Fulfilled:

            1. The Jewish people will be regathered in unbelief from the four
            corners of the earth (Isaiah 11:11-12). Fulfillment: 20th Century and continuing.

            2. The state of Israel will be re-established (Isaiah 66:7-8 & Ezekiel 37:21-22). Fulfillment: May 14, 1948.

            3. The Jews will once again re-occupy the
            city of Jerusalem (Zechariah 8:4-8), Fulfillment: June 7, 1967.

            4. The land of Israel will be reclaimed from its desolation, becoming once again a land of agricultural abundance (Ezekiel 36:34-35).
            Fulfillment: 20th Century and continuing.

            5. The Hebrew language will be revived from the dead (Zephaniah 3:9).
            Fulfillment: 19th & 20th Centuries.

            6. All the nations of the world will come together against Israel over the issue of the control of Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:1-3).
            Fulfillment: Currently occurring.

          • jacuzzi37

            There is only one true
            God and he is Jehovah of the Bible. Jesus is the only God w/ an empty tomb, the only God resurrected as our savior, the only one that offers humanity a “remedy for sin” and the only God that has paid our sin debt on the cross as he PARTOOK of suffering – just like we suffer. All other gods, cults & literature are cheap copies of Christianity & the Bible. But there is
            only one God – else we’d all be dead due to their fighting. All other so-called “gods” are simply demons set up as gods by idol worshipers.

          • Manny Panning

            //There is only one true
            God and he is Jehovah of the Bible. Jesus is the only God w/ an empty tomb,//

            Prove the claim. There have been some 2700 deities named throughout recorded history, and the presence or absence of an alleged empty grave is irrelevant.

            //the only God resurrected as our savior,//

            Said claim being unconfirmed by any independent, contemporaneous sources.

            //the only one that offers humanity a “remedy for sin”//

            Sins which include tattoos, eating pork, rabbit and shellfish, trimming beards and sidelocks, wearing mixed fabrics, and working on one day of the week.

            Nothing about rape, slavery (slavery is endorsed), genocide (ordered by said deity), ethnic cleansing (again ordered by this supposed deity), war………

            And the punishment for all sins from taking sid deity’s name in vain to murder, are an eternity of torment.

            //and the only God that has paid our sin debt on the cross as he PARTOOK of suffering – just like we suffer.//

            Unless this God actually DIED, as in final, no return, no absolute sure knowledge of what happens after, he took a three day nap.

            //All other gods, cults & literature are cheap copies of Christianity & the Bible.//

            So, no concept of cause and effect involved here.

            How does something copy something that came after it? Did Star Trek copy Star Wars? Did Homer copy Shakespeare?

            //But there is only one God – else we’d all be dead due to their fighting. All other so-called “gods” are simply demons set up as gods by idol worshipers.//

            Nope, all gods, your’s included, are an attempt to explain natural phenomena by people who lacked the means to make precise observations. Anthropomorphism worked.

          • jacuzzi37

            /There is only one true God and he is Jehovah of the Bible.
            Jesus is the only God w/ an empty tomb,//
            Prove the claim. There have been some 2700
            deities named throughout recorded history, and the presence or absence of an
            alleged empty grave is irrelevant.
            >>> Secular information and the Bible. Both the old and new testaments declare Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross. We also have a vast amount of evidence outside the Bible from historians. Apparently, what you don’t realize is that God was the first on the scene and then Satan. Since that moment, Satan has
            counterfeited God and that’s why you have cults and cheap copies of the Bible exhibiting the Doctrine of Demons (atheism, evolution, abiogenesis). So it doesn’t matter “when” God was “counterfeited” as long as you understand God was here first and Satan started to counterfeit his aims from that point onward.

            /the only God resurrected as our savior,//
            Said claim being unconfirmed by any independent, contemporaneous sources.
            >>> I don’t need “independant” sources, although there are a vast amount out there if you do your spiritual research. The 66 books of the Bible, written over 3500 years by over 40 authors will
            suffice, personally.

            //the only one that offers humanity a “remedy for sin”//
            Sins which include tattoos, eating pork, rabbit and shellfish, trimming beards and sidelocks, wearing mixed fabrics, and working on one day of the week.
            >>> Wrong. That’s under the Old Covenant.

            Nothing about rape, slavery (slavery is endorsed), genocide (ordered by said deity), ethnic cleansing (again ordered by this supposed deity), war………
            >>> IF you want me to debunk you, submit actual scripture and I’ll do it. NONE of what you say hasn’t been debunked centuries ago.

            And the punishment for all sins from taking sid deity’s name in
            vain to murder, are an eternity of torment.
            >>> See above.

            //and the only God that has paid our sin debt on the cross as he PARTOOK of suffering – just like we suffer.//
            Unless this God actually DIED, as in final, no return, no
            absolute sure knowledge of what happens after, he took a three day nap.
            >>> Yes, his body died. The soul lives on.

            //All other gods, cults & literature are cheap copies of Christianity & the Bible.//
            So, no concept of cause and effect involved here. How does something copy something that came after it? Did Star Trek copy Star Wars? Did Homer copy Shakespeare?
            >>> We’re talking supernatural war – not the fighting between puny humans.

            //But there is only one God – else we’d all be dead due to their
            fighting. All other so-called “gods” are simply demons set up as gods
            by idol worshipers.//
            Nope, all gods, your’s included, are an attempt to explain natural phenomena by people who lacked the means to make precise observations. Anthropomorphism worked.
            >>> Wrong. All attempts ceased when the Bible came
            about to educate mankind who knew God existed, but didn’t know the facts.

          • Manny Panning

            //Wrong. That’s under the Old Covenant.//

            Matthew 5:17-18

            “17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

            So…um…yeah, not so much.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. We are under the New Covenant of “grace” NOW through Christ: “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!” – Romans 6:15

            “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a SABBATH DAY.” – Col 2:16-17 (NIV)

            Jesus Abolished Israel’s Old Covenant law with Ten Commandments and regulation: ” … by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” – Eph 2:15 (NIV)

            Notice, “the law” is singular that was abolished, not laws. There was just “one law”—the Mosaic law—with many commands and regulations, that was abolished by Jesus.

          • Manny Panning

            So, same sex marriage is okay, then…it being part of the “Old Covenant”…unless you plan to expand your repertoire into cherry picking and moving goal posts.

          • absentee landlord

            Hard evidence? You want hard evidence about Noah ark being B.S.? How about the fact that even with all the ice on the planet melted that it wouldn’t be enough water to cover the entire surface of the earth. Hard enough for you?

          • Yah Saves

            “wouldn’t be enough water to cover the entire surface of the earth. ”

            That’s not what God said. Perhaps you should become more familiar with the words you are wont to assail. The Hebrew word “erets” means “region, land or ground”-not “earth”. It only means “earth” in the sense of “Ground”- like shovel full of earth. No Kangaroos onboard with Noah.

            Speaking of idiots who believe uncle Bob was a rock: Reps from all 34 phyla of animals burst onto the scene during the Cambrian period. Not a single new phylum since. Care to explain that? Anyone???

          • Manfred Panning

            Oh, good, the Ray Comfort fraud.

            First, Ray-Ray tried to get the scientists in question to provide evidence of evolution, which they did. He then moved the goalposts by demanding proof of “changes in kinds”, which is a strawman argument, since evolution does not propose sudden, gross, metamorphoses.

            (It helps to watch the poorly produced piece of propagandizing stupidity before citing it.)

            Let me explain the logical fallacy called “Burden of proof”. The party asserting the truth, existence or reality of a claim carries the burden of proof, since proving something does not exist is a logical impossibility.

            For example, I believe there is a 5000 gallon purple, brushed aluminum teapot floating in space on the far side of Pluto. Contained within this teapot are sacred writings with important wisdom and laws for all humanity to obey.

            Prove it’s not there.

            Better yet, prove Thor doesn’t exist. I will apply your methodology to God.

          • jacuzzi37

            Not only does purposeless mindless evolution not exist, but it is impossible. There is no mind, power, purpose or ability in the model of evolution. There is no creator for it. You don’t have a mind, power, purpose or ability to start it. You don’t have it to progress it forward. And you don’t have it to maintain what it supposedly created. There is
            absolutely no ENTITY OR ATTRIBUTE in the model of evolution that would allow anything but total dysfunction & failure; therefore, evolution is a farce, it’s impossible & it has no tools to even do the job you claim it does. Yet millions are brainwashed by the atheist anti-God liars that promulgate this lie of evolution, which is part of the doctrine of demons (atheism, evolution, abiogenesis) that will literally take millions to hell. On top of that, you are telling me you are certain of evolution, when it’s SOMETHING YOU HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN!! Therefore, ALL YOU PROVE HERE is that you are totally gullible to false propaganda. Evolution is a purposeless mindless unguided process, which makes it impossible to do anything. If you don’t believe me, jerk out your brain and make me a ham sandwich. Let’s see how far you get. Go ahead and tell me that the human being came from a rock by purposeless mindless unguided processes. Let’s see just how ridiculous you can be, due to your Godless desperation.

          • David E

            more arguments from ignorance. is this the best yu can do? And back to the fallacy if you have not seen it, fallacy. If this is your only argument shows you are completely clueless. Repeating what some minister said or what you heard from another apologists shows the weakness of your argument. You are an idiot. even fter i showed toy that abiogenesis does not say we came from a rock. Checkmate atheist. you lose again.

          • Manfred Panning

            If I have to, personally, observe evolution in order for it to be real, then you must, personally, observe creation as reported in Genesis in order for it to be real.

            See how that works?

            Now, since you have not, personally, observed this, I will accept your peer reviewed, replicable, experimental evidence.

            Just so you know, you’re a wonderful collection of logical fallacies., but you know nothing about evolution.

          • happylada

            Rubbish. For millennia there were millions of buffalo in NA – from the Rockies to the Atlantic – and NOT a fossil to be found.

            And since most fossils are the RESULT of the flood, one would NOT expect to see any fossils of their migration towards Australia

          • David Ewers

            really, whats this?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_latifrons

            And disproving evolution, does not prove there is a god. You actually have to have evidence to back up your claims. And so you have nothing.

          • texastarheel

            “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Open your eyes. The proof of God and His creation are all around you. Your own body should be proof enough.

          • David Ewers

            take all the disbelief that you have on any other religion and apply it to your own, now you will see my views on yours. you are an atheist on every other religion, i just add yours to the list.

            And your body comment, is known as a argument from ignorance.

          • texastarheel

            Dear David, I’m truly sorry you feel the need to attack me. I was only trying to share the beauty of the human body and give acknowledgement to the One who created it. In reference to your mention of religions: I don’t believe in religion. Religion is nothing but man-made ritual as far as I am concerned and has nothing to do with God, in my opinion. I know I am not alone in that. I am a monotheist. I believe in the one and only Creator of the Universe. He has many names. I usually just call Him Jesus.

          • texastarheel

            BTW, Mr Ewers, I don’t expect a reply. This isn’t up for discussion. And, I’m not interested in an argument. But, if you’d like to know more about Jesus, I’ll happily introduce you. Serious inquires only. My relationship with I AM and my way of life are NOT A JOKE.

          • Yah Saves

            I have a question about Jesus. If the letter “J” didn’t even exist, how can His name be “Jesus”?

          • texastarheel

            Excellent question! His name is actually Yoshuah or Yahushua. Over the centuries it became Iesous, then Iesus and when J came along we got Jesus. You can chalk this up to the Greek gentiles and later the Latin spoken by Romans. Finally, modern English and its J. No matter how it was incorrectly translated, the Messiah knows who He is and knows who we are calling whether we call out, “Jesus” or any other of his myriad names.

          • Yah Saves

            Well thank you. As you probably guessed, I knew the answer to my question. I’m surprised that you know as much as you do….and still call Him by an errant name. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer and this is what I would add:

            1. Iesous or anything even close to that was never written by a scribe pre Constantine.

            2. His doesn’t have a myriad of names-He has ONE

            3. According to Him-only one name saves.

            4. It is written:Those who do not know His name, are not part of His family.

            5. It is written:Those who turn away from the Torah (Christianity), even their prayer is an abomination.

          • texastarheel

            1. Yes, that is correct. I alluded to that in my previous answer. Sometimes people mishear and also, if they aren’t a native speaker of that language, they might try to phonetically spell what they hear based on their primary written language. This is especially tricky when there is no character or glyph to represent the sound or when the sound doesn’t exist in the listeners native tongue. For example, Chinese speakers don’t have the sound of the English L. When learning to speak English for the first time, they have to train their mouths to make that sound otherwise mispronunciations abound.
            2. I’m sorry. I cannot agree with you there. Rather than argue, let’s just agree to disagree. Jews and Christians alike know YHVH or Adonai by many names. The Hebrew language and the Word of God are my references to this fact.
            The New Testament alone refers to Yeshuah (or He aludes to it Himself) as: El Olam, Yehovah Yireh (or Adonai Avinu), Adonai Ro’i, Adonai Tsidkenu, Yehovah Rapha (or Adonai Roph’ekha), El Shaddai, Immanuel (or Ehyeh), Yehovah Shalom (or Adonai Shalom). I have typed out YEHOVAH instead of YHVH which many Christians pronounce Yehovah. I realize it is actually pronounced Adonai in Hebrew.
            YHVH is Yeshuah, Immanuel the great I AM who is El Elyon Elohim.
            3. HE saves. Yeshua (or Joshua, if you will) means God saves. Remember, the angel of God told Mary what to name her son for a reason. No matter what language it’s translated into, it still has the same meaning. Today in English speaking countries it’s spelled and pronounced Jesus. Remember Peter? Well, that’s what we call him now but, it still means rock regardless into which language it’s translated.
            4. It is written: Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
            Even Satan knows His name and who He is but, that will not save him.
            5. It is written: Romans 8:39 ‘neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’
            His forgiveness never runs out for a repentant heart.

          • Yah Saves

            We agree on number one so let’s start at number 2. You claim that He has many names-I said that is incorrect. No I will not agree to disagree. It is either in Scripture-or it is not. This is not up for debate. I would like for you to give ONE EXAMPLE to support your position. Keep in mind: I am a coach, a father, and a husband….but I only have one NAME. There is a difference between a name and a title. God has ONE NAME. Produce an example.

            3.” Yeshua (or Joshua, if you will) means God saves.”

            I won’t. Steve isn’t Fred. Sally isn’t Mary. We are communicating in English-there is no excuse. Moreover, the name God used means YAH saves-not God Saves. Prophecy demands the Messiah come in the name of the Father. “No matter what language it’s translated into, it still has the same meaning.”

            LOL Riiiiight. Sorry, that is errant. Jesus doesn’t “mean” anything.

            4.Your quote has nothing to do with what I said. In fact, it is further evidence to what I said, but you offered it up as if it said something against what I presented-it doesn’t. Furthermore, when I say “It is written”, it either IS or it is not. If it IS written, are you really going to present words from Paul that contradict God? In SCRIPTURE(Isaiah) it is writen: ” My people shall know My Name”. I think God just said that if you don’t know His name, you aren’t part of His family. He didn’t say that was the only requirement so your excuse that Satan knows His name……..is not pertinent. And the “Word of God are my references” is not accurate. The only chance you have to be right is to provide evidence that God contradicts Himself. Good luck.

            5. Pro 28:9 “He who turns away his ear from hearing the Torah, Even his prayer is an abomination”

            That is called SCRIPTURE. The WORD of GOD. That which was read by the Messiah. And your evidence to show that is wrong is what????? Exactly. Scripture is not up for debate. It’s either there or it’s not. What I said is 100% accurate……because it is Scriptural. Nothing can stand against it.

            Christianity is drenched in pagan idolatry and awash in a myriad of lies-such as “Lord Jesus Christ”. He NEVER refered to Himself as such-not once-not EVER!!
            BTW, it’s also not godly to lie to children about a fat man in a red suit. All religions are lies and God hates them.

          • texastarheel

            Sir, as far as #2 I gave you plenty of references and I quoted the Bible, everything I wrote in my post is true and taken from the Bible so how could it be lies? The new testament confirms the old testament it is the fulfilling of it’s prophecies. I used Hebrew language references to back up the modern English. I really don’t understand why you are angry or why you think I’m lying. Any Christian or Messianic Jew or student of Hebrew can back me up on this. I’m also confused because at first you said that the name of Jesus saves and now you say that the name Jesus doesn’t have a meaning after I corrected you by saying the person of Jesus saves and not just knowing or calling his name saves you. And I might add, when I wrote ‘it is written’ believe me it is in Holy Scripture and I put the chapter and verse down to prove it.

          • Yah Saves

            First of all, I am not angry. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to ascertain my emotion from a few written words. Next, SCRIPTURE is defined as the Torah, Prophets and Psalms. As far as #2 is concerned, why go into all that mantra when you could have more easily just listed an example of one of His many other names. You didn’t because you can’t. God has ONE name and one name only. Yes, He has many titles, but only one name.,….and it isn’t the Lord(that’s Satan’s)

            Next, unless the Father is named “Jess”, a man named “Jesus” did not fulfill the prophecy regarding Him coming in the name of the Father. The Mesiah’s name has “YAH” in it.. The Yeh…shua is a rabbinical corruption just like the letter “V”, (YHVH) but that is for a different discussion. Therefore the name means YAH saves or Yah is salvation. “Jesus” does not have a meaning, and it is not His name. Period. The very first time it was EVER USED is in 1629-good grief.

            In closing, the “It is written” applies to the words of God….you know SCRIPTURE. Again, are you here to say that letters from a guy named Paul trumps God? I showed you SCRIPTURE where it says as cleatr as words allow that His family will know His name, and that those who turn away from the Torah (Hmmmm), even their prayers are an abomination. That is what it says, and those are the word read by the Messiah!!!! So be my guest on showing God as wrong and good luck finding that evidence in the words He inspired. It’s a ridiculous proposition: The ONLY way for you to be rijght is for God to contradict Himself. Show me that please.

            “after I corrected you”

            Hilarious

          • Yah Saves

            “The new testament ”

            What few understand because of the Church lies, is what should be known as it is clearly alluded by our Creator. That is: He has one Covenant- it’s not a “testament” as that is a document to divide the belongings of a dead person. He choose His words carefully so the least we could do is use them. He said Covenant but He also said it was REnewed. The only thing “new” about it is that it will be written and known in our inner most part. It will be part of us. “It” of coarse being the Torah. Obviously that hasn’t happened yet so we can be sure the renewed covenant is still in the future. Now here comes the part you are really going to protest LOL. It hasn’t happened yet and it’s not for “Christians”. As clear as words allow, it is for Yisra’el and Yahudah.

          • texastarheel

            You wrote “the “It is written” applies to the words of God….you know SCRIPTURE”
            I have never disputed that. In fact, I quoted scripture i.e. the Bible. I get anger from your tone. I feel like I’m being told off when I read your responses. I keep waiting for you to call me a blasphemer or worse. However, I stand firm and sure of everything I have written to you. I study God’s Word pretty much on a daily basis. I know a little Hebrew. I want to learn more so I have a better understanding.
            Lord of the Flies or Beelzebub is Satan.
            Adonai is our Lord God: YHVH.
            Adonai is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I personally feel Hebrew was the language Moses spoke and it was just one of the languages our Messiah spoke while He was a man. He knows who He is and I know who He is and He knows who I am AND we know each other on a personal level, as well. We’ve been together all my life and I surrendered to him and made him my personal Lord when I was just six years old. That relationship has grown over 45 years. Sometimes I call him Father. Sometimes I call him Holy Spirit. It depends on what my prayer is regarding. Mostly I just call him Jesus because I speak English even though his name was very likely Yeshuah which in Hebrew means (as I said before) salvation. Since He was the Messiah, it makes TOTAL sense to me because the Messiah was sent to save mankind from death and the judgement deserved for sin and wickedness against God and the outpouring of His wrath. Instead, Yeshuah/Jesus is blood sacrifice and scapegoat in one.
            You have not corrected me. You disagree with me. That is your right. I know I am right with my God. He is the Creator of life, the savior of mankind and the power & authority of I AM. (He told Moses that was one of His names, too by the way.) He is the one who was, and is and is to come. These are my final words in this discussion. May God shine His face down upon you and give you peace.

          • Yah Saves

            Never been more at peace, but thanks none the less. You say you “know you are right” but once AGAIN, you have not, ,will not and can not produce a shred of evidence for your statement. Period! God has one name and one name only.It is Yahowah. . There is ONE name that saves and one mediator between God and men. It’s Yahowsha-not Jesus.

            “because I speak English even though his name was very likely Yeshuah which in Hebrew means (as I said before) salvation.”

            That’s not what you said and that’s not what it means. You said earlier that it meant “God saves”. Now it just means “salvation”. Wrong. It means YAH saves, and dthat is why it is YAHshua-not YEH…..Rabbis will demean your Messiah at every angle-stop helping them. Next, what most do not understand is that there is no such thing as a Hebrew name or an English name. Names do not change with language. Barack Obama is “Barack Obama” everywhere on Earth. WORDS are translated and NAMES must be transliterated. This is linguistics 101.
            I am sorry you feel that way but I have NEVER attacked you personally or called you names. I am simply passionate about my Father. May His Spirit be with you and yours.

          • Yah Saves

            Here are your examples (from the Bible) that you gave for “# 2”.

            “El Olam, ”

            “El” is a Hebrew WORD and so is “Olam”. They mean “Deity, God” and “Forever” respectfully. Neither are NAMES.

            “Yehovah Yireh (or Adonai Avinu),”

            The name of the place Abe named. The Hebrew reads YHWH or Yahuweh/Yahweh (not Adonai) and is the one and only personal and proper name of God. The secondis a WORD that means “to see”. So the mountain Abe named means Yah will see.

            “Adonai Ro’i, ”

            Is another Judaism myth. Adonai is NOT THERE-YaHuWaH is there. And ro’i is just another Hebrew WORD. Please learn the difference between a WORD and a NAME.

            H7210

            ראי

            rŏ’ı̂y

            BDB Definition:

            1) looking, appearance, seeing, sight

            1a) seeing

            1b) appearance

            1c) sight, spectacle

            I see no reason to go down the rest of the list. None of them were an example of another name for God. He told us His name 7000 times. Men erased it 7000 times and wrote “Lord/Ba‘al/Adonai” in it’s place. This is sad or many reasons. 1. Only one name saves.2. False God’s like Allah(Satan) can only fool those who are ignorant of His name. 3. He, like usual, said as clear as words allow “I am Yahuwah that is my name“. And last and perhaps saddest of all is upon His return, one of the first lines of business will be to make sure He is never called Lord again.

          • texastarheel

            I am familiar with the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Some of my Bibles use those headings instead of old and new testaments.
            Messiah has come and the New Covenant was made nearly two thousand years ago. Israel missed it for the most part but, gentiles witnessed it, too and they were the ones who caught on for the most part initially. More of the chosen people are getting it now. The truth has spread world wide. I’m truly sorry you can’t see it. You are so busy arguing semantics that you miss the forest for the trees. You think I’m wrong, deceived even. I can’t figure you out at all. Are you Jewish and think I’m a foolish Christian? Are you a Christian who thinks I put too much stock in Chrisitanity’s Jewish roots? Do you hate the Hebrew language and Rabbis? Are you for Israel or are you anti-Semitic? Or are you Jewish and think most Jews are misled? I am so confused I have no idea! You seem to profess Yah belongs to Yisra’el and no one else and certainly no one who speaks Hebrew or any of those idiot rabbis. And if anyone doesn’t call God Yah then they are really just worshiping the devil or blaspheming. Criminy!
            I got the book of Genesis down. My God is the God of Moses and Abraham. The same one and only one who created the universe in six days. The same one who destroyed everything except Noah and his family and what He instructed Noah to put on the Ark with the chosen animals, birds and other creatures including supplies. The same one who made Joseph’s misfortunes into the salvation of Egypt and as a result his own brother’s and their families. The same one who defeated Pharoah’s hold on His people and used Moses to lead them out of bondage. Passover is a harbinger of the crucifixion of the Messiah, the unblemmished lamb who was sacrificed because the old covenant could not be kept by man. Even Adam and Chavvah weren’t satisfied with Paradise because He gave us free will.
            I’m tired of this discussion. The great I AM answers me when I call out “Father” or “Jesus” because He is both and he knows me and He knows I’m calling to Him. He knows my heart. It’s not just my voice He hears! He hears my heart just like he heard and knew Adam’s. “Where are you?” He called when he tried to hide upon hearing Him walking in the garden after he ate the forbidden fruit. God knew where his body was, He was asking Adam what the condition of his heart was because God knew Adam had changed.
            I don’t make rules for God and I don’t put limitations on Him. HE IS GOD! You have no right or authority to tell me I am wrong in my relationship with the Creator of the universe. I pray you find the truth. I have and I have found the freedom that God’s love and mercy provides. There is no condemnation and I have no one to fear for I am more than a conqueror and I have been reconciled to the One Who Spoke the Word and Made Life. He is the One Who Was and Is and Is to Come! HOLY, HOLY, HOLY! LORD GOD ALMIGHTY!! He is worthy to be praised. Worthy is the Lamb!

          • Yah Saves

            OK Perhaps you need reminding.
            You made the claim that God has many names. I called you on it. …because it’s wrong!!!!! Your choice now is to acknowledge the error or present the evidence to show I am wrong. After doing this, we can move to the next problem you may have such as “does it matter that I call Him Jesus”. There is no reason for your confusion because I will answer any question you ask.

          • texastarheel

            I have nothing more to discuss with you and no questions which you know the answer to, sir. Nor do I have memory problems. Should I wish to verify or refresh my verbatim previous post, I may simply reread it at my leisure. I have my own library which includes many copies of the Holy Scriptures. I obviously have access to the world wide web, a telephone and a mailbox not to mention transportation to any library I wish to visit. I am also friends with several Biblical teachers. I attend a Holy Spirit filled gathering of like minded Believers with an anointed pastor at the helm leading us to be servants and ministers to our community as our Messiah was and following his instructions to do so with the help of the Holy Spirit. I’ve repeatedly told you that I know God and He knows me. I know the Messiah and He knows me. I know the Holy Spirit and He knows me and that they all three of them are the one and only Creator God-Adonai, Yeshuah, etc. In the beginning was God and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is the Word. God is love. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Messiah. Messiah has reconciled me to the Father because by my free will I accepted that truth. I pray God that whoever you are, you will one day see that truth and accept it before it is too late for you. I have said all I wish to say to you. This discussion between you and me is finished. I will no longer respond to your bait. It does not tempt me. My satisfaction comes from the One Who Calls my name: Jesus (Yeshuah) the Son of God, Abba/Daddy, El Shaddai, El Elyon, Elohim, Adonai (YHVH), my Heavenly Father, Lord of Life, Lord of All, Prince of Peace, Holy One, Immanuel, I AM, Wonderful. Counselor, Savior, Messiah, the Christ, Hosanna, Yahweh, Alpha & Omega, Holy-Holy-Holy, The Way, the Vine, Jehovah, God Almighty and yes, even Yah. And with these final words a bid you farewell. TETELESTI

          • Yah Saves

            “I have nothing more to discuss with you”

            LOL Than why follow that sentence with an entire tirade of foolishness? Pride and arrogance-that’s why. It sounds like YOU are angry. Don’t you like speaking about whom you claim to love and serve? You say you meet with an “anointed” LOL teacher so perhaps you can ask them to help you verify the claim that YOU MADE!!
            God has ONE name and ONE NAMEonly. Get back to me when you have a shred of evidence saying otherwise…..ask your entire gathering if you’d like. I’ll be holding my breath. Barring another emotional outburst, this should be the last entry here. I wish you nothing but the best, and I hope to celebrate with you in the presence of our creator. In His name

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            He was actually teased about having his head in the clouds all the time and was called “Late for Supper”.

            He decided to end that reputation by having what has been come to be known as “The Last Supper” — He was never late again, or heard from again.

            Ever the teaser, He claimed His name could never we written, and became known as “He Who Shall Not Be Named” for a while.

            He actually called Himself, metaphoricaly, “I is us”.

            “… Hey, I-is-us, got ny loaves and fishes today? …” they woudl call out to Him.

            But … stay with me, you gotta know, @Yah Saves, this gets convoluted … he died when he was 33, and in Roman numerals in use at the time, that was written as xxxiij, the 3rd “i” swashed off like anyone would end a word, eventually became it’s own letter “J”.

            The obit read “…At xxxiij I-is-us died …”, and the “i”s in the His age got blended into the “I” in His name, and he became known as …

            … J-i-is-us … Jiisus … (say it with me) … “J is us” … Jesus.

            And the rest, through mispelling and mispronounciation and othe confusion is, as they say, HIS-story.

            But, hey (or jay), the Hispanics are spittin’ ’em out faster than you can say Haysus (or Jesus).

            Gesundheit.

            😉

            .

          • texastarheel

            peterblaise, you have an active imagination but, heed this warning in Galatians chapter 6, verse 7: “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” My proof that God is real is my life and my experiences and of course, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13-basically that the Scriptures ARE God’s Word.

          • David E

            you do not know jesus, you believe in something that makes you feel good.

            Funny jesus always agrees with the person in a personal way. that means jesus is both pro life and pro choice. he is for the death penalty and against it. you are just a gullable person.

          • David Ewers

            attack you, hmmm. lets see where are to go if i do not accept your Jesus. Straight to hell. And playing “i do not believe in religion” is just another apologetic for an completely immoral position.

            You can not have ultimate mercy and ultimate punishment out of a dirty, that is direct contradiction.

            And again you can not show any rational reason to believe, you have no evidence to claim there is a god, you are just gullible,that is what you call faith.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong on all fronts. “Blind faith” is faith w/ no evidence. But Christianity is “faith” based on a preponderance of the evidence, whether it be scientific, theological, historical, archaeological, sound rational logic on given facts – coupled w/ personal intimate and profound experience w/ God and spiritual research.

          • David E

            you have no evidence, you have blind faith, and who would want to have that. the very definition if faith is believing even though you have no evidence. you are an idiot

          • jacuzzi37

            Prove it. While I’m at it, I’ll prove my point as I destroy atheism right here right now: I’m denying the impossible: The atheist claim that mankind came from a rock by purposeless mindless unguided processes. I’m also denying the claim that our life, intelligence, morality and value did not come from a living, intelligent, moral God of absolute worth. God is the only option, as he alone has these attributes to give us and he alone has the tools (diving brilliance & divine power) to give them to us as he designed/created us in his image/likeness. There is no other option. Atheism is destroyed by these facts alone, which proves atheism stands on lies.

          • jacuzzi37

            “Ultimate mercy” is there when you ask for it. Certain doom while under the curse of sin via Adam, is your plight for not receiving the life line held out to you. YOU send yourself to hell by rejecting the salvation provided by Christ. Why continue to shake your tiny fist at God and go to hell? WAKE UP and get w/ the program, please.

          • David E

            you can’t have ultimatercy and ultimate justice, that is a contradiction.

            I do not shake my fist at god no more that you shake your fist at zeus. another big fail. you christians are the biggest joke out there,

          • jacuzzi37

            The “joke” is your ignorance, if it wasn’t so pathetic. I’m denying the impossible: The atheist claim that mankind came from a rock by purposeless mindless unguided processes. I’m also denying the claim that our life, intelligence, morality and value did not come from a living, intelligent, moral God of absolute worth. God is the only option, as he alone has these attributes to give us and he alone has the tools (diving brilliance & divine power) to give them to us as he designed/created us in his image/likeness. There is no other option. Atheism is destroyed by these facts alone, which proves atheism stands on lies.

          • David E

            how much do you worry about the hell of the romans, the greeks, of islam, of shiva.

            why would i want to be part of a goup i find completely immoral. I am more moral than your god of the bible, in fact. i am more moral than every character of your bible. i am more moral than just about every minister out there, i am more moral than the pope.

          • jacuzzi37

            Sorry, but our Holy God is incapable of imperfection, error or immorality. Although he can judge sin. And your “good” is nothing but filth compared to our Holy God: : “…All our righteous (good) acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” Isaiah 54:6 … You are lost, undone, dying and going to hell. You have a lot to learn. Now I’m good, but I’m expensive. I’ve been setting atheists straight for over 45 years.

          • David E

            you are a complete idiot, atheism has no god. And quoting th bibe ges you no where. If you think you are good at debating atheists, you are completely vapid. you could not win against a 5th grader. your arguments are weak, not original. your lack of any knowledge of science is laughable.

            Your whole presmise that we are just here, proves god. put in any oher god claim and it works just as well. you are a baffon, an idiot, a moron, complely vapid.

          • jacuzzi37

            Strange as how I’ve defeated you here – rather soundly, I might add. Please grant me an explanation of your raging intellect that claims the human being came from a rock. Thrill me w/ your intellectual acumen.

          • David E

            only in yiur delusional mind. You are a moron, again you have no idea about abiogenesis or evolution. And one thing you have not done is proved your god is real.

            Funny christians actually think they know more about the erath than the scientists. Sorry I take science any day over a dumb ignorant theist.

            Let me explain to you about the hypothesis of abiogenesis. WE are not sure if the building blocks of life were created here on earth or came on a comet or ateriod. We have found buildling blocks of like already on the comet that we landed a probe on. We are not sure what the atmosphere was like, but under labratory conditions. the
            Miller–Urey experiment proved that non living matter can form these building blocks. no where in of of these experiments did they say it came from a rock. The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2), which e some of the most common chemicals found in the universe. So your whole argument is one from complete ignorance. you are a complete and utter fool when it comes to science and your arguments are laughable at best. At worst, you could not come up with a logical argument if your life depended on it.

            The whole premise ogf your religion is based on a book that was written by some of the most ignorant, savage, genocidal tribs that ever waled upon this earth. your religion is based on hate and the subjectcation of women. it is immoral to its core. as i said before i am more moral than your religion and your evil god.

          • jacuzzi37

            I’m the expert here on these topics, by far, since I’m the one
            that’s studied them for over 45 years. I’ve proved the doctrine of demons (atheism, abiogenesis, big bang, atheism) are all lies or based on lies, by the fact that none of it can be observed; therefore, none of it is “science” whatsoever. So you can stop with the science talk when you mention these theories of lies AND stop w/ the certainty of any of them as they are something YOU HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN.

            AND I can prove God: Life only comes from life. Life certainly
            didn’t come from mindless non-life by “accident” out of
            “nowhere” from “nothing.” Everything simply could not have
            come from nothing by accident. It’s impossible and any embrace of this impossibility can only be Godless desperation. You can’t give life unless it’s first given to you, by something living that has “life” to give you. The only option is a living, intelligent, moral God of absolute worth to have given mankind our life, intelligence, morality and value. It’s impossible that anything else out there had these attributes to give mankind, much less the tools (divine brilliance and divine power) to give these attributes as we were designed/created. All of the physical world had a beginning; thus, the natural world has a beginning. It’s just a “needy” link in a chain of needy links that have a beginning, all except the one “non-needy” link, which is the uncaused first cause – God. Mindless evolution does not exist, is impossible & could not of been at “the origin of life” to begin with. So it’s a non-factor. Look at your hand. It’s muscles, nerves, 27 bones, blood vessels with a high complexity meticulous design for an obvious task of high functional ability – all hooked up to the rest of the body right up to the brain and the rest of the body – a BRILLIANT DESIGN… Could you make it? No.
            How about the universe. Could you create the universe? You know,
            time/space/matter/energy ALL AT THE SAME TIME, the universe & the 8.7 million species within? No. Clearly, both your hand and the universe & all things in it, are designed and didn’t just “happen” out of
            “nowhere” from “nothing” by “accident” without an “intelligent force” to do “nothing.” I submit that God’s word is true and a brilliant divine God that had the tools of creation (brilliant mind, divine power) is the only possible creator. You can submit your own “creator” of your hand and the universe on stage for our review, but is it going to be just mindless unguided processes? And who created your creator? And he better have a mind and divine power to create, OTHERWISE he has no creative tools. Mere mankind has already been proven to not be able
            to create “life” nor a “hand & I submit if mankind can’t create the universe and all things within it, then that leaves a brilliant divine
            God as the only option for creation & all that remains stating otherwise is your bias while committing intellectual murder as you firmly hold to IMPOSSIBILITY due to your tightly held Godless desperation. God is the creator simply because it’s impossible that creation came about in any other way… By the way, abiogenesis is impossible and will remain impossible, because you can’t duplicate God…. And Miller/Urey was an abject failure and most atheists are too embarrassed to mention it, lol. I don’t lose debates 😉

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            The human body sux and is woefully inadequately designed, fails at the slightest stress, and can’t handle most natural environments in which the human body finds itself — ANYTHING else would have been a more intelligent design.
            .

          • Yah Saves

            “The human body sux and is woefully inadequately designed,”

            One of the dumbest things I have ever read. What a maroon.

          • jacuzzi37

            Until you can improve on God’s design, oh wait! You can’t. Shaking your tiny fist at God is comical if it wasn’t so pathetic.

          • jacuzzi37

            The “ignorance” is yours. Only a brilliant divine God could design/create the high-complexity/high function we see in mankind. Your Godless desperation is revealed here.

          • David E

            repeating it over and over does not make it true. Yeah, i am very happy to be godless, it allows me to think for myself, you little sheeple

          • Malcolm

            “”” . . . . Your own body should be proof enough. . . . “”
            If . . (Yes IF) the human body was designed then the designer was a very bad one indeed, I suggest you do some biology research.
            Point at thing is the real worlds and asserting ,” See that must have been designed” , is not a very good argument for your case

          • Yah Saves

            Hey Malcolm, you and all your science buddies are welcome to get together and come up with a better design. Humanity is waiting.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            If you need proof, then you have no faith.

            Faith is what you have when you have no proof.

            To have neither faith nor proof, and still try to jam it down other people’s beliefs, and have the government do it by establishing your religion over others in your stead, is the height of hubris and is certainly as un-Jesus-like as I can imagine.

            To consider Jesus “the anointed one” and then do this in his name is head-shaking.

            Consider yourself dismissed.
            .

          • Manfred Panning

            Yeah….not so much, since my body can be proof of every other deity ever claimed, not just yours.

          • jacuzzi37

            Nope. Only one; the only one. There is only one true God and he is Jehovah of the Bible. Jesus is the only God w/ an empty tomb, the only God resurrected as our savior, the only one that offers humanity a “remedy for sin” and the only God that has paid our sin debt on the cross as he PARTOOK of suffering – just like we suffer. All other gods, cults & literature are cheap copies of Christianity & the Bible. But there is only one God – else we’d all be dead due to their fighting. All other so-called “gods” are simply demons set up as gods by idol worshipers.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. ONLY a living, intelligent, moral God of absolute worth can give the human being his life, intelligence, morality and value as he created mankind in his image/likeness. ONLY our brilliant divine God could design/create high-complexity/high function life, such as that of mankind. Arrangement does not come without a mind. MANKIND ALONE can grasp the idea of God and MANKIND ALONE has the ability to worship God.

          • David E

            that is completely vapid and you would have to demonstrate that with evidence and of course you can’t. And this statement is an argument from ignorabnce

            “ONLY our brilliant divine God could design/create high-complexity/high function life, ”

            soprry you have failed again, stupid little christian

          • jacuzzi37

            I don’t fail. I’ve been destroying atheism one person at a time for 45 years. And just like 2 + 2 = 4 – I don’t have to prove the obvious. I’ll go ahead and destroy your atheism right here right now: I’m denying the impossible: The atheist claim that mankind came from a rock by purposeless mindless unguided processes. I’m also denying the claim that our life, intelligence, morality and value did not come from a living, intelligent, moral God of absolute worth. God is the only option, as he alone has these attributes to give us and he alone has the tools (diving brilliance & divine power) to give them to us as he designed/created us in his image/likeness. There is no other option. Atheism is destroyed by these facts alone.

          • David E

            you have already failed. And you could not destroy anyone with your ignorant comments.

            Right from the begiiong you have failed, no scientist has ever said that we ame from a rock. I do not care what you deny, i care what you can provide evidence to prove your claim.

            If this is your argument, you have failed everytime you have spoken to an atheist. Lets see the logical fallcies you have committed here, first an argument from ognorance, the god of the gaps argument and the worst of all anarguments from personal incredulity. you have no facts, you have nothing but assertions. The fact is this universe that we live in, was created from the big bang. The currect state of life on this planet is from evolution. And the best evidence that we have today is abiogenesis. To put it bluntly, you are an idiot when it comes to science. One thing you have done is give me a good laugh. but another swing and even a bigger mis. you have struck out!

          • jacuzzi37

            You’re too ignorant to be here. You don’t even know the claims of atheism. Ever heard of “primordial soup?” It came from rain on a rock, my friend. That’s how “stone” cold stupid atheism is and apparently you didn’t know it til now. You owe me. Now you can stop embracing the impossible. The big bang, evolution, abiogenesis – none of it has ever been seen and being in the physical universe – there’s no excuse for it not being observed EXCEPT that they do not exist. We see other physical phenomenon every day, such as speciation, reproduction and gravity, so the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis are not science at all because they cannot be tested, measured and observed. So you can stop with the science talk when you mention these theories of lies AND stop w/ the certainty of any of them as they are something YOU HAVE
            PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN. So much for your “science.” I’ll stick w/ real science.

          • David E

            not that stupid no one has seen it argument, you are so stupid. And we have no idea what the condittionwere like when life fist came, w are not sure if it was in a watr solution. so your argument is completely vapid

            And the completely vapid no one has seen it argument, i thought that was for young childen to ask in school. You are completely ignorant of the scientific method. The obervation is life, we then find out through testing and exprimentation howw life can begin . we alrady have proven that non living matter can build the building blocks of life.

            But disproving evolution and any othr aea osf science does not give your god any more validity. you still have to prove it can’t exist. nd there is ZERO real evidence that such a being can exist. so shove it, dumb christian. you fail again.

          • jacuzzi37

            You’re really too stupid to be here, which I’ve proved. You have no idea that the scientific method is testing, measuring and observing, which proves the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution are not science at all.

            And no, we already know that mindless unguided non-living matter can’t design/create anything of high-complexity/high function such as a human being. You have a lot to learn.

            Creation necessitates a creator. God is proven in that mankind is by far the most intelligent, resourceful & powerful entity the universe has to offer and WE DON’T HAVE A CLUE as to how to design/create a tree, duh. And I never “fail” in debating any atheist on the planet. I prove one person at a time that atheism stands on nothing but lies.

          • HelenaConstantine

            When I was in high school, I worked at an archaeological site where we dug up fossils of mammoths and buffalo.

          • Manfred Panning

            Now you just have to prove the whole flood story (a physical impossibility in every detail) occurred.

            And you need to learn about fossilization and how it occurs.

          • Oboehner

            We don’t see any progression in species in “billions of years”.
            I wouldn’t worry so much about kangaroos, you still haven’t found the missing link.

          • Manfred Panning

            The missing link is a fraud. It does not exist.

          • David E

            and you have never found god, you just talk to yourself. And we do see progression.

          • Oboehner

            Ad hominem attacks don’t qualify as progression, wake me when that cow turns to a whale (or whatever combo you prefer) then you can tell me more – until then keep your religion out of the schools and quit lying about science.

          • David E

            you have confused an Ad hominem attack vs an Ad hominem fallacy. when you say some idiotic andf stupid, i have the right to call you out on that. Now if i called you a gay rapist without justification that would be an Ad hominem fallacy.

            Your ignorance of evolution is unjustifiable, and your belief in a god that you can provide me zero evidence is unjustfiable. you and no one else has ever seen, smelled tasted or talk to a god. do do not give me this bullshit statement about cows

          • Oboehner

            You have to prove it was “idiotic andf stupid”[sic] and you cannot. There is nothing passed assumption, speculation, and religious belief concerning evolution – minor adaptations do not equal speciation.
            Instead of whining about cows, choose something else like I said to do, then like I said wake me when you have something concrete.

          • David E

            first all of the science and evidence says you are wrong, And again you show your ignorance again, minor changes do cause speciation, we have view fruit flies change from one species to another, we are now seeing the california salmander change from on speicies to another.

            The evidence is out there, you just do want to either admit it and view it. And you are the one who brought up cows you idiot.

            Also you made the positive claim that evolution is false, now go out and do some real research, write a paper and prove it is wrong. but of course no creationist ever does real research, they just lobby. And one of the top scientists in the world of dna and is a devout christian Francis Colins, has said that the dna evidence alone proves common ancestry. again you are so dumb

          • Oboehner

            “science and evidence says” correction, science assumes and speculates based on their personal worldview, evidence that could mean many different things.
            I cannot view what doesn’t exist – conclusive evidence.
            A creationist does not need to disprove evolutionism, it does that all by itself with a complete lack of proof.
            Calling oneself “Christian” is meaningless, the DNA evidence can also demonstrate a common designer. It is in no way proof of evolutionism at any stretch of the imagination.

          • David E

            another lie and showing your ignorance. do you think in thee world of medecince the scientists jusyt day, hmm i think this thing will cure cancer lets try it out. no they do research and test for results.

            Now creationism, just uses a old dusty book that was written by people who were some of the most ignorant and savage people.

            And now the no true scottsman fallacy come up. you have a major problem, many christians do believe in evolution, yiou are a fucking moron

          • Oboehner

            *you* (and I’m supposedly the moron)

            Speaking of fallacy, you and all of your religious cohorts love the old “look over there” trick as well as the attempt at insulting one’s intelligence when it comes to questions about evolutionism: “Now creationism, just uses a old dusty book that was written by people who were some of the most ignorant and savage people.” And: “yiou are a f***ing moron”[sic] Sorry, that doesn’t make your religion look any more believable, nor does it prove anything but your foolishness.
            Many “Christians” believe a lot of ridiculous things, that doesn’t make them any truer than evolutionism.

          • David E

            i have no religion, so another ignorant statement by you. yiur whole argument is just 1st grade theology. And you complain to me abut looking bad, yu have pastor’s calling for the death of gay people. you have people on the religous right who want ti ID and possibly tag peolple of another religion. You have them burning down and murdering people who disagree with thier viewpoints.

            Evolution is real, it is undeniable, so is the big bang theory, closing your ars and sating i can’t hear you just not change the facts. you can have your own beliefs in a god, but yiu can’t have your own facts.

            Your concept of science and reality are completely warped, you listen to other people and spout off thier bullshit. that makes you a fucking moron. You wll lie and try to denigrate science to make your religion look better. But sience and the scientific method is the number one way to tell the truth about realty. The same physics that built the cpu in your computer are used to show the universe was creaied nt the big bang. The same biologic science that is usd to create cancer drugs is from evolution. Again this shows that youn are a fucking moron.

            Your denial that Francis Collins is not a true chrisians shows that yuo are nt atall interested in the truth, you aare more interested in protecting what you belieklve because you want to beleive. That gain makes you a fucking moron. .

          • Oboehner

            *your* *about* *see* *not* *Christians* *reality* *are* *believe* *not* *at all* *are* *another* *Bible* (again, I’m the moron?)

            Wow, you are just full of fallacies, false information, and outright fabrication.

            “And you complain to me abut looking bad, you have pastor’s calling for the death of gay people.” Look there’s a lie now! I have no one calling for any deaths.
            “You have people on the religious right who want to ID and possibly tag people of another religion, then close down their places of worship.” Another one.
            “Their source of belief came from Martin Luther” That’s them, not me.
            “Evolution is real, it is undeniable, and so is the big bang theory” Yet another lie, followed by an extremely pathetic attempt to lump your religion with science.
            “But science and the scientific method is the number one way to tell the truth about realty.[sic]” Scientific method: observable, repeatable, and testable – none of which can be applied to evolutionism. I don’t have to close my ears, there is only silence – no facts at all.
            You cry about things while painting a broad brush on everyone, how’s this for a broad brush, evolutionism (your religion) is responsible for racism, Hitler was attempting to help it along by gassing people, Ota Benga, a Congolese pygmy was put in a zoo as an example of the “un-evolved” and on and on. I guess that would make YOU the racist, how moral of you.

          • David E

            no, sorry, you just don’t like he facts and if you christians can’t agree what makes a true christian, thats not my fault. And sory hitle was catholic not an atheist. you are just another fucking liar for chrst.

            “The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement)
            was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”

            [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

            “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
            Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”

            [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

            “I have followed [the Church] in giving our party program the
            character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has
            never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred
            years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its
            amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been
            rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be
            built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or
            irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long
            as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.”

            [Adolf Hitler, from Rauschning, _The Voice of Destruction_, pp. 239-40]Evolution has no politics it is science another failure. more 1st grade apologetics.

            you lse again.

          • Oboehner

            Spelling an grammar work wonders.

            ‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” Hitler (not hitle) , Mein Kampf.

            ‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’ Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946.

            ‘The culmination of this darker side of eugenics was, of course, Adolf Hitler’s attempt to produce a “‘master race’ by encouraging mating between pure ‘Aryans’” and by the murder of six million people whom he claimed to have inferior genes. It is hardly fair to Galton to blame him for the Holocaust or even for his failure to anticipate the consequences of his advocacy of the matter. But he was certainly the principal architect of eugenics, and Hitler was certainly obsessed with the idea. So, in terms of its consequences, this must qualify as one of the greatest scientific blunders of all time.’ Youngson, R., Scientific Blunders; A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be, Carroll and Graf Pub., New York, 1998

            I could go on and on, as far as the RCC is concerned – it is merely the world’s largest cult loosely based on Christianity with far more than a hint of paganism.

            So when can I expect an explanation of Ota Benga and Darwin’s own belief that blacks were evolutionarily inferior to whites and needed to be slaves for their own survival?
            *lose*

          • David E

            you are an idiot, you are quoting another chrsitian aplogists, you fail again. sorry hitle was a christian and there iss nothing inthe theory of evolution that promotes hatred, yiou fail again. And eugenics was introduced into the modern world by ac hristian quaker you fucking moron.

          • Oboehner

            Ota Benga.

          • David E

            you have to be one of the most ignorant asshole i have ever ran into, the man who brought over Ota Benga. wasSamuel Phillips Verner, a christian missionary in africa. so again it was christians in a christian country that imprsoned this man. Another failure on your part. do some fucking research before typing, you make yourself look really really dumb.

            this scientific idea was started by christians,

            Lord Kames[edit]

            The Scottish lawyer Henry Home, Lord Kames (1696-1782) was a polygenist: he believed God had created different races on Earth in separate regions. In his 1734 book Sketches on the History of Man, Home claimed that the environment, climate, or state of society could not account for racial differences, so the races must have come from distinct, separate stocks

            again you fail. nothing in evolution promotes these ideas. until you a edication in this area, i suggest you shut the fuck up.

          • Oboehner

            Tossing around the term “Christian” doesn’t make it true either. One cannot serve two masters, God and evolutionism – one has to choose.
            You can suggest all you want, it matters not. BTW, don’t confuse catholics with Christians.

          • David E

            let me expain something quite clear to you. when it comes to sceince and reality, i not care what you think about it. you do not matter, you are just as ignorant on these subjects as a person of 2000 years ago.

            You do not have te capacity of the actual knowledge to judge or make a statement against iy. you have nothing but ignorant assertions, you try to equate atheism with evolution, that is like equation bubble gum to jelly fish. Evolution and science had nothing to do with my atheism, just like science has nothing to do with your rejection of hinduism. You have no real argument to justfy your belief in god, so you have to attack science. well you have failed, just as every other ignorant theist has. About 50% of christians follow the theory of evolution, so again it is a non factor.

            Your bible s ohing but another fairy tale, creation did not occur in six days, there was never a graden of Eden, no great flood, no great exodus from egypt. no 900 year old people, and now we are finding evidence that your jesus character as written in the bible did not exist. sorry you have lost on all fronts

            And do not cry when someone calls you out for your racists ways. you wear it as a badge of honor, showing how good a christian you really are, so in closing fuck off

          • Oboehner

            Throwing the word “science” around doesn’t prove your religion any more than attacking the beliefs of others.

            Evolutionism is nothing but a fairytale based on an atheistic worldview rife with assumption, speculation, and outright fraud; there was no exploding dot, there was no life popping out of any mythological “primordial ooze” no creature ever “evolved” there was never any speciation, no “billions of years”, the “common ancestor” is merely a figment of someone’s wild imagination.

            “we are finding evidence that your jesus character as written in the bible did not exist” BS best answers that.

            And do not cry when someone calls you out for your racists ways. you wear it as a badge of honor, showing how good a atheist you really are and be proud of the treatment Ota Benga and other people of color received based on your religion.

          • David E

            yu do not realize i do not cre what you think, you are a complete idiot when it comes to science. And your religion is the thing that says slevery is proper, nice try you fucking moron. the christians of the old south used the bible to say slavery was right. god damn you are so fucking dumb

          • Oboehner

            *You* *I* *care* *slavery* *The* Christians* *God*

          • David E

            its your evil god who love slaverty, don’t blame me for that, or don’t you know your own fucking bible.

          • Oboehner

            “I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit…. The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316
            Darwin is not “my Bible”.

          • David E

            more ignorance in your part, i do not care what the views of darwin was in the past no more than what galleo thought about how big the universe is. You again shows how stupid you are. evolution is a fact and even if you some how show there were flaws in it, it doen not make your bible anr its stories true. very argument or idea has to stand on its own. And what evidence to creationist bring to the table, is nothing. nada zip zilch,

            Every time you type you show how stupid you are, trying to use darwin an excuse. But you are so ignorant not to realize that darwin was a christian himself. you are so fucking stupid

          • Oboehner

            Some flaws? How about the entire mess? There is NO fact of evolutionism, NONE, nothing. nada zip zilch.

            Again, attacking the views of others doesn’t prove your religion. The only fact about evolutionism is it is a religion.

          • David E

            you have no knowledge to even challenge evolution, you are completely ignorant of the subject. And this calling a religion dos not mean anything to me. as i stated before my atheism in not tied to evolution, and there are christians who disagree with you, so this is not a factor. you are brainless.

          • Oboehner

            There is nothing to challenge.
            Atheism is a religion upon which evolutionism has its roots.
            Don’t much care if there are “Christians” who disagree with me. Don’t much care about your opinions either.

          • David E

            another ogranyt statement, there were atheists long before the theory of evolution was even thought of. You are really really dumb, Every time you type something you make a complete fool of yourself. every idea you have been against it was a christan who thought of it.

            As i said before, you have no education in this area, but for some unknown reason, you think you can challenge it with ignorance. would you do this to a medical doctor, or how about a structural engineer that was designing a jet your family was going to fly in. no you just give special pleadings to the theory of evolution. And it has kept you and your family alive. Also that dog you have, came from a wolf, all we did is copy a natral process that nature does. you moron

          • Oboehner

            *arrogant*
            As I said before, designing a jet is observable, medicine is observable, evolutionism is not. It is not true, it has not saved any lives. The dog I have was always a dog, not a cow, not a chimpanzee, not a lizard, a dog. You are clueless as to what nature has done even 1000 years ago – you were not there. Don’t care who thought of it, it is a false religion and I KNOW I can challenge it.

          • David E

            lets look at the morals of your religion, it alloes slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, rape, murder, incest, sex slaves, making women into second class citizens. And you try to say evolution is bad. your bible in the most immoral book ever written, and the most immoral position in self love, the idea that a god needs love or he will torture you forever is immoral, it is a fucking psychpath. And you think this is something to be like. to be godly is to love the smell of blood.

            Exodus 29

            15 “Take one of the rams, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head.16 Slaughter it and take the blood and sprinkle it against the altar on all sides. 17Cut the ram into pieces and wash the inner parts and the legs, putting them with the head and the other pieces. 18 Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the LORD, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire.

            19 “Take the other ram, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head.20 Slaughter it, take some of its blood and put it on the lobes of the right ears of Aaron and his sons, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet. Then sprinkle blood against the altar on all sides. 21 And take some of the blood on the altar and some of the anointing oil and sprinkle it on Aaron and his garments and on his sons and their garments. Then he and his sons and their garments will be consecrated.

            he admits creating evil

            Isaiah 45:7King James Version (KJV)

            7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I theLord do all these things.

            so chew on that for awhile you ass. i am done with you, you have completely failed except in one way. you have proven that should call people like you stupid.

          • Oboehner

            Let’s look at the morals of your religion, it allows slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, rape, murder, incest, sex slaves, making women into second class citizens and anything else no matter how evil, twisted, and disgusting one can conjure up as there is no law other than survival of the fittest . And you try to say creation is bad.
            Now lets take a look at any defense you have of evolutionism: nothing except hacking on others beliefs, name calling, and pathetic attempts to link it to science. But that’s typical, that’s all anyone who thinks we came from ooze ever has.

          • Oboehner

            Nobody loves slaverty.

          • David E

            Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
            Collins: Why this scientist believes in God” editorial, CNN (April 6, 2007)

            You are wrong and a complete and ignorant person, but ignorance can be cured, stupdity can’t be

          • Oboehner

            The opinion of one man hardly qualifies as proof. But do demonstrate how DNA similarities would be impossible with a common designer.

          • Bill

            no they wouldn’t.

          • Oboehner

            Sure, I’ll bet you were there and saw what happened.

          • Bill

            I have fossils and biology. I don’t need to see it

          • Oboehner

            You have assumptions and speculation, you don’t need to see it – the constitutes faith, religious faith.

          • Bill

            it’s not not assumptions it’s fact

          • Oboehner

            It’s a religion.

          • Bill

            no it’s not. it’s science with years worth of studies and findings to support it. just because you’re too stupid to understand that doesn’t change it.

          • Oboehner

            It’s a religion based on assumptions speculation and religious belief – period. Just because you’re too stupid to understand that doesn’t change it.

          • Bill

            religion doesn’t have facts to support it. evolution does

          • Oboehner

            Your “facts” either are based on assumption or speculation, take radiometric dating for example, that is based on the assumption the earth is at least 30,000 years old or more, and the assumption the starting radiation is a known constant (which it is not) and any outside influences are accounted for (which they are not). Then by using a worthless dating system which cannot be checked for accuracy nor calibrated, a “fact” is declared.

          • texastarheel

            Religion is man-made ritual and evolution is a debate.

          • Yah Saves

            Save your insults you child. Why are ALLLLLLL of you the same-little punk children? Someone exposes your stupidity and you alllll act the exact same way-attack the messenger. It’s a SURE SIGN OF RELIGION. THAT, is a “FACT”.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Of course everyone believes something, @Oboehner:disqus.

            Some people’s beliefs are based on reproducible scientific facts.

            Some people’s beliefs are based on faith, or reason, or whatever, that are not reproducible scientific facts.

            Faith is what you have when you have no reason to have faith.

            Those here who argue with you, and try to educe through you, have reason, so there’s no need for faith.

            Those who build a Bible-bases anti-evolution museum have no faith, and do not believe other have faith, so they are convolutely trying to knit together fabricated (non)reasons for themselves and others to suddenly have something upon which to base their new-found, newly-convinced ‘faith’.

            That’s an oxymoron.

            We have different words because they mean different things.

            The meaning of the words ‘reason’ and ‘faith’ are diametrically opposed.

            We’re talking reason.

            You’re talking faith.

            Of course everything we say to each other will blow right by without sticking.

            Blow on.
            .

          • texastarheel

            Sometimes when one has faith, one is rewarded with a positive outcome. This builds that faith and causes it to grow. As more and more proof of faith comes to pass what would you call that faith? I’d call it a way of life or better yet a guarantee, a promise.

          • natan

            Sorry Oboehner, but no, look up “biogeography” and how that relates with evolution by natural selection. The facts are out there, you just need to open your mind and read objectively. Species evolve most often because of geographical constraints and limitations from the environment – the very fact that species differ and vary around the world is proof of evolution, and is tested with scientific experiment.

          • Oboehner

            Sorry, you can’t use speculation and faith as viable science, cramming observations in a pre-conceived belief system is not science, and does not in any way prove one species “evolved” into another. All “biogeography” really shows is the where, it assumes the how.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            So, no, you didn’t read up on ‘biogeography’.

            I LOVE your quotability, though:

            @Oboehner:disqus wrote: “… Sorry, you can’t use speculation and faith as viable science, cramming observations in a pre-conceived belief system is not science, …”

            Thanks for that.

            That should help everyone file those Bibles under FICTION.

            The museum is closed now, folks, as closed as the minds of it’s progenitors, there is nothing to see here, move along.
            .

          • Oboehner

            Attacking another’s belief system doesn’t prove your religion nor does it make it science, sorry.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            None’s attacking your belief ‘system’, @Oboehner:disqus, certainly not to prove anything about their own beliefs.

            We’re just accurately filing your claimed basis for your beliefs under fiction, not science.

            There’s nothing wrong with believing things outside of science.

            The challenge here is when some folks want their fiction to be considered science.

            There’s nothing wrong in telling them ‘nope’.

            Be proud of your fiction, and be proud of your beliefs.

            Stop trying to denigrate your fiction and beliefs by inappropriately putting them in science’s ill-fitting clothing.

            For an excersice, read up on the history of scientific theories on light.

            Do you want your God to go through such yo-yo random philosophical changes in nature from one generation to the next?

            Even Einstein flip-flopped on theories of light.

            Imagine applying scientific demands on theories of God.

            Hahahahahaha.

            Be grateful for the separation of religion and science.

            Keep them as far apart as you can.

            Join us in trying to preserve appropriate respect for each in their unique and separate ways.
            .

          • Oboehner

            The challenge here is when some folks want their fiction to be considered science.
            Piltdown Man.

          • Kerry Collier

            No, not at all…someone doesn’t understand that evolution is driven by the environment around the organism. You’d think you’d get at least a basic knowledge of something if you’re going to claim it isn’t real.

          • Oboehner

            “evolution is driven by the environment around the organism.” Pure faith and speculation – it isn’t real.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            “Pure faith and speculation”
            This is purely an assertion.
            adaptation, variation, allele frequencies changing in gene pools, and divergence are all well observed and documented.

          • Oboehner

            How about speciation? Just because a cow can adapt, doesn’t mean it’s on the verge of becoming a whale. That would be: “Pure faith and speculation”

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Good job at proving that you have no damn clue what evolution means.
            In languages, the child of a spanish speaker will not spontaneously start speaking italian. Dogs will only give birth to dogs. The process of bio-diversification only creates new species and that is why dogs giving birth to cats would completely disprove the theory of common descent with modification by natural selection. if a bird suddenly became a fish, that would make the theory fall apart. that doesn’t happen because natural selection working on genetic populations can only influence presently existing forms just as in language, dialects of a language are still considered the same language. This is why our current species will never evolve into other already existing species.

            Even suggesting that a species could suddenly turn into another already existing species is based on a complete misunderstanding of what
            biological evolution is.

            Every time an organism reproduces, the genetic information or alleles or traits in the genes are shuffled into a unique combination resulting in slight variations, exactly much like a speaker of a dialect. When a populations becomes geographically isolated from the ancestor
            population, that populations continues to accumulate genetic variation until it is no longer able to reproduce with cousin populations. Much like how dialects eventually form into new languages which are unintelligible from their mother language. You can look at species of animals like distant bio-dialects.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Dialects exist in every language with a largely dispersed population. If we didn’t have modern communication technologies, modern dialects would continue to accumulate variations and adopt new words until those dialects are no longer mutually intelligible with other dialects that share a common origin with the mother tongue. This is why we have
            languages families and why many languages within these families have many similarities. In Europe, the Germanic language family, the Slavic language family and the Italic/Romance language family are all branchings that lead back to one mother tongue (Which linguists call Proto-Indo-European-Language) that was spoken in Ukraine a mere 5000 years ago.
            As the original tribe expanded, various segments of
            it moved farther away from the mother language, developing dialects. Essentially becoming geographically isolated and accumulating variation over a long period of time until the dialects became different languages, no longer mutually intelligible with the surrounding cousin languages. that is why there are different language groups that have more similarities than other languages that have more distantly evolved
            (developed more distantly or independently rather). but they all have common sounds in words that include vowel and consonant shifts.
            same thing happens today in every language. that is why there are many dialects in English around the world. If we didn’t have instant communication like phones and the internet, in a few hundred years, they would be completely different languages.

            If you took the ancestor population which spoke Latin as their native tongue and geographically separated them, each group would certainly accumulate variation. The new languages might still be mutually intelligible or they might have diverged so much that they would be unrecognizable from Latin, their ancestor language. But they will never divide into what we currently have as Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and and French again like they already did because each development of those new languages is unique and random and completely dependent on their
            history, those events and modifications will never happen again.

            I usually use this example of linguistic variation to explain to explain to people the same process by which populations of organisms have diversified – Common descent with modification by natural selection acting on alleles, changing their frequency within a population, and diverging into new exclusively reproducing populations.

            Every organism consisting of cells or a cell is like an individual that knows a language, but instead of the language being in the mind, the language is in the core of every cell and synthesizes proteins and controls every aspect of how those cells function and even control the entire body plan of that organism during
            development after fertilization. A species is like a language, and the ability to reproduce is like mutual intelligibility in linguistics.
            When cells replicate themselves, variation accumulates all the time. Scientists call these mutations. The majority of mutations are harmless, in fact there are almost 120 mutations for every human zygote that comes into existence.

            DNA’s essential chemical function is synthesis of amino acids that form by materials within the cells that come together and bond with codons on RNA which are essentially just
            every three nucleotide base pairs in a sequence. Proteins are made up of chains of building blocks called amino acids which are folded and arranged in a very specific way, and it is this shape, among other characteristics, which bestows the protein its properties. (like hemoglobin in red blood cells). These proteins make and regulate everything within a cell. They are essentially what make it work.

            Genetic information can’t be measured like computer memory because traits, biological features, arise from a density of changes in a small number of already existing alleles. much of the “information” has absolutely no use. a small change to some of that “information” that has no use might
            actually bring about something new because it could correctly
            synthesize an amino acid that could form a protein that has a beneficial function. This is why its pretty much impossible to quantify genetic “information” as it pertains to new features arising as a result of insertion, recombination, duplication, or deletions. Some single celled organisms have far more genetic material than multicellular animals like humans.
            Insertions, recombination, duplication and deletions bring
            about every variation you see in a population, from longer legs, stouter bodies, the emergence of blue eyes (which is actually a loss of function by definition), hair density, and even synthesis of certain vitamins inside cells.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            The most useful definition of species for sexual multicellular
            organisms is the Biological Species Concept: species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.

            If branching of existing species into new species occurred gradually in the past, we should see all possible degrees of speciation or genetic isolation today, ranging from fully interbreeding populations, to partially interbreeding populations, to populations that interbreed with reduced fertility or with complete infertility, to completely genetically isolated populations.

            This is why zebras, horses and donkeys can reproduce, but only to a limited extent since these animals have genetically diverged enough that the offspring are not fertile, not allowing the divergent populations to reintegrate back into
            one. They come from the same ancestor population, but their divergent populations have accumulated so much variation that they can’t successfully produce fertile offspring. If they were divergent long enough, they wouldn’t be able to reproduce at all.

          • Oboehner

            “Even suggesting that a species could suddenly turn into another already existing species is based on a complete misunderstanding of what
            biological evolution is.” Did I say an already existing species? When Bossie supposedly turned to blow-hole wales didn’t exist. You are still completely void of explaining how any species came about from any other. Dialects are still language, birds are still birds, cows are still cows, and so on, there are no “bio-dialects”.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            “dialects are still languages”, now but they eventually turn into new languages. Guess what, everything you just listed are still vertebrates, deuterostomes and eukaryotes. They always will be and always were after those characteristics emerged from simpler, similar structures.
            German and English are NOT proto-germanic, nor will they turn into Gothic.
            You completely missed the fundamental point of what I wrote!

          • Oboehner

            I got the point, but it was so lame it really wasn’t worth the time.

            “They always will be and always were after those characteristics emerged from simpler, similar structures.” – Religious belief.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Actually, provable things take things out of the realm of religious beliefs and make them scientific facts.

            However, I accept and totally respect your views and beliefs.

            I just don’t want them inflicted on others through the government.
            .

          • Oboehner

            “I just don’t want them inflicted on others through the government.” Unless of course they are your views and beliefs.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Not my views or beliefs, @Oboehner:disqus — I have nothing to do with and do not care about the evolving science of evolution.

            I only care that religion stay out of government, and government stay out of religion.

            You can call science religion, but that does not make science religion.

            You can say you do not believe anything you want to say you don’t believe, and that does not mean anything to anyone, probably not even to you.

            We have a Constitution and specific agreed-upon definitions of words and their applied meanings in our society.

            We can all get along just fine in spite of you being a recalcitrant objector to anything and everything.

            Object on.

            Redefine any words you want to mean anything you want, you are a population of one in your queer lingo, unable to obtain converts, unable to reproduce, the end of your line of one.

            Babble on, @OBabylon.

            I find you quite entertaining in your self-made miserable way, inventing things that have no chance of being proven or disproven as your personal so-called truths.

            You provide confirmation that folks like @caleb_hubbell:disqus are essential for the emotional, spiritual, and intellectual livleyhood of Christians who don’t want to be extinct by self-inflicted inanity.

            I can laugh at your crustiness, but the baby Jesus is crying at the lost opportunity for love shared.
            .

          • Yah Saves

            “and make them scientific facts.”

            Like the scientific fact of global cooling, err I mean warming.Fossil faking “scientists” are the Gods of evolutionists.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Reread what I wrote, because you didn’t understand anything.

          • Oboehner

            The old “you didn’t understand everything” reply good for covering lack of any coherent point.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            No.

            He, and others, noticed that your reply was unresponsive to his prior post.

            So it makes sense to suggest that you re-read and address his presentation point by point.

            Otherwise, you don’t even leave us a vapor trail t dismiss.
            .

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            He’s asking “how did the first whale happen in your theory, and why can’t a cow just make a whale of himself?”.

            His questions don’t even begin with knowledge of any type.

            Lost cause.
            .

          • Yah Saves

            Maybe he wants to understand why an animal would “evolve” from the water just to “evolve” back to the water.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            We’d be glad to RE-educate you.

            But first, tell us what formal, academic science canon learning you have already attained.

            And I say “but first” with all due respect!

            You ask questions even an innocent, unindoctrinated child would never ask — your head is already so full of goo, and you have to get rid of that, first.

            LSD to the rescue, anyone?

            How do you unmake self-inflicted idiocy?

            And, most importantly on this thread at this site, this all has NOTHING to do with Christianity.
            .

          • Oboehner

            *YAWN* The learning I have obtained is that at the bottom of every evolutionary “fact” is speculation, assumption, and religious belief.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            That’s your uninformed, unsuportable assesment of things to which you can’t even show you’ve been paying attention, let alone understand.

            Opinion is a belief not based on fact.

            Your opinion is noted.

            Yawning is a sign of lack of oxygen to the brain — thanks for the confirmation of what may be the communication problem with you, @Oboehner:disqus.

            Thanks also for confirming by omission that the science canon is not something you’ve mastered, but something you’ve dismissed without knowledge or experience of it.

            Yup, that’s where opinions come from — lack of knowledge, lack of awareness.

            The words ‘speculation’ and ‘assumption’ are neither good nor bad, but need qualifiers to make them accurately describe any condition: baseless speculation versus speculation based on preponderance of like conditions; basless assumption versus theories proposed for experimentation and iterative refinement towards accuracy.

            The words “religious belief” have well-established meaning in our society as something personal, impossible and unnecessary to prove, and none of anyone else’s business, not to look over your shoulder, and not to have you scream your religious belief at anyne else, especially not to have the government establish your religion for you.

            The rest of us know how to separate religious belief and science, separate religion and state, a 200+ year evolution, so to speak, and so far, a pretty successful one.

            Is it cold out there, intellectually naked and alone?
            .

          • Oboehner

            Yawning is also a sign of boredom, boredom of hearing lame attempts to justify calling religious belief science. Claiming assumptions as fact or the basis of fact is nothing more than fraud – something evolutionists are all too familiar with Nebraska Man.

          • texastarheel

            peterblaise-you wrote above “Opinion is a belief not based on fact.” However, the dictionary states that an opinion is a personal or professional judgement or estimate of merit or value.

          • Yah Saves

            Evolutionists are utter morons. Every single time you point to their lunacy they attack YOU. You are stupid-you need to be educated-you don’t know science etc etc etc. This is how I know it is a religion. They all respond EXACTLY like any other religious group when confronted with the stupidity of their positions.

          • Guest

            Dialects exist in every language with a largely dispersed population.
            If we didn’t have modern communication technologies, modern dialects
            would continue to accumulate variations and adopt new words until those
            dialects are no longer mutually intelligible with other dialects that
            share a common origin with the mother tongue. This is why we have
            languages families and why many languages within these families have
            many similarities. In Europe, the Germanic language family, the Slavic
            language family and the Italic/Romance language family are all
            branchings that lead back to one mother tongue (Which linguists call
            Proto-Indo-European-Language) that was spoken in Ukraine a mere 5000
            years ago.
            As the original tribe expanded, various segments of
            it moved farther away from the mother language, developing dialects.
            Essentially becoming geographically isolated and accumulating variation
            over a long period of time until the dialects became different
            languages, no longer mutually intelligible with the surrounding cousin
            languages. that is why there are different language groups that have
            more similarities than other languages that have more distantly evolved
            (developed more distantly or independently rather). but they all have
            common sounds in words that include vowel and consonant shifts.
            same
            thing happens today in every language. that is why there are many
            dialects in English around the world. If we didn’t have instant
            communication like phones and the internet, in a few hundred years, they
            would be completely different languages.

            If
            you took the ancestor population which spoke Latin as their native
            tongue and geographically separated them, each group would certainly
            accumulate variation. The new languages might still be mutually
            intelligible or they might have diverged so much that they would be
            unrecognizable from Latin, their ancestor language. But they will never
            divide into what we currently have as Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and
            and French again like they already did because each development of those
            new languages is unique and random and completely dependent on their
            history, those events and modifications will never happen again.

            I
            usually use this example of linguistic variation to explain to explain
            to people the same process by which populations of organisms have
            diversified – Common descent with modification by natural
            selection acting on alleles, changing their frequency within a
            population.

            Every organism consisting of cells or a cell
            is like an individual that knows a language, but instead of the language
            being in the mind, the language is in the core of every cell and
            synthesizes proteins and controls every aspect of how those cells
            function and even control the entire body plan of that organism during
            development after fertilization. A species is like a language, and the
            ability to reproduce is like mutual intelligibility in linguistics.
            When
            cells replicate themselves, variation accumulates all the time.
            Scientists call these mutations. The majority of mutations are harmless,
            in fact there are almost 120 mutations for every human zygote that
            comes into existence.

            DNA’s essential chemical function is
            synthesis of amino acids that form by materials within the cells that
            come together and bond with codons on RNA which are essentially just
            every three nucleotide base pairs in a sequence. Proteins are made up of
            chains of building blocks called amino acids which are folded and
            arranged in a very specific way, and it is this shape, among other
            characteristics, which bestows the protein its properties. (like
            hemoglobin in red blood cells). These proteins make and regulate
            everything within a cell. They are essentially what make it work.

            Genetic
            information can’t be measured like computer memory because traits,
            biological features, arise from a density of changes in a small number
            of already existing alleles. much of the “information” has absolutely no
            use. a small change to some of that “information” that has no use might
            actually bring about something new because it could correctly
            synthesize an amino acid that could form a protein that has a beneficial
            function.
            This is why its pretty much impossible to quantify genetic
            “information” as it pertains to new features arising as a result of
            insertion, recombination, duplication, or deletions. Some single celled
            organisms have far more genetic material than multicellular animals like
            humans.
            Insertions, recombination, duplication and deletions bring
            about every variation you see in a population, from longer legs, stouter
            bodies, the emergence of blue eyes (which is actually a loss of
            function by definition), hair density, and even synthesis of certain
            vitamins inside cells.

          • Oboehner

            If you are going to post some lame cut and paste, at least have the decency to clean it up and don’t paste partial sentences.

            Dialects are still language, they didn’t become something else.
            “the same process by which populations of organisms have diversified – Common descent with modification by natural selection acting on alleles, changing their frequency within a population.” Pure speculation, speculation that proves nothing, people can learn a second language, but not new DNA.
            “120 mutations for every human zygote that
            comes into existence.” And wouldn’t you know it – they’re still human.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            You’re missing the point!
            Dialects diverge into new languages just as allele frequencies change in populations and accumulate variation until two groups can no longer reintegrate!!
            All the points here are an analogy to biological evolution
            Mutual intelligibility = ability to reproduce between populations
            Dialects = subspecies/breeds
            Dialect continuum = ring species
            Dialects accumulating variation until they’re new langauges = subspecies
            accumulating genetic variation until they’re new species…
            Loan words = cross inheritance
            divergence = divergence (same concept)

          • Caleb Hubbell

            “Guest” copied something I wrote word for word.
            I could have wrote that, perhaps the site just had an error and didn’t connect my comment with my account. o.O

          • Caleb Hubbell

            You know, I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt you to do a google search of “examples of speciation”

          • Oboehner

            A mule? Seriously? Pretty much all I saw were examples of that or more religious belief.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            A mule is a perfect example. Its an infertile offspring as a result of two isolated gene pools with no gene flow that diverged, undergoing genetic drift until the populations couldn’t produce fertile offspring anymore.
            Its a perfect example of evolution.

          • Oboehner

            So now infertility proves evolutionism.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Yes, and it always has.

          • Oboehner

            LOL, sure thing. Let’s see… it can’t have offspring so that’s proof that it’s offspring evolved, hmmm….
            I’d say that’s evidence against evolutionism.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Let me break this up for you really easy why it doesn’t.

            *Multicellular species are potential or actual reproducing populations.

            *Allele
            frequencies change in a population. Some populations become
            geographically separated meaning there is no gene flow between these
            populations. They undergo genetic drift and diverge.

            *If multiple current species diverged from previous ones, we would expect some populations to not be able to reproduce with other populations as well or even not at all.

            *Hence, donkeys can produce fertile offspring with other donkeys, They can produce offspring with horses to make mules, but they’re not fertile because the two individuals from the two DIFFERENT populations which produce that offspring are too genetically variant.

            If this didn’t happen, there would be no diversity. This is the driving force behind evolution. This is not a religious belief, this same kind of divergence can be reproduced with plants or single celled organisms.

          • Oboehner

            “This is the driving force behind evolution.” Sounds more like religious belief with a large helping of embellishment.
            If kangaroos are only in Australia and that is somehow evidence of evolutionism, then how do you explain species on every continent that are inter fertile with other species on other continents? How is it that the liger has fertility problems even being so close together with the lion and the tiger, yet if things were to “evolve” there was no fertility problems? Sounds like more evidence of a designer.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            As I stated in my previous comment, a species is a population which
            can reproduce with other members within its population. If they can
            produce viable offspring, they’re the same species.
            there are no such thing as inter-fertile species, otherwise they would be considered one species. A liger is a hybrid of two species which can no longer produce fertile offspring. As things “evolve”, we would expect two populations to NOT be able to produce infertile hybrids (in fact not be able to reproduce at all) in the future because of genetic drift would cause them to diverge even further.

            This isn’t “religious belief”, I just gave you an
            accurate example of evolution in action. I’m not saying its a driving
            force behind evolution, I’m saying everything I explained IS evolution.Here is an example of speciation taking place in the plant kingdom and plants adapting to otherwise lethal levels of copper in the soil, populations diverging and becoming new species unable to reproduce with other divergent populations. This article covers everything I’ve been trying to tell you.

            *just replace the “(dot)”s with periods*
            www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nihgov/pmc/articles/PMC3582499/

          • Oboehner

            Please clean up your cut and paste jobs, then wake me when the plants turn into something other than adapted plants, or birds turn into something other than birds.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            “Birds turning into something other than birds”
            That’s not evolution, it never was and it never will be, and I’ve already explained in detail why more than 3 times why that would fly in the face of Evolution. natural selection, adaptation ONLY works on presently existing forms as I’ve stated so many times.
            The plant I showed you in that article is a new species. Its no longer the plant it used to be because it can no longer reproduce with other members of the population it diverged from, only within its new DIVERGENT population, therefore its a new species, a new kind of plant.
            You’re right, Its still a flowering plant.
            And guess what? we are still hominids, we are still mammals, we are still vertebrates, we are still tetrapods and we are still eukaryotes! And that will probably never change! If we suddenly stopped being vertebrates and mammals, we would no longer have a logical place on the phylogenetic tree. We would be contrary to the predictions of common descent. Evolution would be disproven because its predictive ability would be eliminated.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            For a good example, an application of Evolution would be 16S ribosomal RNA typing used to identify and classify microbes, many of which may be previously unknown. If its possible to identify its closest evolutionary relatives, it would be easier to treat patients infected with unknown pathogens. This is used all the time in medicine. The reason why it works is because mutations occur at a regular rate, so a new sequence from an unknown pathogen would be related to a known pathogen with the least amount of change accumulated to its genome by mutation.

            (as I said, natural selection only operates on presently existing forms)

            This is the same science used to determine whether species of animals are related. We can identify specific mutations which have accumulated to separate species and we know that the least amount of identified change in a genome indicates relatedness in the same exact way that we can determine if a new pathogen is descended from a previously known pathogen which has been sequenced. We can also make the prediction that if we have two unknown sequences which have all their mutations mapped to show that they diverged within a short period of time, that they will be phenotypically similar, even though they won’t be able to reproduce successfully. This is exactly what we find.

          • Oboehner

            “natural selection, adaptation ONLY works on presently existing forms as I’ve stated so many times.” Then there is and was no “evolving” – case closed.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            If that’s what you want to claim fine, but that is the real definition of evolution.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            In that respect, I can agree with you. There is no “evolving”. I suppose my definition of evolution is different than yours.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            but I can also confidently say that anyone who understand “evolution”, will understand it as I do, as did Darwin. So it’s your definition of “evolution” that is deviant.

          • Oboehner

            Keep it vague so no one can nail it down.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Its not vague. I’ve already explained it to and I gave you an example of application with 16S ribosomal typing.

          • Oboehner

            Look we exist, that’s evidence for evolutionism! Lame.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            You’re the only one here who can’t nail it down, @Oboehner:disqus .

            Perhaps you are still using your rubber play-hammer from nursery school, so no true nail is responsive.

            Nursery schools seems to be where your ability to self-educe stopped.

            There’s nothing wrong with carrying a child’s beliefs and rubber hammer throughout your life.

            The only problems I have with you are

            (a) arguing as if others must compensate for your lack, and

            (b) inflicting your beliefs through the government.

            I see the anti-evolution Bible museum as an attempted to legitimize ID Intelligent Design (sic) and it’s origin, Bible stories, as if they were non fiction, as if they were equal science, as if they were literally real as written (in English, no less!), and then ram it through school boards and local and federal law, to have everyone else’s self-governance establish their religion.

            The 1,000+ Bibles out there can be provocative reading, especially when comparing to each other, and to the 10,000+ other holy scriptures from across all cultures and time.

            But the Constitution is the law of the land, and it clearly prohibits the state from establishing religion.

            So go ahead and build your Bible museum.

            And we will go ahead and fight to insure that it’s fiction remains within it’s walls for you and other nursery children to whack away at with your rubber hammers to your heart’s content.
            .

          • Yah Saves

            Oboener has made a fool of your idiotic position and I’ve noticed that every time he does…..evolutionists reply with childish insults. Did your poor religion get stepped on? It’s pathetic and embarrassing.

          • texastarheel

            I’m sorry someone ‘shoved’ organised religion down your throat, peterblaise. Please don’t take it out on God. He doesn’t care about religion. God only cares about human beings. He never leaves us, we are the ones who ignore Him. Putting one’s faith and trust in church people and clergy is always the wrong choice. Please don’t judge Christ by the actions of those who proclaim to be Christians. People fail. Not all who claim to be Christians even truly know just who He really is and He is not their Lord. They have other gods like money, their career, hobbies, etc. Not every man in the pulpit knows what’s in the scriptures nor does every man who knows really believe what he reads. Forget churchy things and people, start fresh with the only LIVING God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and His Word. Religion is man-made and unnecessary. The head of every major religion is dead. God is alive. Call out to Him and start a relationship with the Creator of the universe. That’s all it is, a relationship. The Bible is His love letter to you, a history of Him, an instruction book for life and a guide to living a life with an inner joy. The best part is you will never again be lonely or without hope. Being a follower of Christ is a freedom beyond explanation. It’s not easy but, it’s a rewarding life.

          • Yah Saves

            “Keep it vague so no one can nail it down.”

            EXACTLY

          • texastarheel

            Charles Darwin had some ideas that sent him in search of origins. Unfortunately, he got some things wrong. One of his big ones was his ideas about certain human beings being less than others. He was at his core, a racist. Living things adapt, technology evolves. Mankind can use knowledge, will and industry to manipulate change: mules, for example. I know I am not alone in this viewpoint.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Even if your bullshit claim about Darwin was true, It does not matter if someone had ill gotten beliefs as it has no impact on any accurate representation of reality that anyone presents.
            The fact is, in science, theories are bodies of evidence independently varified by multiple methods using completely independent mechanisms or data arriving at the same conclusion. Scientific theories yield application, predictive ability, and potential falsification (instances in which it COULD be disproven).

            Darwin predicted that inheritance was particulate.
            (mandel actually discovered this this around the same time)
            Long after his death, that prediction was confirmed by genetics.

            Darwin predicted the existence of certain organisms which would be adapted for specific environments. Long after his death, those organisms were actually discovered.

            When the Human genome was sequenced, it was predicted that Humans would have the same number of chromosomes as other apes.
            That prediction turned out being false, but a later prediction was that two of the chromosomes were fused.
            Sure enough, two ape chromosomes have nearly identical sequences as ONE human chromosome. Prediction confirmed.

            I could go on and on.
            But can you give me any fulfilled predictions, possible falsifications or application for creationism?

          • texastarheel

            First, please don’t use vulgar language when addressing me. I find it offensive. Would you talk to your mother, aunt or wife that way? In polite society it is not gentlemanly to speak to an elder female that way. Second, there is documented evidence of his racism. Look it up for yourself and learn something instead of accusing me of bologna. The Scriptures are full of fulfilled prophesy. Might I suggest the book of Genesis. Just because you don’t believe it, does not make it false. I don’t just believe in God. I ‘know’ He is real. I have a relationship with him. I have felt His presence and benefited from His actions. I have seen His miracles. He has answered my prayers.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Charles Darwin wasn’t searching for origins, he worked out the mechanism behind diversification. Evolution doesn’t address how life got started.

          • texastarheel

            Why was his book called ‘On the Origin of Species’ then? he may have realized natural selection and survival of the fittest but, his work is considered to be the basis for studying biology from an evolutionary viewpoint.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Speciation is diversification.
            If you are are identifying the mechanism behind the diversification of populations, you, by extension, are identifying the origin of how species come about.

          • texastarheel

            I get that there is a cataloging of all the organisms on the planet and it is broken down into sub-groupings: genus and specie. This let’s researchers in each field know what’s related to what and which ‘families’ things are grouped in. I can understand where this can be especially useful to botanists and horticulturists. Those who managed zoological endeavors and wildlife sites, veterinarians and researchers benefit from comparing similarities and contrasts from one creature to another. Why must there be such a knock-down-drag-out over Big Bang vs Creator God. Can’t we just agree to disagree and take care of our shared planet and the resources. Work on the theories, keep experimenting, realize some facts can change and some are set, and somethings are true. And somethings that are true for some may not be true for others but, they are no less real. I am female and you are male but, we are both human beings. I’ve never been to Mexico but I know it’s a real place because I’ve met people who were born there and my siblings have all been there and so have many of my friends. I’d be a fool to think them all perpetrators of a giant conspiracy or refuse to believe Mexico doesn’t exist. This is a crude example but, from my side of the fence I look at skeptics of God and His creation of the universe along the same par. I’m stunned that they cannot see what is so obvious to me and millions of others.

          • jacuzzi37

            The you lack a coherent explanation of the full spectrum of true reality, which leaves a gaping hole in your life philosophy; therefore, no support.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            (a) @caleb_hubbell:disqus’s cut-and-paste is perfectly intelligible to me, and I’m grateful for the savvy synopsis he offers.

            (b) No one can wake you, you are in a drunken stupor of your own making.

            (c) Fairy tales is where birds turn into something other than birds — and that’s apparently your level of education, @Oboehner:disqus, and you’re sticking to it.
            .

          • Yah Saves

            Awesome-more juvenile insults. It sure makes you look smart.

          • texastarheel

            I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything but, that sounds more like devolving rather than evolving. As far as ‘science’ goes, isn’t evolution still considered a theory? Has the Theory of Evolution gotten an upgrade in the scientific community? Just curious. I’m more of an ‘arts’ person and I’ve been out of college for decades.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Again, there is no “devolving”. Natural selection doesn’t mean “better, faster, stronger”, it only means fit to survive long enough to reproduce.

            As for your… ignorance of the scientific method and your misconception on what a scientific theory is, let me clarify.

            A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some
            aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific
            method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and
            experimentation. It aims to give an accurate representation of reality
            based on multiple fields of study that come to the same conclusion.
            -In science, a theory holds more weight than just a fact does. A theory is not something we think of in the middle of the night after too much
            coffee and not enough sleep, that is an idea.
            -A theory in science means a large body of information that has stood a lot of testing, consists of a number of different hypothesis and many different lines of evidence which show clear consistency.
            – A theory is something that has been tested many times, then is built on, revised and continues to be reworked in order to give an accurate representation of reality.

            Scientific theories yield application and predictive ability
            The application is how the information or knowledge gained from a theory can be used.
            So, what predictions of new discoveries can be made and what can be done based on the previous knowledge provided by the theory, provided by evidence from multiple independent sets of data from unrelated fields of study (each verified by observation and
            experiment) which converge on one conclusion – the theory.

            – No theory is ever regarded as absolute truth.
            theories are only well supported, testable explanations that provide natural explanations for natural phenomenon.
            – All scientific explanations are tentative because the search for knowledge is always blind.
            science is about discovering the unknown, about what we don’t know.
            – Theories have predictive ability, theories are based on observation,
            deduction, consistency and evidence by physical process that we know and understand.
            – Testing is blind and lacks fixed ideas. If the testing isn’t blind, it’s not science. It is not a search for an explanation.
            – Theories must yield potential falsification since they yield predictive ability.
            – Supernatural causation is not a part of science because there is no way to test it. There is no evidence for the supernatural and no predictive ability which can be tested in reality.
            You can not use it to explain the natural world.
            Science can not be built on a negative argument.

            Independent verification – when evaluating something, it is more likely to be true if multiple methods using completely independent mechanisms or data arrive at the same conclusion.

            “Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the
            scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically
            well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.”

          • texastarheel

            I know what scientific theory is. You presume too much, sir. It would appear the answer to my question is ‘no’ even though you skirted it with a long and unnecessary segue into a lecture. I did find it interesting that you wrote, “In science, a theory holds more weight than just a fact does.” Then wrote, “No theory is ever regarded as absolute truth.” I had to shake my head at that, Caleb. As you grow older, you may find that education and knowledge do not always guarantee wisdom. Neither does being a Believer equal low intelligence. Many highly intelligent and well educated people profess their faith in God some even proclaim devout Christianity. This includes many of NASA’s original astronauts. I could name many scholars, doctors/scientists and people of technology. If you want to know who they are you can look them up. But, I will add this handy reference for you I got from the dictionary:

            FACT
            1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
            2. something known to exist or to have happened
            3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
            TRUE
            1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming toreality or fact; not false
            2. real; genuine; authentic
            3. sincere; not deceitful
            4. firm in allegiance; loyal; faithful; steadfast
            5. being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something
            6. conforming to or consistent with a standard, pattern, or the like
            7. exact; precise; accurate; correct
            THEORY
            1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena
            2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact
            3. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods,
            as distinguished from its practice
            4. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles
            5. contemplation or speculation
            6. guess or conjecture

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Duh.

            Just because you can’t understand something does not make it false.

            Not understanding something says more about you than the thing you don’t understand.

            With every post you make, I learn about you, and you only, and that’s not a good thing.

            With every post @caleb_hubbell:disqus makes, I learn about life.
            .

          • Oboehner

            Just because you can’t understand something does not make it true. The reason you learn only about me is your choice, the facts are out there, but instead you choose to cling to you religious belief.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            You did it again, @Oboehner:disqus, bringing nothing new to the discussion.

            I’ll switch over to @caleb_hubbell:disqus’s Disqus page and read there — he shares lots of synthesizing facts down to functional understanding.

            I don’t care about your personal religion, nor your assesment of other’s as being a personal religion or not.

            And nothing you’ve written compels others to think in any new way.

            You do have a rubber stamp, though, and every post you write is like a schoolyard bully retorting “… I know you are, but what am I? Nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nyaaa! …”

            You self define as stuck, wondering why others don’t follow.

            No one can follow someone who is not going anywhere — you’re STUCK!

            Grow or die.

            Or, apropos, EVOLVE or die.
            .

          • Oboehner

            I don’t care about your personal religion, don’t try and tell me it’s science either.
            As far as your obsession with Hubbell, you can keep that sorted affair to yourself.

          • Yah Saves

            “Just because you can’t understand something does not make it false”

            Religion anyone?

          • texastarheel

            Heed your own words, peterblaise.
            “Just because you can’t understand something does not make it false.”

            They are wise words. They speak truth.

          • Yah Saves

            YES, The LOSS of info is “evolving”. LOL

          • Caleb Hubbell

            oh never mind, he did copy exactly what I wrote.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            @Guest and @caleb_hubbell:disqus are the same, your browser cache is out of sync, and one thinks you are not signed in.
            .

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            I’d rather you cut-and-paste incomplete sentences than post your arbitrarily dismissive gibberish.

            And say THANK YOU to the man who is offering you the “show me” education you asked for.
            .

          • Oboehner

            Piles of BS is hardly an “education”.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Look up the meaning of the words you use, @Oboehner:disqus.

            To educe it to pull through from within.

            If all you are able to “educe” from within yourself is “piles of BS”, then that’s what’s inside … you.

            Alternatively, you could thank @caleb_hubbell:disqus for his phenomenal sharing and simplification of the state of knowledge of evolution today.

            If you must inject yourself, you could merely excuse yourself because in spite of all that evidence, you still imagine that there is an “intelligent designer” behind it all, even though you acknowledge that there is no evidence for your belief.

            And there need be no evidence for you belief in “intelligent design”.

            If you had reason, that would deny the need for faith.

            Faith is what you have when you have no reason to have faith.

            So you can honor science, and honor your belief, and know that they do not need to be in conflict.

            Science and religion need not nullify each other; their co-existance is actually totally unrelated.

            It is only those who demand that science and religion be seamlessly related, especially with religion as the boss, who get into unfathomable and unresolvable trouble as they try to establish reasons for faith, ending up proving that they have neither reason nor faith, in spite of their claims to hold both in superior exclusivity.

            Carry on, @Caleb Hubbell.
            .

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            You’re talking about holy cows, and that is a horse of a different color. 😉

            ‘Speciation’, as we like to categoorize thing we observe regardless of the thing’s sense of itself, is a millions-of-years process, not a whim by some magical cow who thinks, “… I’m bored, I think I’ll be a whale today, moo …”.

            You, however, have that personal speciation thing down by making an ass of yourself.
            .

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz…..

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Yes, @Oboehner:disqus, I can see that you fell asleep and your forehead hit the keyboard, “… Zzzzz …”

            Go out and get some oxygen into your system, man, your brain is dying.
            .

          • Yah Saves

            “millions-of-years process”

            You’ve left “science”. Welcome to your religion.

          • NotThatGreg

            Oboehner : “Wouldn’t [kangaroos] be everywhere”?
            Argues against evolution. Hasn’t a clue how evolution works. Wonders why “relevant papers” aren’t published. Yawn.

            Perhaps people have just been lying to you about evolution. A lot. Ask yourself why they would do that.

            You could read books. “The Greatest Show on Earth” is very good. Doesn’t have the poetic brevity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, but makes up for it in actual content and basis in reality.

          • Oboehner

            *YAWN* The old “hasn’t a clue” cover for hasn’t any facts.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            “… if kangaroos evolved, wouldn’t they be everywhere? …”

            Well, that’s scientific inquiry in a nutshell!

            Look, folks, putting things in a museum means nothing but the owner’s saying, “… look what I found! ..” — curious, but it all means nothing more, it proves nothing.

            People believe what they want to believe.

            Some people go on faith and need no proof.

            Some people have no faith, so they build museums to overwhelm and bolster a proofless story so they can feel good in spite of their lack of faith.

            The problem is that they think their museum further legitimizes illegitimacy, and then they want everyone else’s self-governance to treat their faithless faith as if it were science, to be pushed on others with force.

            You know, they want the government to ‘establish’ their religion.

            Ever consider that the Bible ended up in the Middle East, not in the Americas, where 500+ Nations of people were doing just fine for 20,000+ years before they were ‘discovered’ by Bible thumping newcomers?

            Aww, those Natives don’t fit the bible story — annihilate them!
            .

          • Oboehner

            Seek help.

          • texastarheel

            Christianity is NOT A RELIGION. It does not require any entity to establish it. It has been established for nearly two millennia. Greedy men have been murdering, stealing and eradicating in the name of many things including the name of God who’s authority they had no right to claim for centuries.

            John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (How do we know Jesus wasn’t talking about the Native Americans? We don’t but, so I’m not gonna say they don’t fit into the Bible because I don’t know.)

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            … and the kangaroos got to Austrailia from Noah in Turkey by … hopping on board a Quantas airliner?

            Oh, I DO want to read the peer-reviewed scientific papers on that one, @Oboehner:disqus.
            .

          • Oboehner

            Am I teaching my religious beliefs as fact in taxpayer funded schools? No, you religion is however.

          • The Last Trump

            Please explain why more time makes diversity “more plausible” in your scientific opinion. How does time affect diversity?

          • Caleb Hubbell

            There is so
            much variation in Salmon that it would be impossible for that much genetic
            variation to accumulate in isolated gene pools in a short amount of time
            because mutations occur at a predictable rate. If genetic variation accumulated that quickly (in lets say 4000 years), the offspring of these populations wouldn’t be able to reproduce and the species would go extinct. You absolutely need immense amounts of time to explain the amount of diversity in all animals. This is a well understood fact in biology.

          • happylada

            The kangaroo bit is tad tired. In fact they were found in other locations as fossils – so before the flood they existed on the ONE continent.

            Its certain there were kangaroos on the ark. The fact they became extinct elsewhere simply means there was a predator free niche in the new Australian continent.

            Since there are no evolutionary trails leading to these marsupials, you really have NO case at all with roos

            ITS far more plausible than your mythology

            “Evolutionists explain the wide variety of kangaroos and their
            specialized survival methods as millions of years of trial and effort, chance mutation and selection. However, kangaroos’ superb design, their sophisticated reproductive methods and their amazing, energy-efficient locomotion did not come by any evolutionary process. For example, unless the pouch and the joey’s ability to find it were fully functional, they would have left no offspring.”

            It could EVER be the result of trial and error evolution.

          • HelenaConstantine

            How did all the predators that left the ark survive? they couldn’t have killed a single member of a prey species, of they’d be extinct, wouldn’t they. I guess the Tigers were eating strawberries, maybe?

          • Manfred Panning

            The problem is that there is no evidence of kangaroos ever existing anywhere else in the world.

            If there were kangaroos (or polar bears, or diamondback rattlers, or Kodak bears, or penguins) on this mythical ark, where is the evidence of their journey from Turkey to their current locations? Where are the colonies left behind, where are the remains, how did the rattlesnakes get to the Mojave Desert?

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Kodak bears are now extinct, pushed out of the market by Chinese cheap-labor-built pandas using derivative Japanese technology.

            Oh, you meant ‘Kodiak’ bears.

            Got it.

            Well, Kodak, Kodiak, it’s all examples of evolution nonetheless.

            Carry on.
            .

          • HelenaConstantine

            What level of education do you have that let describe complex, but nevertheless preibiotic, organic chemistry as a rock?

          • Oboehner

            What level of education do you have that let describe[sic] complex, but nevertheless preibiotic, organic chemistry as a fact?

          • Manfred Panning

            About 8th grade, if you live outside the Bible Belt.

          • Oboehner

            The Bible has nothing to do with the utter fail of evolutionism – it fails all on it’s own.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Okay, @Oboehner:disqus’s just pulling our leg, like a good troll, keeping the thread going, sucking in the eyeballs for all those advertisements.

            Got it.
            .

          • Caleb Hubbell

            No one believes we came from a rock. However the chemical processes and structures that make up life are made of not only natural affinities, but the most common elements in the universe!
            Amino acids, nucleotides, polymers and lipids all form naturally and independently. I would say it’s extremely likely that in the fast probabilities in the universe, that one of the countless polymers formed by natural processes in history could eventually self replicate in a lipid vesicle. Once you have reproduction, natural selection and divergence can take hold. I think that is a far more plausible explanation than a deity making man fully formed out of dirt.

          • Oboehner

            “I would say it’s extremely likely that in the fast[sic] probabilities in the universe…” Faith, religious faith.
            A car is not much more than plastic and metal, do you honestly think if I dumped a pile of metal and plastic in your driveway you would be driving it to work? How about if it sat there for “billions of years”? That’s plausible or whatever…

          • Caleb Hubbell

            the difference between metal and polymers is that polymers have the capacity to self polymerise, metal does not.

          • Oboehner

            Yet just as likely to form something cohesive.

          • texastarheel

            That man fully formed out of dirt was just a body. Not until God breathed His breath of life into him did he become a living entity with an immortal soul, something your apes don’t possess. Therefore, they cannot be our ancestors.

          • Guest

            It’s not “rocks” that are our common ancestor. All of the evidence points to a biological common ancestor — not a rock. We share the same genetic “instructions” for metabolizing sugars as plants.

            (please be aware of the quotation marks around “instructions” — it does not mean that there ever was an “instructor” … )

            Please read a science book once in a while before you makes mind-numbingly ridiculous statements, please.

          • Oboehner

            “All of the evidence points to a biological common ancestor…” Wrong, it also points to a common designer. Please read a real science book once in a while before you makes mind-numbingly ridiculous statements.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            No, it doesn’t point to a common designer. Its impossible for a few reasons.
            Transposable elements, insertions and pseudogenes are clear markers of inheritance. They are used to determine with 100% accuracy whether a person is related to a defined group. This also is used to determine if species diverged from the same population as other species. Finding an insertion or an identical mutation in the same spot of very similar genomes is likened to going into space, dropping a needle from space, going back to earth retrieving the needle, going back up into space, dropping it and expecting it to land in the same plot of land. The odds are so high because there are billions of base pairs. Finding identical Viral insertions or transpositions can ONLY mean common descent, as genes are units of inheritance.

            We share a genetic mutation with all primates which prohibits our cells from synthesizing ascorbic acid (vitamin C).
            The reason why this occurred is because for a large period of our ancestry, we ate fruit. the gene which forms that protein would no longer be a factor in whether or not individuals in our ancestral specie would survive, meaning if there was a transcription error during cell division, it wouldn’t effect one’s survival because they are already getting ascorbic acid from their diet. This mutation propagated through the population, eventually this population diverged into other geographically isolated populations until they were no longer able to reproduce with cousin populations, only within their own divergent
            population. These cousin populations are now called homo sapiens, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.

            **The only reason why these organisms would possess this broken gene in the same place in the genome is if there was an individual that was born with that mutation, with whom all individuals of all great ape species, including humans, share a common ancestor.**

            All primates including humans lost the ability to produce vitamin C due to a mutation that we share in our ancestry. another solid piece of evidence that we are obviously primates and share a common ancestry with all the other primates.
            Other non-human mammals can produce Vitamin C. They don’t
            need it from their diet. Humans, on the other hand, have had ancestors that have been eating fruit for so long (which is high in vitamin C) that our vitamin C genes is long ago mutated since damage of these gene did not affect the fitness since vitamin C was already being
            supplemented in the diet. We do, however, still possess its remnant in pseudogene form.

            Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants, genes which have been inserted into the genome of an organism from a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host’s genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host’s genome. If this happens to the sperm or egg cells, the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry (as shown in the graphic above)

            **The only way those sequences can show up is if a member in the ancestor population of multiple modern species at the time contracted a virus.**

            There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism’s genomes are sequenced

            ERVs are interspecial, showing up in the same part of chromosomes in closely related species which have diverged from an ancestor population.

            These retrovirus sequences collectively make up of 4.9% of the human genome. Recombination between homologous retroviroal sequences has contributed to gene shuffling and generation of genetic variation.

          • Oboehner

            “Transposable elements, insertions and pseudogenes [sic] are clear markers of inheritance.” Or clear markers of humanity having descended from other humans, and apes from other apes, all stemming from a common designer.
            “species diverged from the same population as other species.” Has never been observed, is pure speculation based on faith in evolutionism.
            **The only reason why these organisms would possess this broken gene in the same place in the genome is if there was an individual that was born with that mutation, with whom all individuals of all great ape species, including humans, share a common ancestor.** Or a common designer.
            “All primates including humans lost the ability to produce vitamin C due to a mutation that we share in our ancestry.” This has been observed and tested to be true I presume, or just more speculation.
            “…which have diverged from an ancestor population.” Assumption, not fact.
            Speculation, assumption, and exclusionary “science”, the flies are buzzing around that pile.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            given that these are process which are observed and understood, there is no need to invoke the supernatural.
            That isn’t science.

          • Oboehner

            Ignoring possibilities isn’t science, and no speciation has ever been observed.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            “This has been observed and tested to be true I presume, or just more speculation.”
            Its the reason why you get fucking scurvy if you don’t get enough vitamin C you idiot.
            Why would the same error be in the same place in all ape species and appear no where else in the animal kingdom except as a functional sequence?
            What evidence is there that a god made that genetic error and not the natural processes that result in genetic errors?
            A designer just doesn’t fit in this situation, it isn’t needed!

          • Oboehner

            Scurvy is proof of evolutionism? Hardly, you’re grasping and assuming, assuming primates ever had the ability to produce vitamin C. That might be why God created vitamin C sources as well.
            BTW if primates lost some ability, how would that indicate evolutionism, wouldn’t that be going backwards?

          • Caleb Hubbell

            There is no “backwards” in evolution. despite what you heard, it doesn’t mean “better, faster, stronger”, it means adapted to its environment. There was no selective pressure to preserve the sequence which synthesized ascorbic acid because our ancestors were already getting it in our diet.

          • Oboehner

            “There was no selective pressure to preserve the sequence which synthesized ascorbic acid because our ancestors were already getting it in our diet.” – Religious belief.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Genetics is a religious belief? Interesting.

          • Oboehner

            Unless you have proof of: “There was no selective pressure to preserve the sequence which synthesized ascorbic acid because our ancestors were already getting it in our diet.” it’s not genetics, it’s religious speculation.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Its not religion. the same sequence works in non-primate animals because it doesn’t have the same mutation.
            The sequence is the same in all apes (Humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas), including the identical mutation. The sequence also exists in all other animals but without the mutation. How is this religious speculation? you can find and look at the sequence yourself.

          • Oboehner

            Like I said, unless you have proof of: “There was no selective pressure to preserve the sequence which synthesized ascorbic acid because our ancestors were already getting it in our diet.” it’s not genetics, it’s religious speculation.
            “the mutation” Believing it was a mutation is religious belief – no proof. Believing it only pertains to evolutionism is religious belief – there are other possibilities.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Yes, @Oboehner:disqus is (unintelligently but schemingly) trying to claim that the scientific process is really equivalent to religious belief, as in, say, belief in his Bible’s literal meaning (in English, no less — Moses and Jesus spoke and wrote English, right?).

            Then, instead of demanding that “science” be eliminated from state schools in order to uphold the Constitutional separation between church and state, he wants THAT thrown out, too, and instead, he wants to bring his Bible into science class as an equivalent “religion”.

            This Bible museum is a stepping stone to insert “intelligent design” as equivalent religion, er science, equivalent to if not superior to other museums and science, and therefore insert his Bible into state schools for children.

            Simple.

            But, luckily, so transparent as to cause judges to actually laugh out loud as they toss out law suits that try to bring “intelligent design” into state classrooms, readily identifying ID as Scopes in new-sham’s clothing.

            So, by claiming that you’re a sham, @caleb_hubbell:disqus, he hopes to gain equivalence for his own sham, and then get state school text books to look more and more like his Bibles.
            .

          • texastarheel

            Now, come on Peter-do you seriously believe that any serious student of the Bible thinks for one minute that the Holy Scriptures were written in any languages other than Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

          • texastarheel

            You fellows are so angry that you’re not even listening to each other. He didn’t say genetics was a religious belief. He wants to know how you, Caleb ‘know’ our ancestors got vitamin C in their diet. He wants the proof.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            The proof is that the broken gene is identical to the functional gene in all other animals except primates.

          • texastarheel

            tell him-he’s the one that wants to know, I was just explaining

          • Caleb Hubbell

            I already explained all of this in detail.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Primates are mostly frugivores.

          • texastarheel

            The majority of mammals are. But, I know this. Tell Ob, he’s the one who’s arguing with you and wants the proof. Not me.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Duh, @Oboehner:disqus, your (sacro)religious (lack of) faith assumes a knowledge and awareness of “backwards and forwards” as if superiority and ascendency were preordained and assumed or even accurate assesment of the relationship between man and even roaches (roaches are far superior by many measurents).

            Evolution couldn’t care less about backwards or forwards, only reproduction.

            And as @caleb_hubbell:disqus so accessibly explained, if a mutation doesn’t prevent reproduction, that mutation will carry on, such as fruit eaters eventually loosing their ability to prevent the loss of inner dependence on ascorbic acid production.

            Regarding your absurd “backwards and forwards” presumptions, you must know that certain diseases will NEVER be evolved out of the human population because the carriers of those diseases have already reproduced — so much for an intelligent designer moving things forward.

            I’d demand my money back from your intelligent designer for obvious product defects, if I were you.

            Where is that intelligent designer when you need a refund or an exchange?
            .

          • texastarheel

            God designed perfection. Mankind is responsible for disease, illness, and the genetic repercussions.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            “God designed perfection”
            What is perfection? Can you even define it? I don’t think there’s such thing as perfection.
            Without anecdote, on what basis can you assert that there was ever “perfection”? Perfection of what?

            “Mankind is responsible for disease, illness, and the genetic repercussions.”

            What? Is that even a serious remark? I hope not.
            This has got to be one of the most stupid things I’ve ever read.
            This is an epic level of stupidity. You are evidence that most people are still mentally living in the dark ages, enslaved with primitive superstitions and pseudoscience bullshit.

            What kind of bizarre fantasy land do you live in?
            Did you forget that non-human animals get diseases too, many of which are the same as ours?? If every person on earth disappeared, animals would still get diseases, infections and genetic variations and defects.

            Humans didn’t make viruses, bacteria and the cellular mechanisms which replicate DNA. Do you have any idea how RNA transcription works and that it is one of the most imperfect mechanisms when it comes to preserving sequences? By the way, disease has been around much longer than humans.

          • texastarheel

            Everything was perfect until Adam and Chavvah screwed it up. God designed everything to work and function properly. He designed the universe in every detail to have a good purpose and a useful reason or function. Harmony and balance with freedom, comfort and safety. God told them they could do whatever they wanted. He gave them free will and dominion over a beautiful garden where all their needs were met and they never had to work. He told them to enjoy themselves and each other and go make babies. He only gave them one rule. ONE. They couldn’t keep it and they couldn’t take responsibility for themselves or each other as husband and wife. Perfection began to wither and die. The wages of sin are death.

          • texastarheel

            Goodness! Loosing our patience as well as manners. Are we feeling threatened, Caleb?
            What is so hard to fathom about primates being the only animals who need vitamin C? Why does this have to mean we descended from them?

          • Caleb Hubbell

            I’ve already explained this. In respect to the entire genomic sequence which is enormous, mutations are relatively rare (compare the 120 mutations per zygote to the billions of base pairs in a genome for example). The mutation which separates the primate sequence for Vitamin C from all other animals is identical. Guinea pigs also have a broken gulo gene, but that is a different mutation which occurred at a different time. We can safely assume that guinea pigs are not as closely related to humans, that’s kind of obvious. But as I said repeatedly, natural selection works on presently existing forms, so any new variations in DNA will still have the majority of the same sequences, but with slight variation. In contrast to all other sequences, a newly discovered organism (new divergent populations rather) with the least amount of variation from a sequence of a known organism is more likely to be related. This is actually an important application of common descent as this comparison method can be used to identify new strains of pathogens and help in better treatments. Its also very similar to how paternity tests work.
            This is why I am certain we are distant cousins of other primates (I never said we descended from them, that’s not evolution)

          • texastarheel

            gotcha

          • Caleb Hubbell

            All birds use feathers to keep warm and fly.
            All mammals have hair.
            Different designs, different designers? If you’re going to use that argument that there was one designer, why can’t there be multiple designers? Maybe a magic pixie fairy inserted those retroviruses and shuffled around a few nucleotides to break some genes. lol

          • Oboehner

            Maybe a magic pixie fairy pooped out the “common ancestor, or the exploding dot, or the primordial ooze, or…

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Evolution doesn’t address the origin of life, it address the diversity of life.

          • Oboehner

            It does neither.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            And neither do you, @Oboehner:disqus — nya-nya-naner-poo-poo!

            What are you, an infant?

            Even if just for the challenge of it’s entertainment value alone, how’s about you back up you negativity with something positive, something explaing how you got the way you are, let alone how everything got the way it is.

            Anything POSITIVE from you?

            Ever?
            .

          • texastarheel

            How about something positive from you, peterblaise? You seem pretty knowledgeable in the grade school playground jingles. The angrier you get a Oboehner, the ‘trollier’ you get. I’d love to hear some actual point-of-view debate from you backed by mature and civil talking points.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
            been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
            and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed
            law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful
            and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin

          • Oboehner

            “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.”
            -Sir Fred Hoyle

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            “Higher” life forms, @Oboehner:disqus?!?

            Oh, you’re inhaling your intelligent design beliefs.

            That explains it!
            .

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Horizontal gene transfer is observed in nature, and as you know, genes are units of inheritance. Finding genes with the characteristics of insertion from other organisms only implies common descent.. unless that common designer likes to randomly insert the same viral sequence into different organisms and even reanimate them. Sorry, but supernatural intervention during viral replication and sequencing errors sounds absurd. Like I said, you may as well invoke DNA fairies and multiple designers.

          • Oboehner

            “only implies common descent” to those who have evolutionism faith and pretend to know everything. Believing in the “billions of years” fairy creating the complexities of life – including those yet to be discovered, is absurd.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            @caleb_hubbell:disqus has a good point though, @Oboehner:disqus:

            If you think “intelligent design” caused everything, do you have not only any evidence of an intelligent designer, but, considering the vast variety of designs, do you have any evidence that there are not many, many, many intelligent designers out there, perhaps a whole race from nother universe who came here for vacation and left behind (!) their play sand castles when they went home.

            One theory I heard was that our particular intelligent designer is actually a retard who was ostracized from their own universe and so came here to play on his own … but you should see the wonderful really intelligently designed systems the others of his kind build daily, far, far away.

            So, there could be many ‘gods’.

            And our ‘god’ could be the least savvy, ostracized one of them.

            Makes ya think, doesn’t it?

            Oh well, back to science, and the Caleb show.
            .

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            What?

            No convincing “intelligent designer” genes story to tell us all what really happened in the true science of the Bible?

            @Oboehner:disqus, you nay-say all the wonderful sharing others offer — especially @caleb_hubbell:disqus — but you offer nothing of your own.

            Except troll-like nay saying.

            Is that how deep it goes?

            Well, I’m grateful for Caleb, and I’m learning a great deal from him.

            Nothing, absolutely nothing from you, OB.
            .

          • texastarheel

            If you want to believe you descended from monkeys, more power to ya. I have to chuckle, sorry. Where’s the missing link? Oh yeah, there isn’t one.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            The idea of a “missing link” as a misconception of evolution that arose about 100 years ago and is still perpetuated by creationists today.
            Besides the fact that there is a plethora of transitional fossils (literally every one), even if we didn’t have any fossils, evolution would still be proven by genetics. Darwin even predicted that inheritance was particulate and not a blend long before the discovery of DNA.

          • texastarheel

            Fine but, why are (agnostic and atheist) archaeologists, paleontologists and the like still looking for skeletal remains to prove the point. Creationists don’t care because we know it will never be found. We aren’t perpetuating anything. Every time I view a documentary regarding digs where ancient human remains are unearthed and the subject is brought up, it is NEVER a Christian, religious or Creationist program. It’s always a non-biased, or liberal and general audience based science news org or public TV program designed to appeal to the mass audience. The conservative Christian in me usually disagrees with all the timelines and radio carbon dating and such, though. (As is my right.)

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Carbon dating isn’t used on fossils because carbon dating is only used to date carbon, things that were once living. Fossils are sediment which have filled in the cavities of a previously existing organism entrapped in sediment. Fossils were never alive, they are only mirage of a corpse that once lived. They use rhubitium-struntium and uranium-lead dating in geology.

          • texastarheel

            You didn’t answer my question.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            You mind if we bring this to private messages somewhere (Like facebook)?
            I want to send you images, links to peer reviewed papers and elaborate some more. I can’t send you anything here without the messages not going through as messages with links await moderation.

          • texastarheel

            Well, actually Caleb-now that I finally have this all straightened out, I’m going to call it quits. My only reason for getting involved in this in the first place was to add the Christian point of view. I enjoy a good rational debate with those who know how. When the name-calling snarks and trolls get involved I loose heart but, you hung in there. I they finally left the conversation to us. Never fear, I’ll be back to discuss another controversial topic soon.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            There are no questions in your previous comment, silly 😛

          • texastarheel

            must have double posted

          • Caleb Hubbell

            I don’t believe I’m descended from monkeys… Monkeys are on a different branch of the family tree, they are not our ancestors.

            You however seem to be in denial that you’re a primate. That’s like denying that you’re a bipedal vertebrate tetrapod. Whether you like it or not, that’s where you fit based on your genetics, characteristics, and behaviours.

          • texastarheel

            If you believe in evolution and that man evolved from the great apes, that is fine for you. If you don’t believe it, well frankly I thought you did. You are sometimes hard to pin down. I’m not really sure what you believe. I know human beings are mammals who are considered in the primate family. This is not a stretch for me any more than having possible genetic links to Neanderthals. They lived alongside us and interbred. How do I know whether the first man “Adam” if you will, had only one wife-I don’t. It’s really not important to my relationship with God.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            I’m not hard to pin down at all if you understand what I accept as science.

            Evolution doesn’t mean we descended from modern apes or monkeys, it means monkeys and other modern apes descended from a common population which diverged into those new species. Not one person who accepts evolution believes we descended from modern apes or monkeys.

            Its like saying English descended from German.
            No, English and German both came from an ancestral language named by linguists “proto-germanic”

          • texastarheel

            Okay, I got you so far. Now can you simply answer whether or not you are saying we are among those ‘other’ modern apes?

          • Caleb Hubbell

            yes, we are members of the great ape family.
            Just as panthers, cheetahs and lions are part of the felidae family
            and horses, zebras and donkeys are considered “Equus”
            Isn’t it obvious both in physical appearance and the fact that nearly every known mutation/transcription error (deletions, inversions, insertions, duplications etc.) through history can be mapped and contrasted to differentiate human and other ape genomes to determine with accuracy when each lineage diverged to build phylogenies?
            I would say that’s pretty compelling evidence, even without bringing up ERVs, Pseudogenes, Chromosomal fusions, and Transpositions again.

          • texastarheel

            okay I can buy all this but, I’m no ape sorry and neither are you

          • texastarheel

            Sorry but, we DID all descend from the same woman. Mitochondrial DNA research done with the human genome project proved that.

          • Oboehner

            Eve.

          • texastarheel

            Yes, I know that. You’re preaching to the choir, with me. Actually, it was most likely Chavvah (pronounced khav-vaw’)I’m going on my personal opinion that the original language was Hebrew.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            That is only the most recent common ancestor of selected population.

            “Mitochondrial Eve…
            is not a fixed individual over time
            had a mother
            was not the only woman of her time, and
            Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.”

          • texastarheel

            Mitochondrial “EVE” or the first woman ever did not have a mother because she was not born. She was created. The first man Adam, was also not born he was the first person created and he named her Chavvah because she was the first mother. They were not alone for long. They had many children and Adam may have had other wives later. I don’t know. I don’t know how many children Chavvah gave birth to or how many children they had together. It is not important to me.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Even science says we came from one sole ancestor.

          • Paul Hiett

            So these folks…

            http://ourgeneration.org.au/files/images/aboriginals_1906.jpg

            And these folks…

            http://i.imgur.com/AOdIL.jpg

            …can trace their heritage all the way back to Noah and his family in the past 4000 years?

          • Melissa Simpson

            First, the Holy Bible does not state exact years of age for the earth. Second, a day during Genesis could have been a word translates meaning a certain amount of time that was not 24 hours. Getting the time frame out of the way, as stated previously, even science states that we came from one common male ancestor and one common female ancestor.

          • Paul Hiett

            We’re not talking about the Creation part, we’re talking about Noah’s flood, which, according to the Bible, occurred about 2400 BC.

            Now, would you care to tackle the question as it pertains to Noah’s Flood?

          • Melissa Simpson

            Sure. Where does it say that Noahs flood happened 2400 bc?

          • Khalid Avito

            Where is proof of Noah existing?

          • texastarheel

            Genesis

          • happylada

            Where in the Bible does it make that statement?

          • Kerry Collier

            Sure, it never happened.

          • texastarheel

            Now who’s ignoring archaeological (scientific) fact.

          • Joe Agnost

            Melissa Simpson wrote: “even science states that we came from one common male ancestor and one common female ancestor.”

            No it doesn’t. It simply doesn’t work that way. We evolved from primates – not some ‘original’ male human/female human.

          • Kerry Collier

            Common, yes, but not living in the same time frame together. The genesis account gets everything wrong. Sorry, your magic book is wrong.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Yes, they lived in overlapping timeframes. Allowing for a possibility. Even the respected science community says it was a possibility. Are you call me and the general of the scientific community a liar?

            The Genesis, as I stated previously does not “get everything wrong”. Another lie. Do you like lying? God says that lying is wrong. I suppose that probably doesn’t matter to you, so I suppose you will probably keep on lying.

            Genesis states that fist there was water, land, water animals, land animals and then humans. This is shown to be true by all scientists and fossils. So, Genesis does not get “everything wrong”. Shows you lie. Why would you feel the need to lie? No need to lie, God is truth.

            In any event of what you say or state, life exists. Life did not come from nothing, as something can not come from nothing. If you think that life, which is something, came from nothing than you are the one to be thinking in “magic” and any books that state so would be “magic books”.

            Magic is defined as “the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces”. So thinking life came from nothing, when that is not scientifically not possible means you believe in a mysterious force. It would be a mystery how life could come from nothing. So you can take you “magical” thinking and be with it.

            For me and all Christian believers, we know life came from God, He continues to give it to us. He gave us new life through Jesus Christ, His only perfect Son who allows us to repent for sins, such as lying, and follow Him in truth, peace, and love.

          • texastarheel

            It’s not a magic book. You’d know that if you’d ever read it.

          • happylada

            IF you follow the Jewish Chronology (the BIBLE never makes ANY statement of age) – you would come up with a date of Creation of about 11000 BC – and the flood maybe 8000 BC.

            Your assumed dates are not in any way cast in stone by creationists. BUT they sure are an order of magnitude from your evolutionary dates. And FAR more reasonable.

            Even C14 dating of dinosaurs, coal and diamonds denies the ages attributed to evolutionary dogma. Entropy would long since have destroyed all life in your mythology!

          • Krauss Allie

            Hi there happylada! I’m a little confused here…. why in the heck would you carbon date a dinosaur?!?!? Do you have any idea how ridiculous the notion of carbon dating a dinosaur is???

            The answer is of course, no, you don’t have any idea how ridiculous the notion of carbon dating a dinosaur is because you don’t actually have anything approaching a clue about the fields of study involved. Your total ignorance of biology and radiometric dating hasn’t stopped you from making silly, uninformed, and entirely erroneous scientific claims about evolution though, which is…. well, not surprising.

            You can usually get away with your ignorance too, especially around here, but every once in a while you’ll run into someone like me who sort of dabbles in this kind of research from time to time. I strongly suggest you gain a firmer grasp on the subject matter BEFORE making the decision to entirely reject it. I’m certain you’re not a foolish person, so you can certainly appreciate the absudity of reaching conclusions without having all the relevant information, unless you’re willing to acknowledge you follow dogma rather than rationality.

            So tell me happylada, why don’t we carbon date dinosaurs???

          • texastarheel

            That was a tad harsh. I’ve noticed you ‘science-only’ folks are quick with the rude attitudes. Did you all hand in your common courtesy when you clasped your degree scrolls?

          • Kerry Collier

            No, we aren’t a closed system. You’re obviously not very knowledgeable about this topic. There are other methods of dating used that do confirm the timeline for evolution is correct. C14 isn’t the only method.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            True, Uranium-lead decay and Thorium-lead decay

          • Krauss Allie

            Pardon me Melissa, but when you say “science says”, you’re clearly not speaking of the consensus within biology. I tend to dabble a bit in biology myself, and we know with absolute certainty that there never was a single first man, and the lack of genetic diversity between only two people would cause a genetic bottleneck and wipe out the species before we even had a chance.

            You are of course welcome to hold any belief you’d like, but you don’t get to make statements that are demonstrably false. I don’t know if you’re doing it out of out of ignorance or dishonesty or maybe just shear desperation, but you’re not going to to find a single qualified biologist or geneticist in the field who will agree with your statement…. regardless of their personal beliefs.

          • Melissa Simpson

            I can pardon you, but I will still reply to what you are saying. The consensus in Biology in recent years is definitely that there was a biological Adam and Eve. So it is a lie to say that you know with absolute certainty that there was not when well respected science says that there was. Why you would like, I have no idea and that does not concern me.

            A simple internet search for “Genetic Adam and Eve” will uncover the many respected scientific studies and communities that know this to be true. And you giving me a sort of permission to hold any belief is not needed, God has already given all humans free will to hold their own beliefs.

            So to claim ignorance or dishonesty on my part, is a sad way to show how far your support of your own lie goes and is actually ridiculous. With all due respect, which is not a lot because as I can respect you as another living human being, I do not respect lies and false accusations.

            I will post following this paragraph, links to three respected scientific websites National Geographic, Livescience and Phys.org. These are three scientifically respected communities that, among many other respected communities, agree to the consensus there was a genetic Adam and Eve. They are sometimes referred to Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam. There are also many more such as Nature.org, news channels and government scientific journals that are easy to find through a web search. Those are just naming some of the scientific community that accepts a genetic Adam and Eve.

            http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

            http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2006/03/human-journey/shreeve-text/2

            http://phys.org/news/2013-08-common-genetic-ancestors-roughly-period.html

            While you may “dabble” in biology, your lie of the scientific community as a whole accepting and knowing there was a genetic Adam and Eve is debunked, not only with these there websites but with countless others. Or do you think yourself more scientifically advanced than National Geographic, the scientists at University of California of Berkeley and Stanford to name a few?

            So to falsely accuse me of lying, which is a sin the Holy Bible might I add, is not appropriate and you are wrong to do so and wrong in saying the scientific community does not accept there is a genetic Adam and Eve. I have posted the truth here. and anyone using the internet as a tool can search “Genetic Adam and Eve” to see the truth that it is scientifically accepted by reputable scientists and the respected science community. While I forgive you, I do not agree with your lying to me, possibly yourself and to anyone else who may read your lies.

            I will stand firm in my belief in Jesus Christ and God. I hope you will see they love us enough to give life. Life that came from Adam and Eve and continues to this day.

          • Joe Agnost

            Like most creationists, Melissa Simpson, you are misunderstanding the science. It’s almost like you saw the words ‘genetic Adam and Eve’ and didn’t bother to read any of the papers.
            They have tied our ancestry back to a male and a female – but these two didn’t even live in the same millennium!

            From the phys.org article:

            “…a study led by the Stanford University School of Medicine indicates the two roughly overlapped during evolutionary time: from between 120,000 to 156,000 years ago for the man, and between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago for the woman.”

            This doesn’t suggest that these two bred and the human race was born… it suggests that they’ve traced our male ancestry back to this male and our female ancestry back to this female. There was no ‘original’ pair of humans in this scenario… You’re way off if you think this indicates an actual Adam/Eve pairing.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Do you know most creationists? I am not misunderstanding, and you should not accuse me of such under false pretenses. I did read, and science says “roughly overlapped”. Also, from the same article “It’s difficult to say what the apparent overlap between the male and female MRCA sequences may represent, if anything.”

            Science is not 100% sure of when the genetic Adam and Eve existed, and since there is any probability that they existed at the same time, it leaves to be said research could discover this. So, I am not way off in this. It is a possibility, and as a believer and someone with faith in God, the one who made science, I will keep my stance.

            First it was that there was no Adam and Eve, second it is that they have no probability of existing in at the same time. The first myth was proven untrue, as the capability of proving the second one a myth is as well. Science is still discovering information on our ancestry and past that has led to this point in modern time.
            Science comes up with new theories and information all the time, they are just discovering much information that the Creator already knows since He made it.

            I hope no one is naïve to think they know everything about science. Looking into about 100,000 in the time frame compared to the billions of years of earth’s existence is not worrisome to me. What is worrisome are that there are people who think that this earth, life, and all we know was a mere accidental occurrence from the happenings of nothing.

            I will keep my faith in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ. Historical records prove Jesus existed, there is ancient proof of the Hebrew Bible showing more proof scripture existed more than a 1,000 years before he was born and I know with my heart it is true. Say or write whatever you want, you will never change God.

          • Joe Agnost

            Melissa wrote: “and science says ‘roughly overlapped’.”

            First of all, “science” doesn’t say anything. Science is a method – not an end.
            Second of all, ‘roughly overlapped’ doesn’t mean coexisted. Look at the age estimates? They are separated by several thousands of years at their closest! How do you reproduce with something that existed thousands of years before you?

            The current understanding is that there was never a single male/female coupling that resulted in the human race beginning. It’s a gradual process with no single one point in time where POOF there were human beings. Evolution doesn’t work that way.

            I don’t care if you believe in God… believe whatever you want. I’m simply pointing out that the science you ~think~ backs you up does not.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Science coveys information, which is what happens when one says something. Roughly overlapped, means that there was a time where the overlapping time period allowed for these two individuals to live during the same time.

            The “current understanding” is as you put it, only current and science comes up with new data and information all the time. So scientifically, there is an genetic Adam and Eve that existed and the time period for each allows for them to have co-existed during the same time. So scientifically, it is possible and scientifically proved by respected scientists and the scientific community to be possible.

            The “POOF” that you speak of is in life itself. This earth, and life itself need no proof, it already exists. Did life start by nothing? No something can not come from nothing. So where did it start? By a creator, God, who made the earth work in an amazing way as shown by science. God, our creator, gave us life for a reason. The reason is this, to know that He created us and His one perfect Son to die for us and to be resurrected so we may believe and know the true God.

          • Joe Agnost

            Melissa wrote: “Roughly overlapped, means that there was a time where the overlapping
            time period allowed for these two individuals to live during the same
            time.”

            No it doesn’t. “Roughly overlapped” means that they existed “roughly” the same time. As the dates they use confirm, this was several thousands of years apart. When dealing with hundreds of thousands of years, being within a couple thousand ~is~ “roughly overlapping”.

            Melissa cont’d: “So where did it start? By a creator, God…”

            And here is the part where you ‘special plead’ that your God doesn’t need a creator… it’s pathetic.

          • Melissa Simpson

            You are wrong. Roughly overlapped means they overlapped for a short amount of time. It does not mean that they did not overlap at all. That overlap means that they existed at the same time on this earth, even if not for a long time.

            From the Article: “Now, a study led by the Stanford University School of Medicine indicates the two roughly overlapped during evolutionary time: from between 120,000 to 156,000 years ago for the man, and between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago for the woman.” This clearly shows that between 120,000 years ago and 148,000 years ago, a period of about 28,000 years there was a probability that the genetic Adam and Eve existed a the same time.
            Stating that God created life, is not a “special plead” because my emotional state is not greatly affected nor changed because you or anyone chooses to not believe this. It is a statement that stands in truth to all who know it. To those who don’t, I feel sad you will not know the joy, peace and love that God and Jesus give. Will I be sad always because of that? God willing, no, because His joy and love and peace are still there for me and others who believe. Whether you believe or not.
            “Pathetic” means to arose pity, so if I arose pity from you, than have no need, I am in agreement with the scientific community and with Jesus and God. This is a glorious!

            Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-common-genetic-ancestors-roughly-period.html#jCp

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            The study you quote, @melissasimpson:disqus, ignores at least two men living today who did not inherit their Y chromosome from any man during “Eve’s” time period..

            Studies that include these living men place their “Adam” ancestor thousands of years older than “Eve”.

            Arguing science has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and visa versa — they are 1,000% separate, and each works best that way.
            .

          • Melissa Simpson

            That is a lie PeterBlaise, as it does not ignore that, it clearly states that almost all humans can trace their orgins. That is why they are called the father and mother of vast expanse of humanity. If less than 1% of the population can not attribute to them, whatever ancestor they have has been able to become human by God’s will as well. I am not concerned about why we are genetically human, because I know God’s plan that has allowed us all to be is for a reason: to show His truth in Jesus Christ being His only sinless child. We must repent of sins, believe in Jesus Christ and follow God with love, peace and truth. If you can not see this, I will pray for you! God is, Jesus is and I thank Them for their truth and for life.

          • texastarheel

            Perhaps for you and some others but, not for everyone.

          • texastarheel

            I think Joe, you’ll find it is us who have pity and compassion for those of you who are blinded by your false idol of science and the denial of the Creator God. He gave us the wonder of all things that fall under the umbrella of scientific knowledge, arts and medicine. It’s so obvious. We are flabbergasted by highly educated people who can’t see past their own research. Who do you think created your wondrous brains?

          • texastarheel

            Semantics? That’s your best argument?

            Science

            noun

            1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

            2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

            3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

            4. systematized knowledge in general.

            5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

            6. a particular branch of knowledge.

            7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

            Don’t see method anywhere. However, there is a scientific method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

          • Kerry Collier

            Yes, you most certainly are.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Lol, just because you say I am something does not mean I am. I can say you are purple, doesn’t mean you are. It would be false, and in any respect, calling someone a name to try to make someone feel bad is something that someone would do if they are not filled with joy inside and want to try to hurt others. I say try with emphasis because you will not succeed. So if you are not filled with joy, and want to know why, I will tell you.
            You need Jesus Christ. Everyone sins, everyone has felt bad. How do we feel better? By believing in Jesus Christ a real man who lived, died and was resurrected so we may believe in Him. God loves us all and wants all of us to come to Him. Believe in Jesus, repent of sins, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. You and all who do and follow Jesus Christ will truth, joy, peace and love.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .
            Speak for yourself, @melissasimpson:disqus — I have never sinned, and I’m full of happy happy joy joy.

            And no one called you a name, they described their assesment of your approach to belief and dialog.
            .

          • Melissa Simpson

            Lol, I your lie about not sinning is another sin itself. I have seen your other posts where you use profanity to express your opinions which shows you are not filled with happy happy joy joy. And yes implying that they think I am possibly “retarded” is trying to call me a name. You are a liar sir, and I am so sad you can’t even see your own sin. You can lie to yourself but God see right through the lies.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Peter Blaise, are you Christian?

          • Melissa Simpson

            I have seen your posts where you say you are Christian/Catholic, yet in a post right above it you say Jesus is dead (which He is not and Christians know He is alive). So you are right there lying in your statements. Lying is a sin. You further lie by saying you do not sin. It was a try, but God knows the truth.

          • texastarheel

            That’s impossible. We have all sinned. That’s precisely why we need an advocate to redeem us so we may be reconciled to God.
            Simply looking back over your posts one can find a record of many transgressions. I am not perfect but, I have been forgiven for my transgressions. You can be, too. We all can. Your Creator God wants to have a relationship with you, all of us. He sent His son to pay the debt we all owe for our sins. This allows us to be reconciled with Him. He gave us free will. He won’t make us come to Him. It must be our personal decision to call out to Him. No religion required.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Its not a gift, its a curse.
            I have done nothing to deserve torture.
            I don’t know anyone who deserves torture.
            No one needs to be tortured for me.
            That’s the most disgusting gift you could possibly give me.
            Its like the judge brings out his son and beats the hell out of him until
            he dies in behalf of my crime which was far less severe than killing
            someone. That is a perversion of justice. That is not a gift, its just
            sick and twisted.

            you wronged me? oh, I’m going to torture my cat on your behalf to forgive you. Because Justice

            I wouldn’t want to worship a god like that. I’m better than that. I’m
            responsible for my own actions and I face their repercussions. No one is responsible for my social messups and mistakes and no one deserves torture for anything I’ve done. That isn’t even consistent for an eye for an eye because I HAVE NEVER KILLED OR TORTURED ANYONE TO DEATH!

            I will never accept atonement by vicarious redemption through bloodshed.
            There is no way I could make myself believe that paradise could be a
            place where your loved ones would be separated from you for not
            accepting a sacrifice.

            Even if it meant I could see the only person that matters to me after death, I wouldn’t believe. I would still choose to “burn in hell”
            Why would I want to be accepted by someone who will only accept me if I accept a human sacrifice as a condition for the actions of a forebearer that never existed? Why would I want to be accepted if it meant that I would lose everyone I cared about because they don’t choose the same path and believe the same as me?

            I think being responsible for the suffering you cause, trying to prevent
            suffering and building connections and supporting people, and learning as much as you can about the world you live in is far more valuable than worrying if a deity is going to condemn you for not accepting a blood sacrifice.
            No one has done anything to deserve eternal torture, and no one deserves to be tortured and have their blood spilled as atonement for the wrong doings of another person.

            **That isn’t justice**

            That’s why I CANT believe in the god of the bible. Even if it was real, I couldn’t accept it.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            My ethical and moral principles are governed by examining whether a certain
            action, whether connected to body or speech is likely to be harmful to
            one’s self or to others and thereby avoiding any actions which are
            likely to be harmful. Our morals are based on social interactions.
            You can’t symbolically erase the harm you have caused by someone by killing an innocent victim as atonement. That is primitive superstitious bullshit like ancient tribes tearing out the heart of a virgin for plentiful crop yields. They are disconnected!

            If the Romans can execute Jesus for my sins, can I shoot a guy in the foot for your mortgage?

          • texastarheel

            So, chaos is cool with you? Criminals should not be punished? If a sick twisted baby raper is brought to trial you don’t think he deserves to pay for what he did to innocent little children? How about drug dealers and addicts who beat up senior citizens to get money or take their grandkids to push drugs against their will? They don’t deserve prison? What about the guy that beats the crap out of his wife for nothing or for burning his toast or because he felt like it. He beat her so bad she lost their baby and now can’t ever have kids? What does he deserve? How about the woman who puts out her cigarettes on her 6 year old’s arm because he spilt his milk? Then again when he forgot to put the cap back on the toothpaste or put the mail in the exact spot she likes?

          • texastarheel

            Good job

          • Jeeler

            Oh I see. In addition to Melissa’s unsubstantiated, but apparently scientifically valid, religious beliefs, she’s also registered at the University of Google!
            I stand corrected. Totally. That said, you still cannot produce a single peer-reviewed, academic research article to reinforce your woo, can you?

          • Melissa Simpson

            Trying to attack people who use Google for information is like trying to say these websites: Discovery, National Geographic and Phys.org publish lies, when in reality the truth and information on science can be on the internet just as any place word is written. Also, your “joke” and sarcasm do not discredit the fact that it is true that the respected scientific community agrees there is a genetic Adam and Eve.
            http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/genetic-adam-eve-found-130802.htm

            http://phys.org/news/2013-08-common-genetic-ancestors-roughly-period.html

            http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

          • Joe Agnost

            The only ‘joke’ here is your inability to understand the websites you cite… You cite these scientific articles but completely botch the information contained therein. There is no scientific consensus that there was an ‘original’ human pair. None. Your use of this ‘genetic Adam and Eve’ is disingenuous. You simply don’t understand the articles you are citing.

          • Melissa Simpson

            I am not joking, I am serious and what I state is factual and backed up by Science. Look at the articles they plainly state
            “Now, a study led by the Stanford University School of Medicine indicates the two roughly overlapped during evolutionary time: from between 120,000 to 156,000 years ago for the man, and between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago for the woman

            Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-common-genetic-ancestors-roughly-period.html#jCp

          • truecreation_dot_info

            Sorry, but you are reading way too much into this. We can indeed trace certain genes back to specific individuals who lived tens of thousands of years ago and know that those genes were propagated to the entire human race. In the case of “Y Chromosome Adam”, it is a gene that is only passed on by men. In the case of “Mitochondrial Eve”, it is a stretch of DNA in the mitochondria of cells that can thus only be passed down through women. And what this new study is saying is that these two people could have lived around the same time period. However, there is nothing here that indicates that these people were the progenitors of the entire human race. Far from it. There were at least thousands of other individuals alive at the same time, which accounts for the rich variety in other genes in our genome.

            http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-mitochondrial-eve-y-chromosome-adam

            http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-basics-becoming-human-part-1-mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosome-a

          • Melissa Simpson

            You can apologize, but you are linking to a blog not a scientific website. Also, if can all trace our lineage to either Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial eve, this means there was an Adam and Eve. Our genes still can contain genes and changes in genes because we are still changing. It is obvious that science notices that Adam and Eve could have lived during the same time and that they are the “parents” of almost all human life. Where did human life come from? I will tell you, God gave us the earth and any evolutionary process that came after and that happens now. To think this all came from nothing, that is even more than a “stretch”.

          • truecreation_dot_info

            You are not responding to anything I just said. I never said this all comes from nothing. I am refuting your statement that all humans descend from a single pair. The “blog” I referenced is an article by a scientist at a respected Christian organization. There is absolutely nothing in the phys.org article you cite that implies anything about these two people being the progenitors of the human race.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Lol, I have responded to what you said and more. Lying that I have not responded to anything you “said”, is not necessary. I quote exactly what Phys.org says, and many more respected scientific sites just like it. “Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam—two individuals who passed down a portion of their genomes to the vast expanse of humanity.”

            Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-common-genetic-ancestors-roughly-period.html#jCp

            That being said, you mentioned the small amount of humanity that has differed genomes. Science has not pinpointed where they came from, there is no notation for when that differentiated genome sequence occurred or how. Does it matter to me? No, God can do whatever He sees fit seeing as he made all life that sequenced in the first place. That being said, again I will state, the general respected scientific community states there is a “Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam—two individuals who passed down a portion of their genomes to the vast expanse of humanity”

            This is the Adam and Eve the Holy Bible speaks of. Period. Other genomes that may have existed at that time, or after that led to the very small portion of humanity that has them does not bother me. God has a reason for everything. If they were a result of some mutation, evolutionary process that occurred at the same time or even after, it doesn’t concern me or change that there is an Adam and Eve that account for the “vast of humanity.”
            I don’t have to understand everything about science or God to know He is God. I don’t have to know everything about life to know it exists.

          • texastarheel

            Why must you and others ‘insist’ Melissa and other Believers like myself are ‘religious’?
            Religion is false! Religion is man-made ritual. We are followers of Christ, His disciples. Christianity is a relationship with Yeshuah the Messiah. Adonai, the Christ, Immanuel the Living God we call Jesus the Risen Savior. Our faith is more than belief. We have experienced the reality of God, seen and felt His presence and reaped the benefit of His actions. We have our proof. We want to share this truth. It’s free. It’s priceless. We are not the fools you perceive us to be. What is it you fear?

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Religion by definition is the belief in God(s). Its synonymous with faith, worship and cult.

          • texastarheel

            You’re getting hung up on the man-made stuff of rituals, memorized prayers, rules, ‘organized religion’ and the rules and things one has to do like praying so many times and when and facing a certain direction using beads and going to confessions and celebrating certain days and not doing this or that, blah blah blah blah worshiping statues of saints and a man hanging on a giant cross. Yes, THAT is religion. I’m not into that. Neither is God.

          • texastarheel

            I just don’t fit into your mold. No matter how hard you want to jam me into your preconceived notion of a religious person. I belong to the ekklesia. I have a relationship with a living person. I am a square peg and I refuse to go into that round hole you think a fit into.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            That is correct, there was no first of any animal. All animals are divergent populations of previous populations that other populations branched from.

          • Jeeler

            Really? Kindly identify the author(s) of the (peer-reviewed) academic source from which you’ve drawn this observation.
            N.B.: any reference to your magical kids’ book or from a “creationist” pamphlet will not be considered compelling evidence.

          • Melissa Simpson
          • texastarheel

            Who’s peers?

          • Kerry Collier

            They use those terms loosely. They were Thousands of years apart, and were not the sole humans at the time, they’re just the most common ancestor. In fact, genetics shows that there most certainly wasn’t an Adam and Eve as in the biblical account. What you’re doing is trying to wiggle the science around to fit your world view. The evidence doesn’t support your views at all.

          • Melissa Simpson

            The terms mean what they say, that they were the “mother and father” of all common human genomes today. Almost all of humanity can trace to them. Is this what the Holy Bible tells us of? Yes. How did God do it? However He wanted to, be in evolution, a miracle or both together. It needs no “wiggling” and the evidence supports me views in many ways. To say it does not support my views at all is false.

            A male and female lived during overlapping times, which would allow for them to have been together. True. The same male and female are noted by the trusted scientific community to be the “two individuals who passed down a portion of their genomes to the vast expanse of humanity”. That quote is from the scientific community and noted on various websites such as this page: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-common-genetic-ancestors-roughly-period.html.

            Are there other forms of genomes, yes but not many. Did they come before, during or after. There is no statement on that. Where did they come from? Wherever God wanted them to, since He made life, evolution and any other living sequence possible. Does the slight amount of other genomes discount that there was a “Mitochondrial Adam and Eve”? No, all I need to know is they existed and had a possibility to be together as science stated. Even a small possibility allows for a possibility.

            Now, I am sure these are the two God talked about in the Holy Bible. Why these two were considered the first by God, that is up to Him. Since He made life and gave us the Holy Bible, I will not question why, and I will note that science says there there is a “mother and father” to the vast humanity that is today.

            This is line with the fact that the account of creation in the Holy Bible lines up with fossils correctly. Some people think that “days” means 24 hours, when it clearly states that even the measuring of the term day was not even put into effect for later times. Days can mean any amount of time, as God would see fit. We can’t assume the translation for day and the measurement for it was always 24 hours in God’s words.

            Creation in Genesis, also states that the water came first, than land, than water animals, than land animlas and then humans. Did evolution occur in this process? It would seem so as obvious fossils point to. Does it matter if Holy God chose this as the way to do it? No.

            God set humans apart from other animals. We are different, higher beings. Does that mean perfect? No, the only perfect human was Jesus Christ who lived, died and was resurrected to show He was God’s Son. Historical documents and historians agree that Jesus Christ was a real man who lived during the time stated in the Holy Bible.

            The Hebrew religion, the Jewish people, have been around for centuries and are one of the oldest archeologically supported people to have existed in all civilizations. Now, since there is fossil proof and evidence of the Hebrew religion, their prophetic scriptures of Jesus coming true are that much more amazing. Jesus did come to fulfil their prophecies and history notes He did live.

            Whether you choose to believe in Him as the Son of God, is up to you. As for me, I believe. I have tried other ways of life and they did not give me the peace, love, understanding and truth that Jesus and God are. I hope the same peace, love, understanding and truth for you and everyone.

          • Joe Agnost

            These two, “Adam and Eve”, are nothing like the biblical version. The bible claims Adam and Eve were the first humans – the science shows that there were lots of humans around at the time these two.
            You are really stretching here Melissa.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Yes, but they lived at different times and there were many people who lived at the time they existed too. Mitochondrial eve was the MOST RECENT common ancestor of all humans. There were many before, including the common ancestor of all apes including humans which was the first ancestor from whom we all share a genetic mutation which prohibits our cells from synthesizing ascorbic acid (Vitamin C).

            There are plenty of other lines of evidence including transposable elements, Indogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, chromosomal fusions and many degrees of speciation, genetic divergence or genetic isolation today, ranging from fully
            interbreeding populations, to partially interbreeding populations, to
            populations that interbreed with reduced fertility or with complete
            infertility, to completely genetically isolated populations as observed in populations within equus, rabbits and salamanders.

          • texastarheel

            Only a single original female, Melissa.

          • texastarheel

            Thanks for the additional info, Melissa. The ‘Adam’ references were new to me.

          • happylada

            WHY not? Its observable fact.

          • jacuzzi37

            Yes, even back to Adam. Atheists hold that we all came from a rock. You do the math.

          • Brendon Barr

            That’s not censorship, that’s not allowing fallacious and outright false information into science.

          • happylada

            False. Even situations like the Nobel going to the assistant, NOT the inventor, to prevent this wonderful scientist from having a soapbox to demonstrate that CREATIONISTS can lead the pack in science.

            Even evolutionist militant RUSE claimed this was simply Creation censorship
            http://creation.com/the-not-so-nobel-decision-raymond-damadian-mri

          • Jeeler

            For the win! Happlylada trumps ’em all with the Interweb’s Officially Most Obtuse Comment of the Week.™
            Well done, 3-watt!

          • Reason2012

            If it’s false it would be trivial to refute and SHOW that it’s false – and of course if it was really trivial to refute and was really false, they’d ALLOW it so others can see how “ridiculous” it is and how “false” it is.

            But instead they censor it, which shows the reality of it: they know it has validity, they fear the truth, and how those who actually think for themselves will realize the truth when they hear it – so censor it and lie and claim it could be refuted b/c it’s outright false information.

          • Bill

            no it’s just garbage and no legitimate scientific journal publishes garbage.

          • Reason2012

            If that was true, then it would be easy to show and you’d want the world to SEE that to shut them up. But instead they fear others thinking for themselves and realizing the nonsense evolutoinism is, so they censor it.

          • Bill

            I don’t fear anything and they show evidence you idiots just refuse to acknowledge it.

          • Khalid Avito

            What evidence?

            ev·i·dence
            noun

            the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

            true
            adjective

            in accordance with fact or reality.

            val·id
            adjective

            (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent

            You keep using that word. I don’t’ think it means what you think it means…

          • Bill
          • Reason2012

            Yes, you never show it and your rebuttal is “you idiots”.
            I rest my case.

          • SpeakTruth

            No, sir. It is because evolution by natural selection is considered settled by the scientific community. The debate is over. The scientific community refuses to acknowledge creationism because doing so would give the impression that it is a respectable scientific theory. Countless scientific breakthroughs have been made because of the understanding that life evolves and how and why it does.Creationism isn’t being suppressed because of fear, it is being ignored because it is ridiculous. Reputable scientific journals would also refuse to publish articles refuting the theory of gravity. Creationism isn’t taught in schools (other than homeschools and religious schools) because it is silly and completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. It is not even taught as an alternative theory because it is not an alternative theory. It would be like teaching children that 2+2=4 or 2+2=7. People like Ken Hamm are either willfully ignorant or con artists.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, they ‘decided” they’ll believe natural selection leads to their mythological beliefs (when it never does), and they censor all other papers that shows it never leads to any such thing.

            Yes, evolutionists show they’re not about science: about DISCOURSE and CRITIQUING differing views on this topic – they’re about censoring all beliefs but theirs.

            If it was “ridiculous” then they should WANT to publish it to trivailly show how “ridiculous it is” – FAR more effective than cowardly censorship. Censorship makes it look like they’re all about keeping the masses ignorant. Publishing trivial refutations about ‘ridiculous’ claims that half the world believes in would be far more effective -but they can’t refute it so they censor it. They know those who think for themselves will start to realize, at the very minimum, how anti-science evolutoinism truly is.

            No, we can see that 2+2=4 – more and more people are seeing that adaptation, natural selection, changes in allele frequency, mutations, nor anything else, ever leads to the mythological things evolutionists demand it does. Publishing papers that critique this mythology of evolutionism and trying to refute these papers would instead only lead more people to see how anti-science evolutionism truly is, so they censor such critiques at all costs.

            And their censorship is another wake up call to many.

          • SpeakTruth

            Scientists didn’t “decide” to believe in anything. The evidence shows them what is or what is not. They don’t “censor”. New earth creationism was debunked years ago. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, or that there was a great flood, etc. There is a huge body of evidence that proves the earth is billions of years old, that life evolves, etc, and that evidence is spread across multiple areas of scientific fields of study: the fossil record, various methods of dating, genetics. Not one piece of evidence has been found that points to any conclusion other than evolution by natural selection. Yes, scientists have found evidence over the years that disproves why something evolved the way it did. Yes, scientists may disagree on how to classify a particular fossil. But, no. There is currently no controversy about whether our earth or the life on it has evolved or is evolving.
            I have no idea to which “mythological things” you are referring.
            And no, a reputable scientific journal would absolutely not want to publish ridiculous things as it would erase all credibility of the said journal, for the same reason The Washington Post, New York Times, or The Washington Times do not publish articles of Elvis sightings.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            What proof do you have the standard science journals turned down relevant papers?

          • Reason2012

            You found some in scientific journals? No.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            So you have no proof. Got it. Thanks

          • Reason2012

            You ignored the proof. If you’re claiming there ARE such papers allowed in scientific journals, then prove it.

          • UmustBKiddinMe

            You have provided no proof. You made the claim that standard journals turned down relevant papers. To prove that claim you need to cite the relevant papers and then cite that they were turned down. I’ll be waiting.

          • Paul M

            Yep. Waiting with you.

          • James McMullen

            Those papers have not passed peer review. If they could pass peer review, then they would of course be published. You don’t seem to understand how science works. It’s not about everyone getting their turn to say whatever they want, it’s about presenting evidence that can withstand testing, independent confirmation, and careful scrutiny. The scientific community does their best to expose every weakness and flaw so that only the most rigorous and thoroughly tested theories will survive and go on.

            You don’t get special status just because you can’t win by the rules of the game. Creationism isn’t being censored at all. It merely can’t meet basic standards to even qualify.

          • Reason2012

            They’re not addressed – I’d hardly call ignoring them “not passed”.

            If they were false and could easily be shown to be false, they’d JUMP at the chance to discredit what they so clearly hate. They don’t because there are points they cannot touch, ignore it instead, and say things like “they have not passed peer review”. THen they claim “you have no peer reviewed papers” and claim victory.
            Anti-science censorship.

            The only “rules” are, we won’t let you publish dissenting papers – so yes if they have immature anti-science rules of censorship, it only helps others see how disdain for actual science and telling others what to think is all they’re really about

          • HelenaConstantine

            The reason they aren’t published in real journals is because theya re not real scientific papers, with things like evidence.

          • Reason2012

            They have the same evidence as everyone else: fossils, dna, you name it. They show how the beliefs attached to it by evolutionists are flawed.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            Science works with observing and testing nature and forming conclusions based on the evidence, not by selecting and twisting anything that might fit with a preconceived ideology.
            Through the process of peer review, all findings will be attempted to be disproven by replicating the findings or finding evidence which contradicts a hypothesis. If it gives an accurate representation of reality, it passes peer review and becomes “mainstream science”. There’s a reason why creationist papers are never published in a scientific journal. Its the same reason why we have moved on from astrology in favour of astronomy.
            why we moved on from alchemy in favour of chemistry, and why we moved on from geocentrism from heliocentrism.
            Supported by evidence, gives an accurate representation of reality. Creationism isn’t science. It never will be.

          • Reason2012

            Making up beliefs about fossisl that does not happen does not make fossils “evidence” of that belief. Anti-science circular reasoning is all that is.

            Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “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!”

            Evolutionist “That’s a vestigial structure and here’s why I believe it is”
            “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)

            The bottom line is the topic of origin of all 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. Doesn’t stop evolutionists from distorting science to pass off THEIR beliefs as science, and this is what we speak out against. But as long as evolutionists’ beliefs about origin of all biological diversity of life can be called science, then there’s also creation science. Truth is both must be done away with as the topic is beyond the scope of science.

          • Caleb Hubbell

            That assertion of circular thinking is… well strawman is at the tip of my tongue. it is a misrepresentation.

            Well if identical inherited alleles and pseudogenes shared in divergent species isn’t enough, we also have transposable elements and molecular vestiges like endogenous retroviruses which are accurate markers of relatedness, not just between people of the same group in which an allele frequency has change within a reproducing population, but also between individuals of two or more divergent populations which can no longer interbreed with each other, but show clear evidence that they branched from the same ancestral population (and therefore once could interbreed).

          • Reason2012

            AGain, you only give reasons you believe in something that does not happen and “isn’t that enough?!” Yes, it’s not enough to give reasons to BELIEVE IN SOMETHING that you demand be called science.

            If it was science, it would be about something that happens that doesn’t need to be believed in.

            Don’t need to believe things drop to the ground.
            Don’t need to believe matter and energy has effects on each other.
            Don’t need to believe the earth does small shifts.
            But can ONLY believe that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish. That’s a belief for ALL animals.

            They ignore that it’s a belief and skip to the theory part about “how” it happens anyway. Anti-science to the core.

          • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

            .@Reason2012:disqus wrote”… relevant papers were allowed to be published on standard science journals? …”

            Relevant peer-reviewed science papers are published daily.

            The links you proffered are not science, nor peer-reviewed, so they are not relevant to anything but the author’s vanity.

            Try creative fictoin journals, or self-publish.

            More on point, please publish or link to rejection correspondence for their submissions.

            Then we both can interpret for ourselves if

            (a) they are making ANY submissions at all, and

            (b) whether they are ‘censored’ or merely rejected as being inappropriate for the journal’s peer-reviewed scientific purpose and audience.

            I’ll wait ….

          • http://www.isthatbaloney.com/ IsThatBaloney.com

            The reason there are no AIG or ICR young earth creationist paper published in scientific journals is because they are junk science. It has nothing to do with being censored, the “science” covered at the sites you posted is not worthy of being called real science because it is agenda driven.

            All of these sites still support, for instance, Russ Hunphreys Starlight and Time book even though it has been thoroughly discredited even by Hunphreys Christian peers. I have read extensive articles on all these sites and they are intellectualy dishonest at best and flat out agenda driven nonsense at worst.

        • happylada

          It IS censored in education – THAT I can attest to. OUR education guidelines prohibit ANY negative reflection on evolution.

          People get fired from jobs for stating anything that could support Creation. Read “Slaughter of the |Dissidents” – 10 years old but the situation is worse, NOT better, today.

          • David Ewers

            when creationism proves itself it can be taught in school. Evolution is a fact, face it.

          • Khalid Avito

            Because there is zero evidence to support Creationism. That is not censorship, it’s simply the fact that Creationism is NOT science

          • Caleb Hubbell

            True, I can give you many applications that evolution has.
            For those who don’t know…
            – The application is how the information or knowledge gained from a theory can be used.

            – what predictions of new discoveries can be made and what can be done
            based on the previous knowledge provided by the theory, provided by
            evidence from multiple independent sets
            of data from unrelated fields of study (each verified by observation and
            experiment) which converge on one conclusion – the theory.

            Tell me, what application does creationism yield? What predictions and what new findings will be made with previous understanding of creationism?

            For example, here’s how evolution can make predictions:
            The same field of study that has mapped the genome – essentially computer models which can use what is known about molecular genetics and evolution to create models to combat viruses using dicer enzymes synthesized by polymers, using evolutionary theory to understand gene regulation and understand how tumors develop to combat cancer.

            In Salmon populations, there is so much variation that it would be impossible for that much genetic variation to accumulate in isolated gene pools in a short amount of time (4000 years) because mutations occur at a predictable rate. This alone disproves creationism.

            Tell me, where is the application?

      • absentee landlord

        All biased links funny unprovable or ludicrous papers would obviously not be published in a journal that wants to be taken seriously. Are people really this dumb? Well god, if you exist. It’s time, time to take out this moronic species. I’m ready Jesus take us now. Mammal.

      • Manfred Panning

        Really?

        You’re going with pre-suppositional, pseudoscientific nonsense?

    • happylada

      YOU are irrational. NOT only was it the worldview of thise kids – it was the worldview of Hitler and Stalin – atheistic evolutionary worldviews killed some 200 million in the 20th century alone.

      • Paul M

        Maaaaaaan it’s been years since I got into “debate” with Creationists. You’re still spewing this crap?

        1. Hitler* was very clear about his Christianity. He was a believer.
        2. Stalin attacked the churches to consolidate his powerbase, not because of some “atheistic rage”. History, learn some.

        * Godwins Law anyway, your entire comment is invalid.

    • http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ Rich

      You do realize we aren’t animals nor come from animals, right?

      Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the BEGINNING OF THE CREATION God made them male and female. ..'” -Mark 10:5-6

      “That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” -Luke 11:50-51

      • wat

        Yes we are animals. We have blood, cells, reproduce sexually, require oxygen & water, etc. Etc. Etc. That makes us animals and there is no evidence to the ck teary. None. Nada.

        The Bible holds no water in a conversation about biology (or much of anywhere else).

        If you aren’t actually interested in using logic, why are you participating?

    • Geoff Offermann

      “To suggest that the teaching of the theory of evolution was the basis for the actions at Columbine is simply without merit.”

      Not only that, it’s irrelevant. Science isn’t wrought from implications. It derives from evidence.

    • ChuckyJesus

      Oh no! The young men at Columbine were also taught the ALPHABET!! STOP TEACHING THAT DEVIL ALPHABET!!!

    • John Munro

      being censored and not presented to the public,then start with the remains the Smithsonian hides.

    • oregon_man

      They want to make money on the “censored” information. It’s the Christian way. That is why they can’t tell us now.

    • jacuzzi37

      Prove it. The dead end atheist/evolutionist philosophy
      claims you are an evolved animal that’s living a non-purpose meaningless life
      headed to an empty worthless “dead end” grave RAPIDLY forgotten. It offers
      humanity nothing but dung. Dung for their past, dung for their current life and
      nothing but dung for their future. The atheism/evolution devalues self and
      society and anyone should be ashamed to promote it’s useless aims. The utterly
      empty philosophy is described in the Bible: Psalms 53:1.. “The fool hath said
      in his heart, there is no God.”

    • David E

      more ignorance, yes we do see evolution in progress, you fucking dog proves that evolution can and does occur, also we see it in fruit flies. And if youthink you actually have to observe one animal turn into another shows you have no education in this area. you are again a fucking moron.

      And you again show your ignorance columbine had nothing to do with evolution, do you really think that was going to work. Now we know you will pull shit out of your ass to try to make a case.

      Now you really show that you are not only dumb, but a liar and you are delusional. you have no idea what the finding were. Harris was a undiagnosed clinical psychopath and his fellow criminal was Klebold was depressive. They believed Harris had been the mastermind, having a messianic-level superiority complex, and hoped to demonstrate his superiority to the world. so next time you open your fucking mouth it better have an intectual thing to say, right now i am wondering about your mental state. This had nothing to do with evolution, you are such a god damnded lair, But what am i to expect from a right winged christian, morals elude you asshole

    • David E

      This reply tells me everything about you, you are will to ue a killing to defend your ignorant position. You have lost your humanity,If I was to pick a religion it would be any other ligion than the one you believed in. When I was a believer I was abetter person than you, and I still am. You are disgusting. And the mere fact that this ite took my last post down, and ledy yours up shows me than I am better person than they are. Your type christians of christians are horrible people. You wrap yourself into this so called viel of holiness, but deep down you are trulely evil hateful people. The world will be a far better place when the last christian does and we can finally look at your religion as a relic

  • Paul Hiett

    ““They need to know that there is true science that backs up creation,”

    True science? I wonder if they know what that means.

  • Donna

    I think it’s great to have a Creation museum. It’s about time that Evolution is shot down. It never did make sense to me when I look at all the different types of life on this earth.

    • Paul Hiett

      Tell me what makes more sense…evolution, or the idea that all of the people and animals, in the entire world no less, all come from 8 people who landed a boat on a mountain top in Turkey?

      • Oboehner

        Not evolutionism – all the complexities of life randomly generating from a rock 4.6 billion years ago? An exploding dot?
        I’ll take the boat.

        • Paul Hiett

          So you firmly believe, without hesitation, that in the last 4000 years, all of the life on the planet today stems from that little boat?

          Have you really stopped to think about it?

          • Oboehner

            So you firmly believe, without hesitation, that in the last “4.6 billion” years, all of the life on the planet today stems from that rock?

            Have you really stopped to think about it?

          • Paul Hiett

            4.6 billion years certainly allows for the timeline that evolution presents, so it certainly appears more plausible.

            Do you think 4000 years is long enough for all of the animals and people of the world to develop from everything/everyone that was on that boat?

          • Oboehner

            Speculation followed by assumption – more religion.
            Does it take 4000 years to breed a Bengal house cat?

          • Paul Hiett

            Why aren’t you willing to answer the question?

          • MisterPine

            He uses all the same tactics over and over. Turning your exact words around practically word for word to make them try to apply to you is his favourite game. Also he will only call it evolutionism, not evolution. You are arguing with a wall of fundyism.

          • Paul Hiett

            Clearly and unequivocally. It seems that question stumps them all…they refuse to answer it for some odd reason.

          • MisterPine

            Well, he is the most obtuse of them all. Be sure to go to fstdt.com and under “search” and in the “fundie” box type in Oboehner, Last Trump and Nick_from_Detroit. Some of the responses to their neuroses are rather wonderful.

          • SashaC

            Oh this is amazing! They are FSTDT famous, and they don’t even know it. I love it! Thanks! 😀

          • MisterPine

            I don’t think they realize the level of fame involved…

          • SashaC

            I don’t think they realize much of anything. These people are barely mentally functioning.

            The replies to their insane comments on FSTDT are pretty amusing. I’m going to look up some of my personal faves. Perhaps I’ll do them the honor of adding them, if they aren’t already on there.

          • happylada

            No one refuses to answer sensible questions. Questions that are ONLY designed to mock are legitimately ignored

          • Oboehner

            Answer? Yup.
            Does it take 4000 years to breed a Bengal house cat?

          • Oboehner

            The answer is: yup, like I said, it doesn’t take billions of years to breed a Bengal house cat.

          • Deedee Keith

            If evolution is fact why haven’t we evolved into something different? where is the facts to back up a man’s theory about evolution? NONE. if there is no God or a supreme being then how can nothing become something, explain what you believe. The big bang theory, evolution explain how these theories are fact. Enlighten me please

          • Paul Hiett

            Would you like to try answering the question?

          • Deedee Keith

            Whatever I’m not going to argue with you I could careless about your opinions. You believe what you want and I believe what I feel is right for me. seek and you shall find..

          • Paul Hiett

            So no, you can’t answer either. It seems this one question stumps every single one of you.

            I wonder why…

          • Deedee Keith

            Your the one who believes in evolution so you enlighten me.. because you cant.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let’s examine the facts…

            1. Egyptian history is recorded back as far as 6000 BC.

            2. At no time since at least 6000 BC has there ever been an event that wiped out Egypt.

            Now, having established these facts, if the flood occurred around 2400 BC as the Bible makes claim, what can we deduce from the facts above?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Egyptian records only go back to roughly 3000 B.C., Mr. Hiett. That also goes for the Sumerians.
            Thus, recorded human history only goes back about 5,000 years.

          • mwhaar

            Even using the short Ussher chronology, it is quite reasonable, as we have seen, for the population to have grown from 8 people to 3.5 billion people in 4350 years. This growth represents an average annual increase of only 0.44%, or an average doubling time of 152 years. Such figures are quite consistent with all known data of population statistics, especially in light of the fact that the human death rates were very low for many centuries after the Flood, and family sizes quite large. Thus, in all likelihood, the population growth was very substantial in the early centuries, at least as great as it has become in the present century. In turn, this means that the rate may have been much less than 0.44% during the long period in between.

            In any case, the conclusion is well justified that the Biblical chronology, even in its most conservative form, fits well into all the known facts of population growth, much more so than does the evolutionary chronology of human history.

            https://www.icr.org/article/67/

          • John N

            An average increase of 0.44% per year is a figure that has only been reached in the last few hundred years, and way too high to be reasonable.

            The average rate between 1000 to 1800 A.D. has been closer to 0,12% per year. There is no reason to think it would be higher after a supposed global flood, with all plant and animal food
            sources destroyed, billions of decaying animal corpses laying around.

            Even with an average rate of 0.44% per year, the Egyptians which were building the pyramids of Gizeh around the same time, must have done that with a world population of around 10 people, and in 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to lead 600,000 men
            (women and children not included) on the Exodus, there would be around 720 people in the world.

            Please explain that.

          • mwhaar

            Again read the entire article.
            Thus, an average population growth rate of only (1/2)% would generate the present world population in only 4000 years. This is only one-fourth of the present rate of growth.

            Now, although it is obvious that the present rate of growth (2%) could not have prevailed for very long in the past, it does seem unlikely that the long-time growth rate could have averaged significantly less than (1/2)%. Very little is known about the world population in earlier times, but everything that is known indicates the population has steadily increased throughout recorded history.

          • John N

            ‘ it does seem unlikely that the long-time growth rate could have averaged significantly less than (1/2)%’
            Right. Morris first calculates the 1/2% to be able to fill the world in 4000 years, and thereafter tells us this is, well, an acceptable rate.

            Real scientists have calculated the growth rate between 1000 and 1800 AD to be +-0,12%. Human population has grown from +-10.000 to 300 million in +-160.000 years. That is a growth rate of 0.01%. Morris is just guessing….

            And this still leaves the issue of the Pyramids …

          • mwhaar

            You can believe the Truth or you can reject the Truth. Each of us has that choice. Those that believe the Truth are not condemned but those that do not believe are condemned already.

          • happylada

            Obviously. Where do YOU see a problem?

          • Paul Hiett

            I see a problem in that there is no evidence of any animals, or people, migrating from the site in Turkey where the ark landed.

            Where has all of this evidence gone?

            Why are there kangaroos only in Australia and no where else?

            Why do the other civilizations not record this flood, such as the Egyptians? They have no record of a global flood that ended them. Why?

          • bowie1

            There are many animals who are “only in certain places” which was suited to their particular needs. It also makes sense that the record of the flood would not be elsewhere if only eight people started again a new, just devastated world. How would the Egyptians record this event if they were dead? Actually, there are other flood stories, but they would to need to obtain it from an original source – someone has to be first – and that first is, I believe, Noah and his family.

          • Paul Hiett

            By “first” I assume you mean the Epic of Gilgamesh, right?

          • bowie1

            Wrong. The Epic of Gilgamesh would by logic be afterwards. Here is a link which discusses this issue: http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, you may like to think that, but the age of each proves otherwise. The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Noah Flood story. There’s really nothing you can say to the contrary; everyone (but you it appears) knows this.

            A simple Google search will help you.

          • bowie1

            Since Noah’s Ark event is said to be from 2500-2300 B.C. and the Epic of Gilgamesh is said to about 2000 B.C. that means the latter is from 300-500 years later. Remember, the lower the date, the more recent the event occurred “before Christ.” Googled as you suggested.

          • Paul Hiett

            Anyone can claim a date for an event, but it’s the actual texts that we’ve found that prove that the Epic of Gilgamesh was written before the flood story.

            Google is your friend.

          • bowie1

            Perhaps the Epic of Gilgamesh actually proves there was an original source it was taken from, and some of the details were changed over time, such as passing a story down a row of people whispering in their ear? One can claim a date for that story as well.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you’re now admitting that Noah’s Flood could have been derived from a different story?

          • bowie1

            No, actually just the other way around.

          • Paul Hiett

            Except that the Gilgamesh story predates the Noah story…so,not really sure how it could be the other way around.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes.

          • Oboehner

            Good for you, you have your religion.

          • happylada

            Actually I have – and the population we have is completely in agreement with the flood narrative. And I’d suggest more like 8 or 9 thousand years, but who is counting. Its SURE not millions – then the earth would be as populated with people as the beaches are with sand.

          • Paul Hiett

            Even “Answers in Genesis” dates the flood back to 2400 bc. Might want to read up on that, if you’re going to argue it.

            And can you offer any explanation as to why the Egyptians, right around the corner from all of this, never registered this great flood that apparently wiped them out?

          • KenS

            What you do not seem to grasp here is the fact that the Egyptians are descendants of Noah; therefore,they would not have been wiped out by the global flood because they did not exist as a people yet. It wasn’t until after the Tower of Babel incident, that the people were separated and different nations were established and there have been discovered in many ancient texts a catastrophic flood story in the different civilizations.

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you not aware that the Egyptians record their history as far back as 6000 BC, with no civilization ending flood? If the flood occurred in 2400 BC, how can you explain this?

          • KenS

            That would be impossible since we know that the earth was created around 4500 – 4500 bc, so there would be no history of anyone in 6000 bc

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Are you claiming that the Egyptian records are 100% accurate, Mr. Hiett?

        • Brendon Barr

          It disappoints me so much when people, without a single ounce of understanding of how evolutionary theory actually works choose to reject or dismiss.

          Instead of taking the time to demystify you, a video explains it far better than I could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0

          • Paul Hiett

            One of the best videos on this I’ve seen…thanks!

          • happylada

            IT also amazes me that dedicated zealots of evolution without understanding their own mythology, also denigrate Creation, which they also have NO understanding of,

            There is NO evidence for evolution – it was rooted and has grown ONLY through lies, deceit, fraud and censorship. The EVIDENCE supports Creation – things like DBA, Population growth, Homology, etc – do NOT support Evolution. Whether its the imaginary Big Bang, the Imaginary abiogeneisis, the Imaginary intermediate species, or the imaginary primate to human transition – its all either imaginary of fraudulent.

            IS that enough answer for you?

          • Paul Hiett

            You didn’t even watch it, did you?

          • Oboehner

            More conjecture based on faith, there is not one example of speciation, no proof, nothing – yet that is the cornerstone of evolutionism.

        • Paul M

          We didn’t evolve from rocks. Why do Creationists still wheel out these ridiculous “arguments”? Get some new ones!

          • Oboehner

            What did we “evolve” from then? Why do evolutionists run and hide from their own religion?

          • Paul M

            “We” evolved from a common ancestor, 200,000 years ago.

            In the broader sense. You’re talking about abiogenesis. It doesn’t involve rocks.

            However, on the basis I suspect you know this already, I’m not sure there’s any point in continuing this with you.

            Evolution is a branch of science, it requires no faith. It is not a religion, and saying so is a very, very tired. Seriously, when are Creationists going to get new material?

            I’ll finish with a Fun Fact: you (yes you) can synthesise RNA from sea water and a few other basic chemicals, with a bunsen burner and some UV light.

          • Oboehner

            What did the mythological common ancestor “evolve” from then?

          • Paul M

            “mythological”? we got the fossils… we got the DNA evidence of migration events. We got the proof.

            What did H.ergaster evolve from? Guess what! Another common ancestor, H.habilis.

            Now, are you going to ask an intelligent question, or are you just trolling?

            It’s been many years since I’ve bumped into Creationists. I’ve no desire to waste any more time unless you are interested in a proper discussion.

          • Oboehner

            You got fossils that prove only some creature existed, not that it evolved, you have no common ancestor fossil. Evidence of migration events prove nothing.
            You have no desire to try and prove the un-provable, is closer to the truth.

          • Paul M

            Dude, there’s other places you can read about evolution than Creation Ministries or Answers in Genesis.

          • Oboehner

            Not if you want to see the stupidity of evolutionism.

          • Paul M

            You’re either trolling or poe. Either way, good work!

          • Oboehner

            Still can’t think outside the box can you – good lick with that.

          • Paul M

            Trollololololol

            I’m open-minded. Any conclusive or compelling material; I’ll assess it and draw new conclusions.

            Try thinking outside of the creationism industry box.

          • Oboehner

            Any material as long as it fits your religious beliefs.

          • Paul M

            My beliefs are not incompatible with science.

            Anyway. Got anything new?

          • Oboehner

            Depends on your beliefs.

          • Paul M

            Broadly agnostic. Open to new ideas.

            Dual background in sciences and linguistics (mostly the former).

            Hence I know a 6,000 year old Earth, and entirely repopulating it (including plants and fauna) 4000 years ago from one family… is impossible.

            Somebody elsewhere would’ve written about little things like global floods, y’see.

            So, got anything new? 🙂

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Hello sir, for me would you provide the definition as to Evolution, and Evolutionary process’s. There are a number of definitions of Evolution as a word. Or would you prefer to say “Darwin and or Richard Dawkins” version of the scientific model of Evolution? It may clear up some things in what you’re position is. Thank you and Blessing’s to you and yours.

        • Paul Hiett

          Pardon the obvious cut and paste, but I believe it highlights the explanation in a very succinct, and understandable format.

          “Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[1] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organization, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution.[2]
          All life on Earth originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago”

          Is it 100% accurate? I don’t know. It could be…it probably is, from my perspective, but like science, I admit that we might never really know the origin of life since time travel doesn’t exist. For me, it paints a far more plausible picture than “God snapped his fingers”.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Thank you. Yes origin’s is a difficult proposition for scientist’s today. Do you believe that there is significant changes in the model presented by Darwin? From my research many scientists I’ve heard about in mainstream science, are in the process of changing the standard model because our knowledge has progressed since the days of Darwin. Here is an example you may consider: (I have also copied and placed here for your observation:

            Testing Theories of Molecular Evolution Using LTRsEvolutionary Theory PredictionResultConstant DNA substitutionrate among lineages (molecular clock)LRTs indicate that the molecular clock hypothesis should be rejected most often, since substitutionrates vary widely among difference lineages of organisms (30).A standard DNA substitution model explains evolutionary dataThe current models of DNA substitution fit the observed data poorly (31).The substitution rate is equal among nucleotidesThis model usually does not match the observed data (32).DNA substitution rates are constant among sites within a genetic sequenceDNA substitution rates vary widely among sites within a sequence (33).DNA substitution rates are constant among genomic regionsDNA substitution rates vary widely among genomic regions (34).DNA substitution process is identical among lineagesMethods of DNA substitution varied significantly among four of the major lineages that reportedly gave rise to present-day life forms (35).The substitution process in the stem regions of ribosomal DNA is independent among sitesIn fact, there is a correlation of substitution at pair-bonded stem sites in ribosomal DNA sequences(36).The DNA substitutionprocess is identical among genomic regions.DNA substitution rates vary widely among genomic regions of transfer RNA from mitochondria (37).Phylogenies for hosts and parasites are consistent with a common evolutionary historyFor 13 sets of gophers and their associated lice, the phylogenies were different. In a small subset, they were consistent (37).

            An analysis of the tree of life at its most basic level (kingdoms) indicates that organisms do not share common descent (38). A few dozen microbial genomes have been fully sequenced and the results indicate that there is no clear pattern of descent. Certain species of Archea (“ancient bacteria that are best known for living in extreme environments) are more closely related to species of eubacteria (“common” bacteria) than they are to members of their own kingdom. In fact, many microbial species share genes found in eukaryotes (non-microbial organisms characterized by the presence of a nucleus in the cell). Many evolutionists are now suggesting that gene transfers were so common in the past (a convenient non-provable hypothesis) that a tree of life for microbial species can never be discerned from existing species. Such proposals remove evolutionary theory from being tested, and remove it from scientific criticism.

          • Paul Hiett

            In truth, if we could discern exactly how life began, it would certainly shed a lot of light on both the discrepancies we see regarding evolution, as well as the supporting facts.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I think that is the science. For instance, The “Big Bang Theory” has an origin. Many scientist’s don’t like that idea and propose that there was no beginning. My thought is that there was a beginning, and the expansion of the Universe as we know it, had to have a cause, and fine tuning. Those are some of the issues that make creationism an equal consideration to the Evolutionary model of origin. The “Tree” proposes many elements of Darwin’s theories that did not play out as he thought they would. Now we know more about our DNA, we know that life does not always conform to the model of improving over time to adjust to it’s environment. Many unanswered questions, but also many answers that make sense. I’m not referring to God of the gaps but to scientist’s that have determined that the human cell has coded instructions at each stage, which separate us from other species even though we have shared DNA with a host of other things, even fruits. It all is tied together for supporting each life and not just separated by species. I love the example of plants. It cannot in my opinion be an accident that plant’s used carbon dioxide, and in turn create oxygen. That simple test is very obvious to me that there is design, and a creator. You may disagree based on you’re particular belief’s but I find those elements of life can suggest a creator. I would call the creator God.

          • The Last Trump

            Notice that in each of those wild claims absolutely no evidence is given. Just fantastical assumptions without hard proof, based on “beliefs”. Welcome to the religion of evolutionary “science”.
            Where none of their claims has ever been, or even can be scientifically duplicated or proven. Just believed in in with blind faith.

            Actual science, on the other hand, has proven this:

            “DNA is an information code. The overwhelming conclusion is that information DOES NOT and CANNOT arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. INTELLIGENCE is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME IS GIVEN.” (Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, The Natural Limits to Biological Change).

            Time for atheists to be honest with themselves and side with science. Hate God all you want but the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive that SOMEBODY created us and our surroundings. The evidence for Intelligent Design is mounting and many honest scientists have come to that conclusion. (Do your own homework. Google search.) By all means, give ALIENS the credit if you just can’t stand the thought of God, but for the love of God stop touting evolutionary fantasy as “science”. You look absolutely ridiculous and come up short EVERY TIME trying desperately to defend your “beliefs” with hard evidence, and for good reason.
            There just isn’t any.

          • happylada

            Even Crick, discoverer of DNA stated that life could NOT start on this planet. Anthony flew left atheism and wrote ‘There is a God” based on his scientific OBSERVATIONS.

            NO observations exist to support evolution. Lucy is a fraud, horse and whale evolutionary deliberate frauds, Piltdown and all the following men are fraud – evolution was begun and has ONLY continued based on frauds, lies and deceit.

            Censorship has helped as well.

          • Paul Hiett

            There you have it folks, Happylada, a well renowned scientist and anthropologist, has just exposed all of the lies the rest of the ignorant “fake scientists” have been spreading!

          • Bill

            no real scientist support that garbage you spouted.

          • MisterPine

            QUOTE SUBMITTED!

          • MisterPine

            What did sane and rational people have to say in response to this tommyrot?

            http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=107890

          • happylada

            This is the actions of a snake oil salesman. The first part about variation and heredity is largely correct – the second part – that all life originated by common descent is anti-scientific and unprovable. IT takes a fact and assumes its extrapolation. Like saying you can stack bricks three feet high – therefore you can stack them three miles high. At some point extrapolation breaks down – your quote is misguided and unscientific.

            God snapping his fingers is FAR more in keeping with scientific observation. ALL species appear fully functional and fully formed and the ones that have NOT become extinct have never changed significantly. They are still the same kind we see when they are FIRST observed.

            THAT is scientific fact!!

      • Shubham

        Evolution doesn’t have the proof of morality. And if there is no morality..there is no good and no bad and we are living without a purpose. Then how does one know that is something is good or bad ?

        Evolution doesn’t explain we have pair of eyes, It also evolved as a matching pair, both with lids, tear-ducts, the ability to blink, and connect with the evolving brain to make sense of what was seen.

        By coincidence the same thing happened to over a million different kinds of birds, fish, animals and insects.

        In truth, Darwin’s ridiculous belief was a futile excuse to try (like Adam) to hide from God, because of his guilt.

        “I have to respectfully disagree with that. Atheism is not senseless.” Logic Power

        I respectfully say that atheism is far worse than “senseless” (as Sir Isaac Newton called it). The English language doesn’t have an appropriate word. The Bible calls the atheist a “fool.” It’s an intellectual embarrassment.

        Think of how brainless someone would have to be, to believe that a 747 fell together from a pile of steel, plastic, paint, etc. But the atheist is much worse. He doesn’t even believe that the pile of junk existed. His belief defaults to “Nothing caused nothing to become everything”–flowers, birds, seasons, fruits, the sun, the earth, oceans, animals, fish, and people (all with male and female). It’s insanity…and on top of that, the atheist then crowns himself as being intelligent and logical. Nothing could be further from the truth.

        • Paul Hiett

          Ever hear of the “god of the gaps” argument?

          • happylada

            Ever hear of Naturalism of the gaps argument? That they haven’t found the answer yet is supposedly evidence for evolution.

            Amazing!

        • Brendon Barr

          Such a horrendously bad strawman, and wrong on literally all accounts. Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with atheism, there are theists who believe evolutionary theory. Further on that, your explanation of evolutionary theory is so off course, that even the people who believe evolutionary theory don’t believe that nonsense.

          Atheism also has nothing to do with morality (evolution does, see evolutionary empathy), that comes from other factors, such as rational humanism, or others beyond that. You clearly know nothing about the concepts you’re attempting to dismiss, I’d recommend actually talking to myself and fellow atheists to demystify yourself…rather than relying on prejudice formulated by you and your peers. Because you’re not convincing anyone with prejudice.

          • happylada

            Talk about “horrendously bad strawman”. Evolution has everything to do with atheism – it is the origins myth of the atheist religion. How can you deny hat. Any follower of the Christian faith accepts the words of Jesus on the issue – that man and woman were here “FROM THE BEGINNING”

            Atheist morality is an oxymoron, for they have NO basis for right or wrong. NONE!! As Darwin postulated – its survival of the fittest and the spreading of your genes by any method possible – rape slaughter theft are ALL virtues to evolution, and nothing in atheism challenges that immorality.

            YOUR whitewashing of the inadequacies of and your Darwinian fantasy about a utopian world of atheism is contradicted by history and evidence – Darwin and Stalin are prime examples of those motivated by evolutionary dogma to Improve the race. Liberty MO was founded as an atheist city free of Christianity – it became a cesspool of humanity quickly; their lecture hall, where Christianity was mocked by every illegitimate scoundrel in the movement, is NOW a methodist church.

            I know many atheists. Good friends with some. And NONE of them are willing to defend their atheism. neither are MOST of he Popes and priests in the religion.

            FOR example – Bo Jinn has a book on Kindle “illogical Atheism” – the records of a newly escaped atheist – in which he systematically dismantles the secular humanist and atheist arguments irrefutably.

            Having been a recent escapee – he has intimate knowledge of the arguments. YOU would NOT stand a chance.

      • John Munro

        know of anyone who ever evolved?if it were true there would be half evolved people. The distance from the earth to the moon would be different. dirt collected on the earth from meteors would be several times more the population would be much greater. There would not be over 50 people in the Old testament found out side the bible, 19 pagan writers who told about Jesus and all the records we have dead sea scrolls. Think about how many bibles sell ever year, why would a Christian society have such success in creating an experimental government. You have a conscience, you know if you have any feelings at all you understand the truth of Jesus Christ is written on your heart. Nothing in the bible has ever been proven wrong. “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
        – Nelson Glueck

        John 3:16English Standard Version (ESV)
        For God So Loved the World
        16 “For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

        • John N

          ‘know of anyone who ever evolved?if it were true there would be half evolved people. ‘
          Wrong. No organism is ‘half’ evolved. Evolution has no target, so ‘half’ evolved (halfway between what?) has no meaning. By the way, individual organisms do not evolve, populations do.

          ‘The distance from the earth to the moon would be different. ‘
          What does this have to do with evolution? And what do you mean, it would be different? The distance between earth and moon is according to their estimated age, +-4.5 billion years.

          ‘dirt collected on the earth from meteors would be several times’
          Idem? Nothing to do with evolution, and refuted long time ago.

          ‘more the population would be much greater’
          Why? Population growth has been very low most of our pre-history. Birth rates were high, so were death rates, so average increase was very low. It changed with the development of agriculture and boomed the last 200 years or so.

          • John Munro

            Nothing is half evolved because evolution is and always will be a fraud.
            Half animal half human. Repent and believe in Jesus Christ who died for you.

          • John Munro

            you do not have a clue what you wrote about sop get lost!

          • John N

            John, Thanks for the warm welcome here. Please inform me on which of my statements were wrong? Or even better, why not answer them?

          • John Munro

            sorry but I may have gotten a little emotional I can not re edit this statement

          • John Munro

            No, organism is ‘half’ evolved. Evolution has no target, so ‘half’ evolved? The idea of Darwinian evolution people evolving from animals because they deny God exists since they do not want to account for the lives they lead. They believe millions of years .. then people would be half evolved. your evidence you will never see the truth. You have never been a Christ follower you do not read the Bible, pray you do not follow Christ. So.. all you know is questionable science. God exists you never had an open mind. This is your salvation I already found mine. The Pastor from moody bible Church in Chicago Il said he never argues if God exists he asks them to read the bible book of John 21 days 10 minutes a day who does John say Jesus is? Its up to you.

          • John N

            ‘The idea of Darwinian evolution people evolving from animals because they deny God exists …’
            Wrong. The theory of evolution does not even mention god. It does not need god. It explains how we came to be here, not as an excuse for accountability.

            And people are not half evolved, there is not such a thing. Every living organism has evolved to its current state, and is continually evolving further.

            Science is questionable indeed. With new evidence, theories could change. That’s the beauty of it.
            Religious ideas are dogmatic and never change (well, that is what you think), even if all the evidence indicates it is wrong.

            And my religion has nothing to do with any scientific theory at all. Please stick to the subject and keep your prayers and threats for yourself.

        • Paul Hiett

          Exodus and the Flood have been proven, scientifically, to have not happened.

          Is that what you mean by “nothing in the Bible has ever been proven wrong”?

          • KenS

            Neither one of those events have been proven to not have happened. There are unproven theories that I personally feel leave much to be desired as to proving them as fact.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, they have been proven to have not happened. Don’t just read the Bible, you should learn about other sources.

        • MisterPine

          We have all evolved, and continue to evolve. It takes a very, very long time to happen. Millions of years in fact. You are expecting it to be something you witness in this lifetime? Are you sure you understand evolution?

          • John Munro

            no evidence anything ever evolved. Are you sure you were a Christian ? read the bible how can you say it is not true if you have no knowledge?

          • MisterPine

            There are reams and volumes and mountains of evidence. Have you ever been to a museum?

          • John Munro

            are you a muslim? they lie for a dead man

          • MisterPine

            I am not a Muslim, nor any other religion,nor am I lying.

          • MisterPine

            There are boatloads of evidence. Scientists use that evidence every day. The Bible is not knowledge.

      • happylada

        OBVIOUSLY that everyone is the descendants of Noah’s family. THAT is why there are only three strains of Female DNA – one for each of the child bearing women on the ark.

        That is IF you are intersetd in fact and NOT mythology

        • Paul Hiett

          Can you link me to a non-religious site to back that up?

        • John N

          Happylada, what do you mean with ‘strains’ of ‘female’ DNA?
          Do you mean mitochondrial DNA?
          Anyway, I find no reference of this 3 ‘strains’ anywere. I hope you’re not making this up?

      • Donna

        Creation makes more sense because there is one Creator (God) who made all things including people and animals. He is infinite and has been here forever. It’s by faith that we receive the Lord as our savior and then He begins to reveal more of His ways to us. His ways are above our ways and He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniescent. I am a Prophetess of the Lord and evolution makes no sense to me whatsoever. I truly believe that God created all the animals which means that Apes were created by God and Apes did not create people. Also, evolution does not explain plant life and all the intricate details of creation. The Lord invites us to read the Bible and try to disprove it. So far no one has ever been able to disprove it. Many have tried but they all become believers because it is so awesomely written. Write back if you care to because I would like to see what you think of my words. Because honestly I could tell you more about creation.

        • Paul Hiett

          The reason you can’t “disprove” Creation is because we don’t have a time machine, and how can one prove a negative?

          • KenS

            You would also need a time machine to prove Evolution, maybe then we will see the missing transitional forms of our ancestors.

          • Paul Hiett

            Don’t need a time machine when we can see fossils and study DNA.

          • KenS

            Show me the transitional fossil, come on, I want to see it now!
            You can’t show me one can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            You clearly have no idea what evolution is then.

          • John N
          • KenS

            2 Things, #1-None of things are examples of a transition from one species to another, still the same species. #2-You give me a link to wikipedia which is the most untrustworthy site, you cannot even use it as a source in college research papers because of its untrustworthiness.

          • John N

            Ken, what you describe is not what science uses as a definition: ‘a transitional fossil are the remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related’. All the fossils on the list are examples of that, and they are all evidences of evolution.

            So nothing to do with ‘transitions from one species to another’. No extant species is a transition between two extant species, that is a silly idea and not what the theory of evolution predicts. You can’t change the definition of a scientific concept so it fits to your needs.

            Second point, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is as trustfull as its sources. The list refers to a lot of scientific sources. Did you check them?

    • Bill

      then you’re not very smart

  • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

    There are peer reviewed articles within the scientific community that correlate a Creation model, Stephen Myers is one that comes to mind. I found this information to be useful, and likely is a part of the model as the Northwest Science Museum is sharing what is already being discussed. I found it useful so I’ll share it with those interested. Here is the information to look through.

    If you believe that the theory of macroevolution is true, prepare to be challenged. No, you won’t find the usual creationist rhetoric about the second law of thermodynamics, Nebraska Man, or the creationism charges of mistakes made by evolutionists 60 years ago. What you will find is the best of creationary science – real, peer-reviewed scientific literature of studies done by evolutionists! Start here and work your way down the page.

    http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

    • Reason2012

      Hello. The website has false points on it.

      For example:
      Genesis 1:30 “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

      God gave to EVERY beast of the earth and EVERY fowl of the air and EVER thing that creeps upon the earth “every green herb” for food (meat).

      Yet your website claims God created animals as carnivores, which is not true.

      It’s clear God did not create carnivores, and suffering and death even of animals did not happen until after mankind sinned. I would be careful to try changing what God says to fit man’s need to have it fit their philosophies.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        If you continue looking through the information, I believe you will find that the web site link, address’s you’re comment. For example, if there were snakes such as the one that tempted Adam and Eve, before mankind sinned, you might draw the conclusion that “snakes” are carnivores which by watching one, could see they devour, say frogs, and other sources, not necessarily green herbs as meat.

        • Reason2012

          No, they do not address it, they ignore it. They just quote the verse before (1:29) that gives the command to man, ignore the next verse, and go on to say “so God only said MAN is to not eat meat”, which is completely false.

          They say nothing bout the very next verse that shows God saying He gave “every green herb” for food to ALL life.

          And as you can read for yourself, that’s exactly what God says. I would follow God’s Word more than any website that pretends to have the inside track on what God supposedly did and said.

          Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

        • Reason2012

          “there’s a snake, and hence it devoured frogs”.
          Did the Bible say the snake devoured frogs before the fall? No. That’s your own claim taking higher authority than what God said.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I think you didn’t understand the statement. Snakes devour animals such as frogs. That would make them carnivores. So although I understand your position, I find the literature in the web site to be accurate, and it conjunction with biblical text. Otherwise I would not believe in that, since I’m a person that believes in God as our Creator, and Jesus as our Savior. I suppose we should agree to disagree. Thanks.

          • Reason2012

            Snakes devour animals such as frogs now, after the fall. Yes, after the fall, that makes them carnivores.

            But what did God say all animals ate before the fall? That he gave green herbs for food for

            – EVERY beast of the field

            – EVERY fowl of the air

            – EVERY thing that creeps upon the earth

            – or basically “wherin [whereever] there is life”

            You change it to “but not snakes, they ate frogs before the fall and hence were carnivores before the fall”, which God shows is completely wrong.

            No, the literature on the website is not perfect – I’ve just shown you one place where it’s not. It may have a lot of good information, but we must take care to not assume any such site is going to be 100% correct.

            It’s not “in conjunction with biblical text” when the biblical text contradicts what they’re saying, for example even on this point.

            Yes, we should believe in God as our Creator and Jesus as our Savior – just be careful that you do not honor any website more than God’s Word, which might lead you to start believing unbiblical things b/c a website said it when God’s word makes it clear that the website is wrong on this point.

            Please think again as to why you’re going to throw out Genesis 1:30 – because there might be other things you’re going to throw out as well because a website might have convinced you to.

            Instead, always compare claims with the Bible rather than just accepting what a website says, no questions asked.

            Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

            Hope this helps.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            24And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

            26Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

            There is an obvious distinction between wild animals and livestock. Creatures that move along the ground. It seems clear to me that God created wild animals, which likely considering the description of lifestock, would in fact be carnivores. Hopefully this will help you understand my position, and the web site’s position.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, God created animals. That doesn’t mean we can ignore Genesis 1:30 and say “therefore since He created animals, that means they were carnivores before the fall”.

            You only offer “which LIKELY .. would be carnivores”.

            We don’t need to wonder if they were “likely” carnivores before the fall or not – we INSTEAD look to God and His Word, not a website, not a “likely” statement.

            And God makes it crystal clear:

            Genesis 1:30 “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat [food]: and it was so.”

            It’s God’s position and what He plainly said that we should seek to understand: Before the fall, he gave all animals, all life, “green herbs” for food.

            Why are you trying to ignore God’s Word with “likely’s” and what a website says instead? Please think again – because if they’re wrong about one thing, and they got you to accept what they told you without questioning it, they can easily be wrong about other things and have you believing other false things about God.

            We need to check God’s Word for ourselves.
            Hope this helps.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’m not sure why you are putting the “green herbs” into a context that says there isn’t a carnivore. Here is some other examples of the same text: http://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/1-29.htm

            When you read the information it is clearly speaking about the food of the Garden which man would eat from.

            God also said, “ Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth and every tree whose fruit contains seed.This food will be for you,

            If you don’t appreciate the web-site that is fine. I do and hope you understand there are many things to look at, not just a small example.

          • Reason2012

            You have it backwards. Not sure why you’re calling aninals that God said He gave green herbs for food as “carnivores”.

            Genesis 1:30 “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat [food]: and it was so.”

            Where in that verse is it talking about food with MAN would eat from? You’re talking about the verse before it – now we’re on verse 30 and that verse says what ANIMALS would eat: green herbs.

            Why are you ignoring verse 30?

            Yes, in verse 29, God says to Adam how He’s given Him every herb bearing seed and so on for food.

            But in verse 30, which you continue to ignore, God now points out what He gave for food for ALL animals.

            Why are you ignoring verse 30?

            That you are blatantly ignoring what verse 30 is clearly saying is a bad sign, friend.

            No one should appreciate a person or website that’s intentionally teaching false claims about God and His Word.

            Yes, we need to compare scripture with scripture, but I hope you understand that in this instance, verse 30 makes it clear God created all animals to eat green herbs for food, nowhere else does He say otherwise, and the only verse you point to is the one where he’s talking about Adam.

            So why is it you are clearly ignoring verse 30?

            Looking at only what he told Adam and ignoring what He said about animals is not a good sign.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Because God was speaking to man and woman. It was at that very time that he produced plants to be eaten. Why did God desern between livestock and wild animals. Looking down the line why was their lambs as sacrifices. Did human’s just eat plants? Are you saying that wild animals just ate plants, and then stopped? We as human’s are stewards of all living creatures and the earth itself. We should not waste what God gave us in his perfection of creation. The reason is that the purpose of plants were to feed all animals. That doesn’t mean there were no carnivores, since it’s obvious that livestock is separate from wild animals. Jewish tradition at the time also stated that some animals were unclean. Jesus said that the animals were not unclean. You can say if you like that plants came before carnivores in creation, but it’s difficult to see that “wild animals” would not include lions or hawks, etc. As far as we know they never ate seeds and plants. God was talking to Adam and Eve. He wanted to start the process by which all animals would eat. Example: some animals eat plants, which feed other animals that eat the animal that ate the plant. It’s reasonable to believe that is called the circle of life.

          • Reason2012

            Genesis 1:30 “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

            What is it that’s given for food here?
            And who is it given to?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            An examination of the Hebrew word chayah indicates that in the vast majority of uses, the word refers to animals that eat flesh. It seems likely that the creation account of Genesis is referring specifically to the carnivores, especially since a prominent herbivore (cattle) is specifically mentioned in the same verse. If chayah were meant to refer to herbivores, cattle could be left out, since they would be included in the chayah term.

            http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/carnivores.html

            Read up on the Hebrew word chayah. It explains much more.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, the Hebrew word “chey” that is translated “beast” is defined as:

            chay: alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: – + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

            It means beast, animal.

            The word does not mean “animals (that eat flesh)” which again is false. Please show where this word is defined as animals that eat flesh.

            And what about them did God say in Gen 1:30? He said He gave them ALL green herbs for food.

            Genesis 1:30 “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

            It should concern you that you’re determined to ignore what God’s Word clearly says and try many different ways to twist it into something else, because if you’re going to do it on this verse to hold onto the belief that there was suffering and death before the fall, who knows what else you’ll believe from this website that’s also not true.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            It should concern you that you have judged me. Especially as a Christian. Please don’t contact me again. You have offended me twice now. Since you obviously are not Jesus, I have no desire to hear anymore from you. I think you owe me an apology for making such cruel assumptions.

          • Reason2012

            How did I judge you or being cruel? I just said you should be concerned that you’re determined to ignore God’s Word as you completely ignore verse 30 that is quite OBVIOUSLY saying the exact same thing you admit verse 29 says, but now it’s saying it about animals. So for some reason you do not want to hear that it says the same things about EVERY beast, EVERY animal. Who knows what else a Christian is not going to investigate for themselves and hence not grow as fast as they would have otherwise.

            If you’re implying I said you’re not saved, that’s something I did not say or mean, so my apologies if you got that from what I said.

            So if it risks “offending” someone, we should let them believe and teach an obvious false claim about God? No. We preach the truth – we don’t instead allow them to believe a false claim for fear of them being “offended”.

            Non-Christians are “offended” when we preach Christ. Should we remain silent instead? I’m sure you’d agree we should not.

            The goal is not to offend, but to get a person to see how they’re ignoring what the Bible clearly says. It concerns me that being a Christian you avoid addressing how verse 30 says to EVERY beast they were given green herbs to eat is a bad sign in that regard – it says the same thing verse 29 says about humans now addressed to EVERY beast. So I point it out and you being a Christian it concerns me.

            I apologize if you feel offended, but if you’re going to make public statements about what God’s truth supposedly is, you must realize others are going to point out if it’s wrong and show it – to remain silent and allow a false public statement to go uncontested is not an option, IMO.

            May God Bless!

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I appreciate your apology. May God bless you as well

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            An FYI, did you even look at the sources? It’s important that we as Christians in Bible study look at all of the information, so that we may study to show ourselves approved under all good works.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, and they ignored what that verse says. And “all” the information is found in God’s Word, not any website. It’s fine if someone gets something wrong, but we can’t just consider the commentary on God’s Word to be on equal footing with God’s Word, whether it’s in a published Bible or on a website. And in this case verse 30 makes it clear God says the same thing about ALL animals that He just got done saying to Adam and Eve as the original design of His creation: that they will only be eating green herbs for food.

            But evolutionists succeed by getting people to doubt one tiny piece at a time, until before you know it they are next doubting another tiny piece until all the tiny pieces start adding up and a person’s faith becomes weakened and corrupted. So something that seemed not that big of a deal to ignore ends up poisoning the whole.

            As the Bible says, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump – Jesus warns us to beware of the “leaven” of the Pharisees for example.

            Hope this clarifies!

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I will no longer argue that point especially if it causes you stress. I don’t believe that evolution has the answers. I believe everything was created. I believe in Christ as my Savior. I don’t agree with your interpretation of of that one issue, because there is a separation between livestock and “Beasts” Carnovores. Again, we must agree to disagree because neither of us will change our mind on that issue, and I believe the Bible is very much in line with common sense (no offense).

          • Reason2012

            Hello. You claim you’ll no longer argue the point but the rest of your post was about that point? So I’ll respond again on what you are ignoring:

            It’s not about causing stress -it’s about that website not only ignoring what the bible says on this specific topic, but then making up beliefs contrary to it and teaching that to others on their website that the Bible is wrong and they are right.

            There’s nothing to “interpret” about God saying He gave green herbs for EVERY beast when He first created all the animals and before mankind sinned. It’s the exact same thing said the previous verse that the website has no problem suddenly saying “well ok I’ll believe God set it up so that mankind would only eat green herbs, but I won’t believe He originally set it up for animals to be the same way” even though both verses say the same thing: one about man and one about every beast, ever bird, every creeping thing.

            The Greek Word for beast is not translated “carnivore”.

            The Hebrew word “chey” that is translated “beast” is defined as:

            chay: alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: – + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

            Nowhere in there does it say something called that is a carnivore. And that’s like saying “tiger” means carnivore when the real truth is we observe in our present day that tigers are carnivore. Does not mean God was wrong if he was to say “tigers” were given ever green herb for food before the fall, because “tigers are now carnivores”.

            I believe it’s common sense (no offense) to believe what God says, rather than to instead defend a website as if whatever they ignore about God’s Word is “common sense”.

            Not sure what you have to lose believing God did what He said He did. From my point of view it doesn’t matter if I like what God says or not on a topic – I’m not going to ignore it to fit in with man’s philosophies and pander to people who will ridicule us for instead believing God and what He says.

            Thank you for posting!

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            It seems you want to keep pushing the button so to speak. That is why I must stand up for Christ, and stand up for educated people that research diligently.

          • Reason2012

            It’s not only the “research” of “educated men” that leads people to God’s truth. For example, the pharisees were quite educated and researched their entire lives and they were more wrong than the simplest of believers who were instead being led by God. The Pharisees tried using the same logic against Jesus

            John 7:15-18 “And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned [never been educated]?

            Jesus answered them, and said, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.'”

            It’s God and the Holy Spirit that leads us to His truth, not a group of men because they are “educated people”.

            That’s a man-centered gospel and not what God says.

            That’s a “private interpretation” of God’s Word, as if everyone else is too “ignorant” to know God’s Word, and only they have access to his “real truth”.

            2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

            1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

            It’s not “private interpretation” only by those who are “more educated” than you and “research”.

            Yes, we must stand up for Christ instead of standing up for only a few “educated men” who “research more than you do because I said so”.

            And if they researched more and are “more educated” than all other Christians, they’d be able to address Gen 1:30 instead of ignoring it.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Did you refer to the link from the Bible hub? It is the most complete, documented Bible on the Internet. The “studied people” addressed Gen 1:30. All of them. It must be difficult for you to accept when you’re incorrect. You didn’t answer my questions. Would you like to do that at some point?

          • Reason2012

            “It must be difficult for you to accept..” (the only thing difficult to accept is professing Christians teaching the false claim that God did not do what He clearly said He did)
            “I’ll stand up for educated people..” (implying others who do not agree with you are ignorant)
            “they research diligently..” (implying others who do not agree with you do not)
            “I must stand for Christ..” (implying those who do not agree with you do not)
            You going to stop making judgments about me, apologize for doing so, and instead focus on the issue?

            I already pointed out they did not address Gen 1:30. Feel free to quote a few sentences where they somehow address Gen 1:30, showing how it supposedly means what you claim it does: that God created animals that were then killing each other, suffering and death in the animal world, before the fall of Adam, rather than saying “its in there” and never show it, but instead throw more ad hominem judgments at me, which is not appreciated and for which you should apologize for.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            They certainly did. You look up Genesis 1:30 and then you look up the commentary of that particular verse, and again those things are directly related to scripture. I’ll apologize to you if you go to the Bible Hub, read the scripture, then look at the commentaries from scholars. I didn’t say its in there, I specifically showed you the text. It doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not. I must stand for Christ. Are you going to answer the questions I’ve asked? I’m not implying anything, I’m providing you with information. Again you can accept it or not. You stated that I was above God, well I’m not. I study the Bible often, my father was a minister, my Grandfather was a minister, and my Great Grandfather was a minister. I’ve been brought up with the Bible my entire life. What I do apologize for is my lack of compassion for you as a Christian. I do care about you, I am hoping you recognize that it’s for our mutual benefit to study to show ourself approved unto all good works. That is what I am trying to do. If I hurt your feelings I apologize for that.

          • Reason2012

            So you STILL have not shown where they address Gen 1:30

            So again, feel free to quote a few sentences where they somehow address Gen 1:30, showing how it supposedly means what you claim it does: that God created animals that were then killing each other, suffering and death in the animal world, before the fall of Adam

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Pulpit Commentary
            Verse 30. – And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat. The first of the three classes of plants, grass, was assigned to the animals for food. From this Delitzsch infers that prior to the introduction of sin the animals were not predaceous. The geological evidence of the existence of death in prehistoric times is, however, too powerful to be resisted; and the Biblical record itself enumerates among the pre-adamic animals the chayyah of the field, which clearly belonged to the carnivora. Perhaps the most that can be safely concluded from the language is “that it indicates merely the general fact that the support of the whole animal kingdom is based on vegetation” (Dawson).

          • Reason2012

            So they DO NOT show it out of God’s Word, prove what I said is accurate: they IGNORE Gen 1:30, and instead resort to what MAN (that rejects God) has said, all to then imply “well clearly God did not mean it (or got it wrong)” and throw out/ ignore/ twist Gen 1:30.

            So (1) The Bible DOESN’T say God created carnivores, which they falsely imply

            (2) They are IGNORING what God said on the matter to instead believe what those who reject God tell us

            (3) They instead use part of the beliefs of evolutionists to imply God got it wrong, and instead He DID created a world of suffering and death before mankind sinned.

            That’s precisely my point: I believe God even on this topic, people who’ve added this false claim to their personal doctrines like this website do not.

            This might help them: how do they “know” things are dated that old?

            They don’t. These dates are RIFE with assumptions.

            For example, fossils ‘dated’ 60+ million years old have now been found (with greater and greater frequency) to have red blood cells and soft tissues which we KNOW cannot survive more than thousands of years.

            This proves those dates are an outright farce.

            What do evolutionists do?

            They just dismiss it to hold onto their “dates”: “Well, looks like red blood cells and soft tissue can last 60+ million years after all!”

            It shows how anti-science they are.

            What to some professing Christians do, let alone put on their websites?

            “Well these dates proves God was wrong.” in so many words, which is sad – they believe those who reject God over God himself.

            Did Adam go around on the second week and say “well looks like we’ve been around for 18+ years, because look how old we are, and God would never deceive us”? No, God created Adam in mature form, for His own reasons.

            We need to read up on how those who START with the truth that God is not wrong, that God’s Word is true, they can show us how the evidence and dates fit perfectly into what God said, and how it’s even getting even clearly all the time.

            (I posted already with these links but it might not go through
            answersingenesis and creation dot com and icr dot org)

            Please look into the investigation from those who start from the correct stand that God is not wrong and told us what He did – the evidence, even dating and fossils, lines up just fine.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Look up the Bible Hub . o r g. God isn’t wrong, I believe you to be wrong about what Moses wrote in Genesis since he was the author of Genesis.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            The whole of the grasses and the green parts or leaves of the herbage are distributed among the inferior animals for food. Here, again, the common and prominent kind of sustenance only is specified. There are some animals that greedily devour the fruits of trees and the grain produced by the various herbs; and there are others that derive the most of their subsistence from preying on the smaller and weaker kinds of animals. Still, the main substance of the means of animal life, and the ultimate supply of the whole of it, are derived from the plant. Even this general statement is not to be received without exception, as there are certain lower descriptions of animals that derive sustenance even from the mineral world. But this brief narrative of things notes only the few palpable facts, leaving the details to the experience and judgment of the reader.

          • Reason2012

            They only say “they weren’t all eating herbs (because I said so)” God is the one that decided for them before the fall what their food is. Claims of reasons to only BELIEVE otherwise, while ignoring the bible, will only sway those who do not believe God on this or other topics.
            But the fact remains God’s Word says He gave them herbs for food, not herbs (and meat if they feel like it, with suffering and death) and called that “very good”.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Again, the information directly provides the meaning of the biblical text.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
            30. to every beast of the earth] God ordains that the wild beasts, the birds, and all living creatures, shall have the leaves for their food. The words, “every green herb,” would be more literally “all the green, or verdure, of the herbs.” A distinction is, therefore, drawn between the food ordained for mankind and the food ordained for the animals. Man is to have the herb bearing seed and the fruit of the trees (Genesis 1:29): the animals are to feed on the grass and the leaves.

            for meat] This expression, here and in the previous verse, is liable to be misunderstood by English readers. The Hebrew means “for food.” The word “meat” is an old English term for “food.” Cf. St Luke 24:41 A.V. “He said unto them, Have ye here any meat?” R.V. “Have ye here anything to eat?”

            It may be asked whether we are to understand that, according to Genesis 1, the nature of animals was different at the first from what it became afterwards, and that they did not prey upon one another. The reply is that this was evidently the belief of the Israelite, as represented in this chapter. Like other features of the picture, it is childlike and idealized. Palaeontology has demonstrated, that, from the earliest geological period at which animal life can be shewn to have existed, the animals preyed upon one another. From the earliest days of animal life nature has been “red in tooth and claw.”

          • Reason2012

            Again only BELIEFS about why they think God is wrong, why God created a world of suffering and death before the fall of Adam and called that “very good” and why they IGNORE Gen 1:30 and just claim everyone else “misunderstands it” – nothing to understand about what God clearly says.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Are you familiar with the Bible Hub? Everything I just posted IS Genesis 1:30. Three different sources stating the same thing. Do you realize the Cambridge Bible School is one of the best institutions for higher learning in biblical studies? I don’t expect you to change your interpretation. I provide the information about the interpretation of others who disagree with you. You can accept it or not. That is up to you.

          • Reason2012

            No, everything you posted is why they ignore Gen 1:30.

            Yes, the Pharisees bragged about their “education” as well and mocked Jesus for being “uneducated” and claimed they had the inside track on God’s truth and everyone else must bow to their greatness of knowledge on the matter.. And such attacks still go on today and are just as false as they were then.

            Please think again.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Here are the sources: I stated we could agree to disagree.
            “but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast [chayah] of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. (Exodus 23:11)
            Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures [chayah] which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth. (Leviticus 11:2)
            “And the cities shall be theirs to live in; and their pasture lands shall be for their cattle and for their herds and for all their beasts [chayah]. (Numbers 35:3)
            Even Lebanon is not enough to burn, Nor its beasts [chayah] enough for a burnt offering. (Isaiah 40:16)
            Then he examined it and said, “It is my son’s tunic. A wild beast [chayah] has devoured him; Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!” (Genesis 37:33)
            “The beasts [chayah] of the field will glorify Me; The jackals and the ostriches; Because I have given waters in the wilderness And rivers in the desert, To give drink to My chosen people. (Isaiah 43:20)
            All you beasts [chayah] of the field, All you beasts [chayah] in the forest, Come to eat. (Isaiah 56:9)
            ‘Moreover, I will send on you famine and wild beasts [chayah], and they will bereave you of children; plague and bloodshed also will pass through you, and I will bring the sword on you. I, the LORD, have spoken.'”(Ezekiel 5:17)
            “If I were to cause wild beasts [chayah] to pass through the land, and they depopulated it, and it became desolate so that no one would pass through it because of the beasts [chayah], (Ezekiel 14:15)
            For thus says the Lord GOD, “How much more when I send My four severe judgments against Jerusalem: sword, famine, wild beasts [chayah], and plague to cut off man and beast [chayah] from it! (Ezekiel 14:21)
            “And I shall abandon you to the wilderness, you and all the fish of your rivers; You will fall on the open field; you will not be brought together or gathered. I have given you for food to the beasts [chayah] of the earth and to the birds of the sky. (Ezekiel 29:5)
            “And I will leave you on the land; I will cast you on the open field. And I will cause all the birds of the heavens to dwell on you, And I will satisfy the beasts [chayah] of the whole earth with you. (Ezekiel 32:4)
            “Thus you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “As I live, surely those who are in the waste places will fall by the sword, and whoever is in the open field I will give to the beasts [chayah] to be devoured, and those who are in the strongholds and in the caves will die of pestilence. (Ezekiel 33:27)
            “And they were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast [chayah] of the field and were scattered. (Ezekiel 34:5)
            “As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “surely because My flock has become a prey, My flock has even become food for all the beasts [chayah] of the field for lack of a shepherd, and My shepherds did not search for My flock, but rather the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock; (Ezekiel 34:8)
            “And I will make a covenant of peace with them and eliminate harmful beasts [chayah] from the land, so that they may live securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. (Ezekiel 34:25)
            “And they will no longer be a prey to the nations, and the beasts [chayah] of the earth will not devour them; but they will live securely, and no one will make them afraid. (Ezekiel 34:28)
            “You shall fall on the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops, and the peoples who are with you; I shall give you as food to every kind of predatory bird and beast [chayah] of the field. (Ezekiel 39:4)
            “And as for you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Speak to every kind of bird and to every beast [chayah] of the field, “Assemble and come, gather from every side to My sacrifice which I am going to sacrifice for you, as a great sacrifice on the mountains of Israel, that you may eat flesh and drink blood. (Ezekiel 39:17)
            “And I will destroy her vines and fig trees, Of which she said, ‘These are my wages Which my lovers have given me.’ And I will make them a forest, And the beasts [chayah] of the field will devour them. (Hosea 2:12)
            I will encounter them like a bear robbed of her cubs, And I will tear open their chests; There I will also devour them like a lioness, As a wild beast [chayah] would tear them. (Hosea 13:8)

          • Reason2012

            You only quote where they use the word “beast” – the word itself does not mean “carnivore” which you claimed it was.

            Genesis 1:30 “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

            Who is this about? EVERY beast, EVERY fowl, EVER thing that creeps on the earth, WHEREIN there is life.
            What is it saying? They were given every green herb for meat.
            It’s quite plain and you utterly ignore it.
            It wouldn’t matter if I agreed with you – it would then just make us both wrong.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’m just saying that the website I’m referring to looks at different perspectives. The website if you look at it will realize that it also has a section for the literal interpretation as well. The people that created the site look at a number of things and references from theologists and scholars of today that spend a great deal of time in the study of the Bible, it’s content, how the Bible interacts with people, science, literature etc. It’s one of many. Another that is helpful in my studies is the Discovery institute. I’m not trying to prove you wrong, I’m trying to show anyone that wants to look at the sciences as well as scripture which ties together. Another site is Reasons to Believe. When studying the Bible, using a site like Bible Hub, it is filled with information, scripture from different Bibles such as the Life application Bible. I have no desire to argue a point that doesn’t relate at all to our salvation. The four gospels do that for us. Anyway I wish you well, no harm done.

          • Reason2012

            Hello. But consider: It’s not a “different perspective” for them to ignore what God makes utterly plain.

            It’s not a “great deal” of study that leads us to God’s truth – it’s God that leads us to His truth. If it was man’s studying of it, the Pharisees would have had the inside track on God’s truth b/c they studied their entire lives, and Harold Camping would have been right about his claims of the Bible as well and the end of the world and he “studied” his whole life as well. 🙂

            You are right, science and the Bible does tie together – but we don’t need to throw out some things of what God says to make it do so. That website has a lot of good information, but that doesn’t translate to them being 100% right about everything and as always we must read any external material with a critical eye to check it for ourselves against the Bible, as led by God. I’m only pointing out one thing they clearly got wrong, and they get it wrong by flat out ignoring what the verse says.

            Correct, it does not relate to our salvation, but it can interfere with Christian’s growth and faith by making them think there are some things in the Bible that can be ignored. as being “wrong” – such thinking will just lead them to take the same way out of believing God when it doesn’t conform with what they need it to say.

            Atheists do this all too well – they’ll never attack the resurrection of Christ (b/c direct attacks do not work), but they’ve instead convinced many professing Christians to even ignore that God created Adam and Eve and instead used evolutionism, and such things go on to poison people’s faith in God. Mission accomplished. Injecting smaller attacks to get people to doubt other parts of what God says, and to try to justify it not really meaning that is their tools – so we must be wary of this and stand on God’s truth 100%.

            Please consider this. I wish you well also!

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Again I suggest you take a look at some of the sites I recommended. They all are Christian sites. They all utilize the Bible as the primary source by which they draw conclusions. If you and I were to read the Bible, or you and another Christian would read the Bible, even a church that reads the Bible together, there is not always going to be consensus. That is why Paul said, Study. Faith comes through constant study. Jesus himself studied with others at the age of 13. Most were scholars of the law, and they were amazed by his knowledge. A very good book to read is “The Jesus I never knew” by Phillip Yancey.

          • Reason2012

            I look at a great many sites -and I also looked at the site you linked originally to read how they flat out ignore what God said in verse 30 about ALL beasts, ALL fowls, ALL creeping things. (The site seems to have a lot of good points – just indicating how they’re not perfect and we should not spend our energy defending a website but instead defending God’s Word).

            Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

            Their claim that God created a world of suffering and death in the animal word before the fall and called it “very good” is NOT so according to what God said. This is why we need to check what any commentators say by studying the Bible, not studying more books of people that will repeat the same false claim.

            Correct: there is no always consensus as there are many complex ideas – but this part is not complex at all -you cannot get simpler than this. And the danger is not really about whether they were vegetarians or not – the real danger is it’s the age old attack satan does of “Did God REALLY say…?”: It can spill over into other parts of what God says that are suddenly far more significant: When people start ignoring parts because they think “God couldn’t mean that because I think it goes against what I consider common sense” for something that’s quite obvious, that’s a different story, IMO.

            It’s like someone else claiming Adam was_killing beasts and eating meat before the fall. No different! They are ignoring what God said and instead claiming God did something else, which leads to them risking doing it on anything else they want to change.

            In this specific case, the only difference is in the reader who has no problem BELIEVING a man would be a vegetarian, but refused to BELIEVE animals that existed at the beginning were vegetarians. But unfortunately that’s what God said, so we’ll need to take it up with God, along with teaching others it’s ok to use “common sense” to ignore anything we’re uncomfortable with believing and call it “common sense”.

            It’s one reason people “justify” throwing out anything else anywhere in the Bible to make a version of God they’re more comfortable believing in – and that sort of thinking always gets started by seeing others who have no problem ignoring what God says. It’s why people correctly point out there are so many Christians that “pick and choose” what they’ll believe in and what they’ll ignore.

            Personally I want to believe everything God says.

            This specific case is not a “study” issue – there’s nothing to “study” about God clearly saying at the beginning He set it up before the fall to give every beast, every fowl, every creeping thing “green herbs” for food.

            If we can’t show in God’s Word why it doesn’t mean this, that’s far different than saying “well I refuse to believe it b/c I think common sense says God did create a world of suffering and death among animals before the fall and called that ‘very good'” – and that’s a claim the Bible does not back up anywhere.

            Studying reveals that we need to take God at His Word in spite of our discomfort of thinking there were no carnivores before the fall, or our discomfort at any other thing God says that we’re uncomfortable with, in the name of “common sense”.

            No offense, but a very good book to read is The Bible, not commentary on what others turn it into in the name of “common sense”. God is the One that leads us into His truth – not private interpretation by others who will let us know what we can dismiss in the name of “common sense”.

            As I’m sure you’re aware:

            1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

            God leads us to truth, not just a select few people who write papers telling the rest of us what God did as if only they can interpret it.

            2 Peter 1:20-21 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

            So the real danger is people thinking it’s ok to ignore things if we feel it’s against “common sense”. That line of thinking is always the start for many into apostate thinking and throwing out far more significant points God says they’re not comfortable with – which is why we must make our stand even on something that specifically seems insignificant (like a world devoid of suffering and death even in the animal world), but the real significance is us thinking we can ignore what God says if we don’t like it.

            Hope this clarifies. Praise God we are both trusting only in the finished works of Christ for salvation! Let’s both help others realize we need to believe God, not what others convince us to ignore because it goes against their “common sense”. Thank you for posting.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            What you are attempting to do is to use the Bible as a stick, instead of using the Bible as the principles of peace, which is Christ. I don’t appreciate your approach. This is the truth of the Holy Spirit:

            22But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!

            24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there. 25Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives. 26Let us not become conceited, or provoke one another, or be jealous of one another.

            This discussion needs to stop. “we can ignore what God says if we don’t like it.” Let me ask you some things:

            1. Is Baptism required to be saved?
            2. Does Revelation’s speak literally of things to come?
            3. Do we still live under “the law”?
            4. Do you recognize that you began this conversation by stating that I was above God? Where you came up with that observation is not truth, but ego talking.
            5. Do you understand that Christians often discuss issues of the Bible in study sessions without demeaning the other, as you have consistently done with me. You are convinced that you are right. That is fine with me. I look to those that have studied the issues of the Bible from different viewpoints. I’m pretty certain that when you use the Bible, you are using it as a weapon, and not out of love. I don’t except you’re attempts to demean.
            I feel it necessary that you understand something. To continue to portray yourself as the master of the Bible is not in keeping with what Jesus says.

            The questions I’ve just asked have been discussed in many study sessions. That is what is so meaningful about appropriate conversation. But when the conversation becomes all about who is right or wrong, that is not the spirit of the Holy Spirit talking. That is ego’s talking. If you want to continue this conversation, please, stop the inferences. You know nothing about me personally, my relationship with God and Christ, and yet you are assuming that you do.

          • Reason2012

            So standing on God’s truth of what He said is “using God’s Word as a stick”? No, that’s just believing God. If your only response is to judge me and make false accusations, that’s unfortunate.

            Why ask more questions when you never answer my easy question?

            Gen 1:30: What is it addressing? The only answer is EVERY beast.
            And what is it saying? Same thing as it said to mankind in 1:29: God gave them herbs for food.

            So again: how is it you reconcile that with your claim God made a world of suffering and death with animals and called that “very good” when the Bible clearly says the opposite?

            If you cannot be up front about such a SIMPLE, OBVIOUS verse, and then attack me with false judgments in response, what chance have you got to be up front about baptism, Revelation, being under “the law” and so on, that you try to deflect to?

            I never said I’m a master of the Bible. Why are you making false claims about me? I’ve been talking about ONE VERSE and how it’s not contradicted anywhere else in the Bible. From that you judge me as portraying myself as a “master of the Bible”?!

            God said WE are to all individually check what others tell us and compare it with scripture – and hence when we seem something blatantly obviously wrong (like the website you linked), we are not to ignore it and teach others that the Bible is wrong and what someone else says instead is right.

            Sorry it bothers you, but since you’ve now regressed to judging me falsely multiple times, let alone in one post, I bow out. If you will not heed it, at least others will see what the danger is of taking a website’s opinion of God’s Word over God’s Word itself can lead to.

            Take care.

          • BarkingDawg

            What did the frogs eat?

          • Reason2012

            Says right here.
            Genesis 1:30 “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

          • BarkingDawg

            Frogs are not herbivores.

            They do not have the digestive system for a herbivorous diet.

            Unless– did the frogs evolve?

            LOL

          • Reason2012

            Do populations of frogs ‘evolve’ and remain frogs? Yup. And God never said it happened instantly that they were no longer eating green herbs of some kind for food.
            Do populations of frogs ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider ‘frogs’? No. Using that definition of “evolve” that most are speaking of that they believe in, that does not happen.
            And we’re talking about something supernatural God did in any event, which it should like you reject God anyway.

          • BarkingDawg

            Do populations of frogs ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider ‘frogs’? No.

            Wrong.

          • Reason2012

            Feel free to show it. Evolutionists never can show any such thing.

  • bowie1

    This type of museum does seem to bring out a lot of vitriol as happened with Ken Ham.

  • Marie Adigwe

    This guy does know that evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life on earth and that theories are backed by observable, scientific data, right? He can’t say that evolution and creation aren’t scientific and then go on to call them theories. Makes me wonder if he knows what he’s talking about.

    • Reason2012

      Hello. There’s no “data” backing up the mythology of evolutoinism. For example, making up beliefs about fossils that never happens does not make fossils ‘evidence’ or ‘data’ of that belief – circular reasoning.

      Evolutionist “That’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
      “How do you know it is?”
      Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
      “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
      Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil”

      Evolutionism is anti-science.

      • Marie Adigwe

        I don’t think you understood my point.

        • Reason2012

          Hello. Feel free to back up that claim and show specifically how it is I supposedly “did not understand it”.

          • Marie Adigwe

            Because my point wasn’t whether or not I think evolution is a fact. My point was that this guy can’t say that both evolution and creationism aren’t scientific and then go on to call them theories. If he’s claiming that they aren’t scientific, then he shouldn’t have gone on to call them theories because that just destroys his credibility as a scientist in the eyes of those of us who know what a true scientific theory is.

          • Reason2012

            You’re right -the topics of origins (of life, or of all biological diversity of life, or of the universe) are beyond the scope of science as beliefs are all anyone can bring to the table.

            But if evolutionists are allowed to call their beliefs “science”, then perhaps his point was that those who have other beliefs should be able to present them as well.

            Thank you for the clarification.

          • Marie Adigwe

            Well, creationism has more to do with origins than evolution. If you talk to anybody who thinks evolution happens, they don’t believe that it is the origin of life because nobody really knows how life originated on earth. Evolution is just an explanation to how life continues on earth. I’ve noticed that most creationists think that evolution is about abiogenesis or one thing magically turning into another thing or one species giving birth to another species, and all of those assumptions are false. And if you meet a scientist who thinks evolution happened, they’ll most likely be open to questioning it if any reliable data that hasn’t already been disproven appeared.

          • Reason2012

            Creation also address the topic of the origin of all biological diversity of life: God did that as well. Why can God create the universe, but not create life as well?

            Evolutionism is a belief about how life continued and it’s almost always coupled withe belief that one cell “just happened” on its own.

            Evolutionists do not question it – for example, when red blood cells and soft tissue continues to be found in fossils “dated” 60+ million years, proving they can only be thousands of years old, which destroys that belief system of evolutoinism, do they “question” evolutionism? Hardly – they just dismiss more evidence to the contrary “oh, looks like red blood cells and soft tissue can last 60+ MILLION years after all!”

            Evolutionism is anti-science to the core.

          • Marie Adigwe

            Actually, that’s not true. We don’t really know if life originated from one cell. There are other ideas that life could’ve originated from more than one cell or just chemical compounds, but the idea that these things just happened is abiogenesis, which is not evolution. The truth is, we don’t completely understand how they got here. We know that asteroids carry the same chemical compounds found in life on earth, so that’s one idea, but other people believe that it could’ve been some type of divine being. Evolution, on the other hand, is literally the gradual change in a species through natural selection over a period of time, but as for blood cells and soft tissue, they do question it. They do experiment and research on it, and you have to take into account preservation. It’s actually fairly likely that fossilized bones can preserve traces of organic matter.

          • Reason2012

            Where did that ‘more than one cell” come from? No cells – but suddenly PRESTO: multiple cells? Again, more mythological storytelling passed off as science.

            Of course we don’t “know” how we got here – it’s beyond the scope of science as made up narratives that people can only believe in are all anyone can offer.

            Evolution only shows that no matter how many generations go by in the entire existence of the human race: ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria, amphibians remain amphibians and so on for ALL animals. If it was science to address this, it would be a theory about why there’s a boundary that cannot be crossed. Instead they ignore there’s obviously an observable boundary, pretend there is no boundary, and move on to the “how” part.

            Anti-science.

            And no, it’s a fact red blood cells and soft tissue cannot last thousands of years -up until they find more and more of it in fossils false ‘dated’ 60+ million years, so now of course they have to either throw out evolutionism, or throw out actual scientific facts. The former wins, showing they have no interest in truth but instead on clinging to this anti-science belief system at all costs. More proof of how anti-science it really is.

          • Marie Adigwe

            Organic chemical compounds form cells, but I’ve honestly never heard a decent argument from a creationist that has any valid facts.

      • Paul Hiett

        Creationist: “Creation is true because I believe it”
        “How do you know it’s true?”
        Creationist: “The Bible says it is.”
        “Do you have any facts to support it?”
        Creationist: “The Bible”

        Creationism is anti-science.

  • Deedee Keith

    Sad that people will believe a man’s theory and not the WORD OF GOD.

    • Paul Hiett

      Out of curiosity, where do you think mankind would be today if all we went off was the “word of God”?

      • Deedee Keith

        Better than they way we are living now, you look at the materialistic things than the value of life. And science is man’s theory and not fact.

        • Paul Hiett

          Ah, so all of the medical breakthroughs…that’s not fact, that’s just theory, right?

          • YHWH IS LOVE HIS MERCY IS FORE

            And yet they have no cure for cancer but use radiation that causes cancer to kill the cancer. what an oxymoron, then they give your drugs to help with the sickness that man caused that kills another part of the body, hmmm that’s science and yet Darwin a man who thinks we evolved from a cell people are stupid enough to believe that crap but not that we are made in the image of GOD. But yet you would believe we evolved from a dam monkey. Really id rather claim to be from the image of GOD than a monkey..

          • Paul Hiett

            The next time you or a family member get cancer, by all means, “pray” it away.

            How long do you think that’ll last?

    • Bolvon72

      Now try, just for a moment, to think of the “WORD OF GOD” as just a man’s theory.

      • Deedee Keith

        Lets just put it this way, if Im wrong then I spent the rest of my life living a happy and joyous life living in the WORD OF MY GOD, but if im right then people like you who live for mans word and live a sinful life well then you will spend eternity in hell. Now I don’t care about you and your thoughts and theories they mean nothing to me because how can nothing be made into something? It can’t. So as I live my life for JESUS CHRIST and HIM in me, nothing that man can do to me will pull me away from HIS wonderful love, as before I gave my life for HIM I was a broken mess, on my knees crying out to HIM to save me, HE heard me. HE delivered me from drugs and alcohol, smoking living a sinful life and brought me into his marvelous light. I BELIEVE HIS WORD and nothing on this earth will change my mind, can man debunk there is no GOD? no HE said in JOHN :

        1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

        2 The same was in the beginning with God.

        3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

        4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

        5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

        6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

        7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

        8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

        9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

        10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

        11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

        12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

        13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

        14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth

        • Bolvon72

          Two words, Pascal’s wager. You wrote a lot, but I didn’t bother with anything past the fact that you are betting on one of a multitude of gods to be the right one, if any are. Good luck with that.

  • texastarheel

    If we evolved from one celled organisms, why are there still one celled organisms? If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys? AND everything in between that we supposedly evolved from. BTW, Paul-geneticists have already proven we all descended from the same one woman by studying our DNA.

    • John N

      Texastarheel, if you are a descendant from your mother, why is is she still your mother?

      Evolution is usually not one species turning into something else, in a lot of cases it means populations splitting and evolving in different directions. Humans and chimpansees have the same ancestor, with at least two separate populations. About 6 million years ago one of those populations evolved to Australopithecines and later to humans, another one becoming the ancestor of chimps and bonobo’s.

      And indeed scientists have found evidence we all descend from the same woman. They call her ‘Mitochondrial Eve’. She is the mother of all people living today, and she lived somewhere between 100.000 and 200.000 years ago.

      They also can prove that she was not the only woman alive at that moment, only that the other women did not produce any offspring with descendants still alive today. There were probably never less than 10.000 people alive at any moment in our history. So goodbye to Biblical Eve.

      • texastarheel

        “indeed scientists have found evidence we all descend from the same woman. They call her ‘Mitochondrial Eve'” only thing you wrote that I agree with because she was Eve. I disagree with everything else in your comment because I know God created me in His own image and He is not a liar. His Word and this planet He created that I live on is a witness to what is in His Word. Science continues to prove that. Atheistic/Darwinism/psuedo-science/big bang/evolution and theories will never be anything but nonsense to me.

        • John N

          So you say science continues to prove your god created the world? I would be happy to see references for that. To scientific sources please – not the AIG website.

          Meanwhile I prefer to go where the evidence leads. All evidence, not just the parts I like.

          By the way, her name was very probably not Eve. She did not speak English, that’s for sure. Maybe she was not even a Homo sapiens.

          And I see you understand your mother was one of your ancestors. That answers your question why there are still one celled organisms alive now. Their ancestors are our ancestors. In the billions of years since their origin, they diversified and conquered all available habitats. They evolved to survive, to stay the fittest. In habitats where one-celled organisms fitted best, they evolved to other types of one-celled organisms. No need to evolve a complex body and brain, if you live on the bottom of a hot spring, is it?

          • texastarheel

            Of course she was homo sapien. Every translation of the Bible calls her Eve. Genesis was written in Hebrew. Never heard any Hebrew scholars debate this. I’m not interested in what language Eve spoke because God took the one and only spoken language and turned it into many when evil men began to build the Tower of Babel in an attempt to reach Him in Heaven. People couldn’t plot if they couldn’t talk to each other. Where our phrase babbling incoherently comes from.
            Knowing why my mother is my mother doesn’t answer my question. I don’t really wonder that at all. I know the answer. Natural selection and adaptation. I do not believe in evolution. It’s only a theory. As far as I’m concerned, a false one.
            Finally, I

          • John N

            So you actually say that the scientific concept of Mitochondrial Eve proves your bible, except for the part that she was not the first woman, not the only woman alive at that time, lived somewhere 100.000 to 200.0000 years ago in sub-sahara Africa, never knew Y-Chromosomal Adam (who lived more than 330.000 years ago).

            ‘Of course she was Homo sapiens’
            Well, she probably was. But that does not need to be. She used to be something else in the past.

            You do realize that Mitochondrial Eve is not a specific woman, that it has been a different person in the past? Even worse, every time anywhere on earth a woman dies without leaving offspring, there is a chance a more recent offspring of the current Mitochondrial Eve will be given the title. So that means somewhere in the past, Mitochondrial Eve was not a Homo sapiens, but one of our ancestors (probably Homo erectus)

            Is that what your bible says?

            Please believe as you want, but stop misusing science to back up your believes. They are clearly not correct.

          • texastarheel

            John N, you appear satisfied in your, I don’t know what to call them beliefs, opinions, scientific theories, textbooks. However, you also seem to be angry because you perceive me to be ignorant and now you are telling me to stop misusing science to back up and I quote “my believes.” Well, my beliefs are in fact my way of life, You telling me that and again I quote, “They are clearly not correct.” is only your opinion, John. You share that opinion with many, many others and I share my way of life with millions of Believers who live and have lived over thousands of years. People who knew, walked, talked, served and witnessed the power of God. Two thousand years ago a man named Joshua/Jesus lived. There is historical proof. Millions believe that man was God made flesh to replace the Hebrew sacrifices in the temple for the forgiveness of the Jewish peoples sins as written in the Laws of Moses. Ultimately for all mankind and not just Israelites. To multitudes of people, this is obvious-easy to understand. The evidence is everywhere. One merely needs to open one’s eyes and one’s heart. And yet, even to those who were right in Christ’s midst He was un-seeable. Am I surprised you cannot accept the reality of the Creator of the Universe: God Almighty? Nope. The Israelites who were watching and waiting for him didn’t even recognize Him and he was standing right in front of them.
            Science is a part of your life, John. God is my life. Don’t pity or get angry with me. I have no false religion. I worship no dead idol. In fact, I have no religion at all.
            I am a bad person. I deserve death. I didn’t get justice. I didn’t get what I deserved. Someone else became my advocate and took the death penalty for me. I live free. No prison. No penalty. No probation. I am best friends with the judge who showed me mercy and sentenced the other person to death in my place. That judge loves me. We have a real relationship. We talk and He takes care of me. I go to Him for everything. He gave me grace. He is grace. He is God. I pray for you to have your heart and eyes opened to this truth John N. I have lifted you to the Father in prayer. Don’t be angry with me. I am not a fool. I am your friend. Your Father in Heaven loves you and He wants you to know that you are made in His image. You descend from human beings that He created, breathed life into and set apart from all the other creatures of the earth. Call out to Him. He longs to be reconciled with you. He knit you together in your mother’s womb. He knows the number of every hair on your head. He will never leave you or forsake you. Only He can love you unconditionally. Take that leap of faith, John. What have you got to loose?

          • John N

            Thanks but no. I will stick to what science has shown me. I do have a lot to loose, like my contact with reality.

            But please believe what you want to believe. After all, science does not yet have all the answers. There still is a gap where a god could fit into.

            But what makes me angry is you redefining scientific concepts to fit your beliefs. You said science has proven your biblical Eve to exist. That is not correct. Science has not done anything like it. Scientists have used the name ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ to define a scientific concept – our most recent common ancester in the maternal line – which was not such a clever idea IMHO. I have shown that to you, but you continue to use your wrong definition. That is unhonest, and that is what angers me.

          • texastarheel

            John you have never met me and yet you are angry with me. I have to shake my head at that. I’m not angry at you nor do I hold any opinions about you. We just disagree. Do you get angry at everyone who disagrees with you? What if you are wrong in the end? Doesn’t that make it hard on your relationships? On another note-you have shared your opinion with me but, you have not ‘shown’ me anything that disproves what I know in my heart and soul. I have not been dishonest. Whether you chose to believe me or not is your choice. If your choice to disbelieve what I personally know to be true makes you angry then perhaps you should look deeper into why you are so angry. Most science minded people would simply see me as a fool and not waste a single thought on me let alone bring emotion into the situation. Yet, you John are literally angered enough to call me out and say I’m dishonest. To quote Shakespeare, “the lady do’st protest to much.” i.e. I sense a chip on your shoulder.

          • John N

            Texastarheel, I agree most science minded people would simply see you as ignorant. I would have done the same, if it was not for your deliberate misreading and cherry-picking of what science has discovered, in favor of your personal believe. That is dishonest. Repeating it while other people point out you are mistaken, is lying.

          • texastarheel

            John I happen to believe that you are the one (among others) who are mistaken and have been misled. You have ignored things others know to be true because you don’t agree with them or believe what they say. That just makes you on the other side of the issue. It doesn’t mean anything other than that. Just because you say I am mistaken doesn’t mean that I am. You say I’m a cherry picker. Your fingers appear a bit stained from the fruit of some type of tree from where I sit. Yet, I have not called called you any names. In fact, I’ve been kind to you. Even shown you compassion. On the other hand you repeatedly call me dishonest and a liar. You have admitted to me that my faith and way of life anger you. I have prayed for you once again, John. I hope one day your blinders will fall away and your heart will experience the wonder of the Creator and that you will see yourself and the world you live in through His eyes.

          • texastarheel

            John N, as you have made it your current mission to argue and belittle instead of discuss, debate and gather the views of others to expand your scope and perhaps gain new insights; I will leave you to your opinions, what you currently know and your present frame of mind and attitude of the universe. I would leave you with the oft repeated phrase, ‘we’ll just have to agree to disagree’ but, I don’t see the point. However, I will say that I am finished with our conversation as long as it has to do with the current topic of my fraudulent lifestyle. I believe that when an adult participates in discussions on public forums such as this with complete strangers and in front of the entire world, he or she must act with decorum and with respect. Please forgive me if this comes off a little rough. I meant only for you to understand where I’m coming from and that I see no reason for us to continue replying to each other’s comments any further. Good Evening, sir.

      • texastarheel

        Here are some words including ‘mother’ with their definitions to explain why along with her having given birth to me, my mother is my mother. I hope this helps.
        Descendent (adjective)
        1. coming downwards; descending
        2. deriving by descent, as from an ancestor
        Ancestor(noun)
        1. a person from whom one is descended; forebear; forefather; progenitor
        2. Biology: the actual or stock from which an organism has developed or descended
        3. Law: a person from whom an heir derives an inheritance
        Progenitor (noun)
        1. a biologically related ancestor
        2. a person that originates another
        Parent (noun)
        1. a father or a mother
        2. an ancestor or progenitor
        3. a biological generator of another
        Mother
        1. (noun) a female parent
        2. (verb -used with object) to be the mother of; give origin to

      • texastarheel

        “indeed scientists have found evidence we all descend from the same woman. They call her ‘Mitochondrial Eve’. She is the mother of all people living today”

        This is the only thing in your post I can agree with.

        • John N

          So you cherry-pick from science what you like, and drop what you don’t like? Why is that?

          • texastarheel

            Nope not a bit. (I sent you another more detailed response. I guess it didn’t post.) ???

  • Wayne McLaw

    if we came from apes why is there still apes did some decide to become human and the rest said no how come we don’t observed that happening today look at the complexity of life how come we have every thing thats needed for survival down here evolution is a fairy tale

    • Paul Hiett

      If you don’t understand what having a “common ancestor” is in regards to evolution, I can’t really help you understand it.

      The easiest way to explain it is that we didn’t evolve from a modern ape, but an ancestor millions of years ago that we split off from. The direction our evolution took was simply different than the ones by the modern apes.

    • The Skeptical Chymist

      If Christianity developed from Judaism, why is there still Judaism?
      If algebra developed from arithmetic, why is there still arithmetic?
      If English developed from German and French, why is there still German and French?

      See, it is easy to play that stupid game.

    • weasel1886

      You have no understanding of evolution theory. The tree of life has many branches

    • BarkingDawg

      if we came from apes why is there still apes

      Head => desk

      Sigh.

      There is nothing in evolutionary theory which states a source species must go extinct in order for new species to evolve.

      • KenS

        Really, what do you think Darwin meant in his “Surivial of the Species” book. He specifically said that the organism that is evolving made changes that would make them survive in favor of the other attributes in order to keep from extinction. He goes on to say that the species that did not adapt became extinct.
        This is the founder of your religion who wrote these things.

        • BarkingDawg

          Do you understand the the common ancestors that we share with other primates are, in fact, extinct?

          Why is this so hard for you to understand? It really is not that difficult of a concept. Two groups from the same species evolve in separate directions to form two separate new species.

        • SpeakTruth

          See, here is a fundamental difference between science and religion:
          Although Darwin was the first to recognize the pattern and relationship between living things, and thus his theory of evolution, other scientists have improved it as new discoveries were made and new technologies were developed. The scientific community sees these new discoveries as something to celebrate, not as Darwin’s failure. Religion, on the other hand, is afraid of any evidence contradicting its holy text and dogma. It seeks to suppress or discredit new evidence, spread misinformation, and isolate its followers making it easier to indoctrinate.

          Reading Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” will not give you a complete understanding of evolution. The evolutionary theory you disbelieve is not the current working theory.

    • SpeakTruth

      Sir, if you understood evolution by natural selection, you would not have to ask your questions. This is the most infuriating thing about these so-called “museums” and YouTube videos like “Animals that Defy Evolution”! They spread misinformation and outright lies about evolution, resulting in adults asking why apes decided not to become human. You do realize that every time you receive care from a medical doctor, you are benefiting from vaccines, medications, procedures, etc, that were discovered/invented because of scientists’ knowledge of evolution?

  • weasel1886

    I was at Columbine and this man is a complete and total liar.

    • happylada

      What part of his comment is false? His references to Colubine is 100% accurate as far as media reports go. IF you have any FACTS, please present them. Until then I’ll accept the authors statement over yours
      Being there tells one NOTHING about the motivation of the perps – atheist Christian hating thugs with a Darwinian worldview.

      • weasel1886

        I knew those boys and what they were taught and they were not taught that we came from slime. This author is a lair and pandering scum. I sat in church memorial services where preachers blamed teachers and evolution for these murders crimes. They were nothing more than slandering pukes trying to blame others while making bucks for their churches.
        You may have read this crap, but it was false.
        Less than a week after the shooting there were TV adds to send money to church groups to get the ten commandments posted at the school and street preachers started harassing students on the way to school soon after. My impression of these “Christians” is tainted to this day although I attend a church in the area to this day.
        Frankly the best support came from the Catholic churches, black churches, and pagan groups. I know many people at the school that lost their faith over the way Christian churches acted.
        BTW both boys were raised Christian and had very good parents, I know both families.

        • Daniel Hudson

          All throughout school, I would be a TA. I loved helping, even though I wasn’t teaching, I was still helping. Every single teacher I was a TA for, was a Liberal. I turned out Die hard Republican. And later converted to Christianity. I was more spiritualist then anything at the time of my schooling.

          My point is, even though I worked around Liberals, helped Liberals do their daily job, I didn’t turn out to be a Liberal. Your argument seems to blame the Christian, and the same could be said for these boys. Even though they were raised around Christians, helped Christians in their daily routines, doesn’t mean they turned out Christian.

          No one can really blame the other without opening room for retaliation. So leave it at this, we don’t really know what went wrong with those boys, don’t really know why. But we do know that they went on a killing spree and it left many deep scars.

          • weasel1886

            I am not blaming Christians are anyone else for their behavior other than themselves.
            PS I don’t see how a Christian can be a conservative, but to each his own.
            Blessings

  • Melissa Simpson

    All those who oppose creation, where do you think you got your ability to reason and make choices from? Thoughts and the process to think about life and where it comes from, where do you think that comes from. What other animals think where they came from and what the origin and purpose of life is? The ability to record our thoughts, manipulate our environment and learn so much information. Do you not see us as different from animals? Do you think that we are so highly “evolved” that that is where this all comes from. Do you not think God could have made it so, let us come to this point in time since life came to be, all in order to realize and recognize him. Is it that hard to believe? Is your idea of evolution so key to your survival and way of life you think that is the only thing that contributes to who we are as living beings? Evolve your way of thinking, realize that there is a God, realize He is so great He can make miracles happen. He can make the earth evolve, yet humans different and set apart to be in the image of Him. Is your thinking so caught up in the theory of physical evolution you can not see God wants us spiritually to evolve? Do you not see how the thought of we exist “we are just here because we are a part of the process of evolution” is clinging to what science states but not to where science even came from. Open your eyes, God made the earth, anything or any animal that evolved came from God and humans are in His vision. We are set apart, to give Him glory. Science, as amazing at it is, did not create itself but is evidence of His creation. Evolve your way of thinking. Don’t become extinct with no way to better yourself and humankind. God and Jesus stand for love, light, peace and truth. Believe or not, you will not change the process of life on earth and life after death. Do not get caught up in thinking life is just here on earth and just connected to evolution. Free your heart and mind and ask God the truth about Him and Jesus. I did, He showed me and I pray the same for you.

    • Paul Hiett

      Our ability to think and reason and make choices did not come from your choice of a deity. Why would you think that?

      • Melissa Simpson

        God gave me the grace to allow me to choose Him. What other “animal” thinks about existence and why we are here. What other “animal” has the ability to manipulate the environment as humans do? Humans are set apart from animals. According to evolution, the strongest survive, so it must our ability to think, manipulate our environment, and the development of values that is part of what the strongest survival needs are for humans. It makes sense that God would help values and right versus wrong to evolve in order to allow us to survive. Think about how populated the world is with humans right now. If we did not have a law system in place to judge right from wrong, what kind of society would we have? So our ability to not only think, but to know right from wrong are given attributes to how humans have evolved. Right? So this idea of right and wrong, and our ability to think and choose what to do in our environment came from where? Science itself created science and then scientists so that scientists could change the science that created itself? So created the science that created the scientists? Where did science come from? From nothing. You can not get something from nothing, even scientists know that. So if you can’t get something from nothing, where did the first something come from? It just started itself and it started it self in a way that it would continue into life forms that just adapted to survive in the earth that was created form nothing? So not only did something, the earth and life, come from “nothing” according to some, but the something just happens to have the ability to sustain life with evolution for billions of years and allows life to adapt to live. Does it not seem more likely that a loving God allows us to experience life and set up the earth and life to nurture survival physically. How do you think all living things have the ability to know what is needed to survive? How do you think that we have come this far in life to experience love, intelligence and right from wrong?

        • Paul Hiett

          Were you raised as a Christian?

          • Melissa Simpson

            No, I became one later in life. I went to church sometimes, maybe a handful of times or so that I can remember throughout life, then after living life down the path of thinking we are all just molecules running around with no purpose, I asked God to show me the truth. By the grace of God, able to see the truth about Jesus Christ, be baptized and know peace, truth and love as never before.

          • Paul Hiett

            But were you raised Christian? Were your parents Christian? You attended church…who took you?

          • Melissa Simpson

            My dad’s parents sometimes went and we sometimes went with them. Were my parents Christian, did they believe in Christ? I don’t know, they never really talked about Christ with me when I was young that I remember. I can only remember hearing about and fully realized about a part of the Holy Bible once as a child and I only remember a handful of times. Even if one is raised Christian, one still has to fully believe in Christ and be baptized with their own free will.

          • Paul Hiett

            Right, so you were exposed to your current religion from a very early age. Is it really any wonder why you are Christian today, and not Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, etc?

            One’s religion is usually determined by where you are born, and to whom.

            Imagine had you been born in Iraq. You’d be Muslim, and a devout one probably. We are lucky to live in the states, where freedom of religion prevails, for the most part, and we are free to pick and choose our beliefs. The rest of the world is not always so lucky.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Actually, I have taken a lot of flack for being Christian from family. Religion can have nothing to do with where one is born, and to whom they are born. Points in case are those who are Christian in an all Muslim direct family line. Anyone from any culture, tribe, nation, religion can become a Christian. I know Muslims who became Christian. It’s not luck, and one can follow God even when one is the only one doing it. I feel deeply for those being persecuted for their faith in Christ. Does it make it right that people are killing Christians because they are Christian? One can kill for whatever reason they want, that is called murder. How would you feel if your family member was murdered as Christian family members are murdered or others are murdered for their beliefs? Those are my Christian brothers and sisters, and I feel for them very much and pray God lets me help as much as I can. Freedom of Religion came from the United States because those who started the United States, came with belief in God. This nation was founded with Christian principles in mind. Everyone can pick and choose their beliefs, sadly there are people who will torture and murder others if their beliefs are different than their own.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Argument for tribalism which is exactly why religion divides humanity. Horrible….disgusting,……inhuman……barbaric………religion.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Come on man.

            If there is one thing we know about religion it is three things:

            Religion is a matter of…..

            1.) Family

            2.) Culture

            3.) Geography

            That is how religion spreads and stays for generations.

          • Melissa Simpson

            The Christian religion, started when Jesus lived. This, of course, was about 2,000 years ago. Sometimes it is passed on by family, sometimes by other ways such as individual hearing and believing. This can happen from non-family members. Every human from every culture, every geography that knows about Jesus has the choice to believe or not. So I know more than those three things about religion. I know that it has helps me be a better person, that it allows me to know peace, that it allows me to realize the truth as God has showed through Jesus. People, family or not, do spread the truth of Jesus and Christianity but that it is the same for many things that can help you as person.
            Survival rates go up in different regions of the earth because certain previous knowledge and structure was set forth. The same can be spiritually for Christians who know Christ from family, or from where the live/lived. They know this because knowledge and tools to help them survive were passed down. That is what humans do with knowledge, which is how we learned to write.
            We pass knowledge to others to help them live life. The knowledge of Christ being God’s Son who lived, died and was resurrected is given and also hopefully passed down. This is in order not to just better the life on this earth with more peace, love and understanding but also to help in the life after we die on this earth.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Whatever man…..just a bunch of religious psycho-babble speaking in tongues rolling around on the floor dancing a jig with a rattlesnake “word of god” B.S. to me.

            Three things:

            1.) Family

            2.) Culture

            3.) Geography

            These are the real determiners on who is born into what particular belief system. F-A-C-T

          • Melissa Simpson

            Anyone, any person can choose any religion they want, this is truth. If you agree with the evolution theory, it shows that living organisms are able to change in order to become more capable of surviving in their environment. I know God is. I know He alone gave us the capability to surpass life on earth, it takes surpassing your current state of knowledge towards God. This is truth, whether one believes it or not.

            While animals and other living organisms besides humans are able to instinctively know how to survive, humans instinctively know right from wrong. Is there not right from wrong? Why is stealing, lying, murder, cheating considered wrong? Because humans are set apart and know that we are higher beings given choice and we must choose right. God is right, Jesus is right.

            Make a choice. Choose to think we came from nothing, and nothing is going to higher your self. Just keep on living, breathing and doing nothing. Choose to believe we came from something greater than just ourselves, God, and you can choose to better one’s self based on God’s right and wrong. It’s up to each person what they believe.

            Almost all of us have access to language and communication so of course it will be used to pass on the truth of Jesus and God. However the truth of Jesus Christ and God can surpass culture, family and geography. Another glorious aspect of God.

          • Paul Hiett

            How do you think all of those other civilizations around the world came about these same “laws” without ever hearing about your deity?

          • Melissa Simpson

            God gave us knowledge of right and wrong. This is seen by oldest civilizations having laws against murder, mistreatment of others and such. Where did these theories come from? God. Why do we not just chalk it up to a member of the species trying to nurture their own survival. Because we know murder is wrong. We were given Knowledge from God and a way to differentiate from animals. Proof we are different than animals and God has given us consciences.

          • John N

            So you say animals have no knowledge of right and wrong, and do murder and mistreat each other? Do you have a dog? Please get rid of it before it starts murdering you!

            All social animals have habits of not unnecessary killing or harming each other. That’s one of the habits they evolved to be able to live in a group/society/herd/family. We are only different in a degree.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Only humans put other humans on trial for murder. I did not say animals have no knowledge of right and wrong, but that humans are set apart to make laws to govern eacother in the knowledge of right and wrong. A dog can not murder a human, a human can, obviously murder another human. The difference is humans will know murdering another human is wrong for humans. Why? Because we are set apart by God.

          • John N

            I would not be so sure about animals have no rules for behaviour. Social animals like dogs or elephants have a very complicated, mostly hierarchical group structure. Unsocial behaviour of a group member is quickly corrected by the dominant animal. It may not seem just to us, but there is a system of rules and punishment.

            The only difference is, animals don’t need a god to account for this behaviour. God is man-made.

          • Melissa Simpson

            I never states that animals have no rules for behavior, simply that they do not put on trial other animals for murder nor ponder their existence. That is a difference, because humans were set apart by God, they have to account to God. Humans are God made. Where do you think man was made from, if you say evolution, who created evolution? How did the earth come to exist? How did life start? From nothing? As known, something, such as life, can not come from nothing. Life is a gift from God, either believe or don’t. You won’t hurt God by not believing, He is a wonderful God not matter what you or anyone believes.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Was all this after your parents raised you to believe in the ancient Canaanite God of War (Yahweh) in a predominately Judeo-Christian society here in the Western World or before all that?

            See how that works? You have yet to prove me otherwise.

        • uzza

          What other “animal” has the ability to manipulate the environment as humans do?
          Cyanobacteria. 2.3 billion years ago they managed to change the atmosphere and wipe out pretty much all life on earth, just like humans are set to do again.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Cyanobacteria creating an oxidizing effect from their survival, it was a byproduct of their survival not a conscience choice in how to manipulate the environment in order to ensure the longest survival rates. It did happen, and is more proof that a Higher Creator, God, made the earth unfold in a way that allowed for human life to be able to survive in present day conditions. Every effect in the past had to unfold exactly the way it did to bring the current situation to unfold as it is. This points to a plan made for life to show a snowball effect that the current happenings are a result of past happening and life has evolved to allow humans to have conscience thought and choice. Thought and choice are the highest levels of thinking and allow for you to even write back on this forum. This type of communication and thought process is brought on because we “evolved” to be able to do such things so it must be the process that God and creation has deemed necessary for survival. Survival for what? To survive on earth? Yes. To survive just on earth? No, we are given higher thought, communication and the ability to question why we are here in order to fulfill the Creator’s, God’s, plan to find Him and Jesus Christ.

          • Bolvon72

            Finally, paragraphs, thank you.

          • Melissa Simpson

            I actually wrote with paragraphs in some parts and the word processing of the discussion forum did not allow it as I typed it. I know, while it is possible to read without the paragraphs, how much easier it is to read with them. Because of this, I tried to include them where I could.

          • Paul Hiett

            And yet, had you been born to Jewish parents, you’d be celebrating Hanukkah each year.

            It’s merely a geographical and demographics accident. You’re just lucky to be born to parents in the US who simply weren’t as religious as other parents. Make no mistake, humans indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs. Christians raise Christians, Jews raise Jews, Muslims raise Muslims, etc.

            Are there incidents of breakaways? Of course…we see it everyday, around the world. More and more people are turning to atheism (some in the face of death in their society). People also convert to Christianity, or other religions. But, the majority of the people of the world are simply following in their fathers footsteps, so to speak.

          • Melissa Simpson

            We can all choose what to believe no matter who are parents are, where we live and no matter what other people around us are doing. God gave us choice. We are different than animals, we must use our choice to be the best person we can be to elevate ourselves and humans as a whole. God and Jesus are peace, love and truth. If you believe, you will know this. If you choose to think you are just a product of circumstance with only instinct , you leave your whole life and choice to others. We must be strong, wise and forge our own ways in life, hopefully making the choices that God our creator wants us to choose.

          • John N

            God, made the earth unfold in a way that allowed for human life to be able to survive in present day conditions
            Melissa, after all this million years of manipulation of the earth, there is still only one species of Homo, and more than 1 million species of insects. Clearly your god has unfolded the earth for them to survive, and we are just an unexpected side-effect.

            Or could it be the other way around, and is it live that has adapted to the environment – and changed the environment to be able to survive better?

            And why would you think humans are set apart from other animals? Because conscience? Other social animals have that, too. It is only a matter of degree.

    • Jefferson_Lebowski

      I don’t “oppose” creation man. You have yet to prove it is all.

      • Melissa Simpson

        Life exists. It was either created or what? Banged into existence by nothing? Life is something and something can not be made from nothing.

        • Paul Hiett

          Not knowing how life began is not proof of a magical man in the sky though.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Life is, not proof needed to show life exists. Magic is different than powerful and able to do miracles. Life either was created or came to be from nothing. However, even science knows that nothing can not create something. So it takes some higher thinking and ability to see past just life on earth to realize that life was created by an all powerful creator. This creator, God, who can make life can make miracles happen. Heaven does not have to be the sky, as we know the universe is past the sky. The Holy Bible does not say God is in the sky, He and Jesus are in Heaven which is not the sky but surpasses even the universe as it would have to. So since you have even stated, some scientists (I say some because there are many who believe in God) don’t know how life began, how can they say it did not begin by God? How can they say it science is because it just came from nothing? Like stated already, something can not come from nothing. Life, as it unfolds and shows it’s amazing ability to grow and flourish is evident there is a path that life follows. Who made the path? Science itself? No, science is the evidence of the path the Creator, God made to show us all things. All things include His Son, Jesus Christ who was sent to show us the truth of a loving God who will forgive sins, and give us peace, light and love that we are all searching for as higher beings. Hope you see this one day, I pray you have peace, understating and love Jesus and God have shown me and others who know their truth.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Psychobabble……

          • Melissa Simpson

            Sometimes people try to shoot down what they can’t understand. All of what I said is not only possible, but true. God bless.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            More religious psychobabble.

          • John N

            ‘So since you have even stated, some scientists … don’t know how life began, how can they say it did not begin by God?’

            So if you don’t know how life began, how can you say it must surely be God? Why not say that we just don’t know (yet)?

            By the way, every question that science has tackled the last 100 years or so, were all answered without using your god. Lightning, rainbows, the presence of the sun and the moon, the position of the earth, the origin of species, … no god involved. What do you think the odds are?

        • Jefferson_Lebowski

          Yeah but you don’t stop there do you Sherlock? Nooooooo…..you have to hit a Grand Slam in the bottom of the 9th to take the lead and win the world series by claiming on NO EVIDENCE that not only is it a God who created life but YOUR PARTICULAR GOD.

          Where is the evidence Sir? Hmmmm? You know….for ….your ……particular God?

          Thou doest claim much, but to avail ….he is lost in scribe with no com-pence to pay for for his privations….

          • Melissa Simpson

            Lol, I am not a sir. God made me female, thank you. Evidence is there for those who will see. You choose your path, mine will not let go of the peace, love and light of Jesus and God.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Of that I have no doubt. But your claims are still just claims….on no evidence.

          • Melissa Simpson

            Life and love are evidence enough for me.

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Apparently

          • Melissa Simpson

            Yes, knowledge and faith are wonderful.

  • Covered California

    “Currently, the group is operating a small “Vision Center” in Boise that houses various scientific specimens and artifacts, including fossils, petrified relics, and ancient dinosaur eggs.”

    How does this prove creationism? I don’t claim to know how the world formed, but I don’t see how fossils and dinosaur eggs prove that the world is only a couple thousand years old.

  • 4Commencefiring4

    I know they mean well, and I hope they put something together that has scientific integrity and is actually rigorous in its analysis. But really–they’re fooling themselves if they believe it’s going to change any minds…as the remarks below (predictable all) demonstrate.

    There is so much diversity and infighting, even within both camps, that you can’t even get two people to agree on what day it is. But go ahead–have at it once again.

    • weasel1886

      The problem I see is that they start out with science but when they get stuck they bring out the “God card”.
      Remember “Exposed”? The first half was spent convincing us that it was all science and the second half explaining why it was all about religion.

  • Jefferson_Lebowski

    Another monument to failed “Biblical” science. One day it will be turned into a museum showcasing the last breaths of a dying and insecure religious cult that tried to deny basic scientific facts in order to keep it’s flock from moving on.

  • Jim Deferio

    There is already a first class Creation Museum in the Cincinnati area run by the world’s largest Christian apologetic ministry, Answers in Genesis. I have been there twice and hope to go again soon.
    I suppose having one in the west would be good for those who can’t travel that far. However, Boise, ID is the pits, seriously.
    A better place for a western museum would be Phoenix.

    • BarkingDawg

      Ah, yes, the Ken Ham scam.

      • Paul Hiett

        Ain’t he something? You’d have thought after the disastrous debate with Bill Nye, Ham would have run for the hills.

        • BarkingDawg

          Ken Ham should sue these Idaho people for stealing his idea. that artist sketch of what the museum will look like looks suspiciously like Ham’s failed “Ark Park.”

          • KenS

            It has not failed, it is scheduled to be opened next year, My family has already planned to spend our vacation there next year.

          • BarkingDawg

            There is one born every minute

          • Jefferson_Lebowski

            Tell Fred Flintstone I said Hi.

          • Deina

            “My family has already planned to spend our vacation there next year.”

            What do you have planned for the rest of the afternoon?

            At this point in time the “museum” is nothing more than a storefront in a business park, next door to a (larger) store that sells games & magic cards(?), and just around the corner from Olga’s Deep Tissue Massage. Seriously, two parking spaces and the width of a sidewalk in front. Looking in Google Earth, the section they are in may be as large as 25’ x 125’. In other words, less than twice the size of an average house. I say may be, because that section of the building has 4 business entrances, & I don’t know if they are renting all 4, just the one, or somewhere in between.

            Google, Bing, & Yahoo are all your friends, so I’ll let you do your own research before you throw the wife & kiddies in the land yacht & do your imitation of Clark Griswald.

            It doesn’t matter to me if you go there or not, but do your research before you drag the kids off.

          • KenS

            I googled and found more sites about it still planning to be open in 2016, i did not find any sites about it not being ready. The negative articles I encountered were from 2012 & 2013, did you even check dates when you did your google search?

            here is one of them:

            http://www.christiantoday.com/article/ken.ham.says.that.noahs.ark.will.be.completed.by.2016.despite.all.odds/51783.htm

          • Deina

            I read the newspaper article & watched the youtube from the “grand opening” of their current site, less than a year ago.

            Did you even check dates?

            Not my monkeys & not my circus, so do what you want, Clark!

          • KenS

            The newer articles state that they broke ground in 2014. So not sure how long ago your articles were, but I do know that my children went with their private school to the Creation museum more than a year ago and with their youth group at church, the year prior to that.

          • Deina

            New Boise creationist museum seeks to promote ‘true science’ by disputing evolution | Boise, Garden City, Mountain Home | Idahostatesman.com
            http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/06/18/3240797_new-boise-creationist-museum-seeks.html

            18 June 2014

          • KenS

            If you were following the thread here, you would have seen that we are not talking about the the plans for the new museum in Idaho, but rather the plans for Ken Ham’s Ark encounter which is being built right now in Kentucky near his creation museum in Ohio, which my kids have been to twice.

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you take your kids to real museums, such as the Natural History museums, too?

          • KenS

            yes, I also took them to the Stl Louis Children s Musuem and the Indianapolis children s museum, any other questions?

          • Paul Hiett

            Which one are you presenting as truth though?

          • KenS

            Creation of course.

          • Paul Hiett

            And you don’t feel it puts your kids at a disadvantage to everyone else who accepts the truth about our planets history?

          • KenS

            No, it gives them an advantage over everyone else who denies the truth about our planet’s history!

          • Paul Hiett

            You do realize that they will be, like you, in a very, very small minority who believe that?

          • KenS

            Of course I realize that, Jesus, told us that we would be in the minority and that we would be hated just as he was hated.

          • Paul Hiett

            Does it ever cross your mind that what they knew 2000 years ago was slightly less than what we know now? 2000 years ago they had no way of dating fossils, but today we can easily date just about anything…including dinosaur bones, which we know are millions of years old.

            BTW, you’re not hated. I do think it sad that not only you, but your kids as well, refuse to accept simple truths about the world in which we live.

          • Paul Hiett
          • KenS

            ? What is there to teach from this pic?

          • Paul Hiett

            This is a display at the Creation Museum, they teach that people rode dinosaurs.

          • KenS

            I’m sure that they did, just as people ride horses now.

          • Paul Hiett

            So despite the millions of years that separate man and dinosaurs, you actually think we rode them?

          • KenS

            There are not millions of years separating us, probably only seconds, God made man and dinosaurs on the sixth day.

          • Paul Hiett

            Wow…so despite all of the facts that prove dinosaurs and man never existed together, you’re going to believe it anyways?

          • KenS

            There are no such facts, as a matter of fact there are fossils that prove that they were together.

      • Jim Deferio

        Please provide PROOF that the Creation Museum is a “scam”. Anyone can make false allegations.

        • BarkingDawg

          It’s creationism pretending to be science in order to extract money from gullible rubes

          It’s a scam.

  • BarkingDawg

    Another scam designed to separate gullible rubes from their money.

  • Greg Koch

    Well…
    a) How in the world did they get backing for a not-for-profit $150 million, 350,000-square-foot facility dedicated to one religion?
    b) The US is a melting pot of religions, ranging from belief in one god, to many gods, to an enlightenment from being aware of one’s position in nature, to being just a lowly scientist who believes in the alluvial deposit record he found in the Canadian Rockies.
    c) This museum is of a Christian interest, and in no way concerns the mutual interests of the citizens of Idaho. Government money should be spent on rebuilding communal infrastructure to meet growth demands: the US fell way behind in replacing old infrastructure due to a combination of mediocre tax revenue from income plus an unwillingness to impose a sales tax on high growth bank or financial products.
    d) Truth be told, this smells like government fraud.

    • BarkingDawg

      I’m thinking that they don’t have any backing. This is a scam.

    • uzza

      All they did so far was unveil a plan. Just like when you were a kid and you had a plan to take over the world. Next step in this plan will be
      2. huge announcements insulting everyone’s intelligence
      3. gather lots of examples of us saying how stupid it it
      4. cry “CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION”
      5. rake in the donations
      6. go bankrupt and blame it on the atheists
      7 Tahiti

    • KenS

      No where in this article does it say that any government funds are being used. This is a private Christian organization that is going to be building this building.

  • Bill

    every real museum presents overwhelming evidence of evolution

  • BarkingDawg

    I bet they can get some exhibits from Kent Hovind. Hardly used.

  • Jack Rohde

    There is proof Bill Nye is a Chimp evolved from apes.

    • Paul Hiett

      You mean the guy that destroyed your idol, Ken Ham?

  • BarkingDawg

    Look at the artist concept drawing above?

    The building is made to look like an “Ark,” with the dinosaur on the outside.

    I think someone is mocking the museum people.

  • davidevarts

    I really hope that they do not get this off the ground. I really do not think that we need another “museum” dedicated to convincing folks that creation means young-earthism. that young-earthism is “biblical creation” and that young-earthism has scientific support. Perhaps, comments and letters to the editors of ChristianNews.net might remind them that the opposition is made of Christians and scientists?

  • David Buchanan

    $150,000,000 of wasted money. Think how much could be accomplished for the cause of Christ with that amount of money that is spent well on missions or helping the poor or feeding the hungry. You know, those things that Jesus actually instructed us to do.

    • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

      And the price of your average football, baseball, and basketball stadium is???

      • Deina

        I didn’t know they had stadia that that could do all three!

        I’ve never had the slightest desire to build one, not even a simple one that could only accommodate one of the aforementioned sports, so I haven’t a clue how much one costs.

        But I bet the taxpayer money spent on building it would be better served helping the poor or feeding the hungry.

        • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

          .
          We’re diverting into politics, where entertainment is big business and local politicians feel personally aggrandized by getting world attention by offering their constituent’s money as tax breaks and incentives …

          Oh, wait a minute, I’ll bet 100% of the donation to the Creation Museum are tax deductible.

          On point.

          Thanks for that, @disqus_xkyi75eUT4:disqus.

      • David Buchanan

        Your average football, baseball or basketball venue is not being built by people who are pretending to be following the call of Jesus as they build their stadium.

        • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

          And that somehow justifies your response?

          • David Buchanan

            yes

  • Joel Sassone

    “Evidence.”

    • http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ Rich

      Tons of it.

      “If the ocean was millions of years old, assuming the rate at which the salinity is rising has always been constant, we should be able to walk on the ocean by now, it would be that salty.”

      • Paul Hiett

        Really? Is that the extent of your knowledge of science?

        • Jefferson_Lebowski

          Yeah…..it is rather salty don’t you think?

      • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

        .
        Have you SEEN the Ocean off Staten Island. and in the middle of the Pacific where there’s a garbage swirl larger than Texas?

        Ecch!

        But EASY to walk on.
        .

        • Walter Goerlitz

          Why aren’t silly environmentalists simply cleaning it up? the ship getting in the way of whalers would have time.

  • Charles Tyree

    “We want to show a lot of science that’s being censored and not presented to the public,” This is very true. Many a former evolutionist scientist who decided they were sick of the Christians saying evolution is false and wanted to kill the Knowledge of God have finally been truly honest with themselves most importantly and when they did they found out that the Evidence for creation has been in the science all along, just very meticulously buried and hidden away. One such scientist created the series later known as Creatures that defy evolution. Basically ones like the bombardier beetle that would have extinguished himself the first time he tried his trick and it went wrong. So therefore you had to be designed that way to start with. All previous models of you under evolution would have been blown up so no way to evolve. Then there was the little microbe who is basically a little electric motor as far as the 7 parts needed to makes its tiny propeller go. Without developing all 7 parts instantly the creature couldn’t survive long enough to evolve the other parts needed to function properly. None of the many different theories of evolution solve these kinds of problems. Also, I saw a post saying something about different kinds of people coming from Noah. Well evolutionist say the same thing only it’s Lucy the oldest carbon dated “human” actually ape, but mitochondrial DNA and all that is supposed to be the Evolutionary version of Eve from the Bible for evolutionists. In any case why be afraid of the evidence you say doesn’t exist and hasn’t been buried. It’s the fear of God, Heaven, Hell, Sin and all this being real. But there is not need to fear that. John 3:16 Salvation through Jesus the Messiah is for “whosoever”. Do not fear the truth (Jesus), He will set you free.

    • John N

      Oooh, the old ‘Bombardier beetle testifies for Jesus’-argument. Still alive and kicking? No, dead and refuted long time ago.

      And the bacterial flagellum, too? An electric motor? Are we back in the nineties? Nobody told you that there has been found a evolutional pathway which explains this?

      These are both arguments from incredulity that have been answered long time ago. Please stop using them.

      Concerning Mitochondrial Eve, I said she was not ‘Biblical Eve’. Yes, she was our grandgrandgrand…mother, but she lived more than 100.000 years ago (a very long time before your arc story), she was not the only woman around, and she was not married to Adam. And she had at least one daughter, unlike your Eve.

      And she is not Lucy, who is actually an Australopithecine that lived around 3.2 million years ago, is not carbon dated (carbon dating only extends to 50.000 years ago) but argon-argon radiometric dated.

      And how exactly does your creation science explains all this?

      • BarkingDawg

        Goddidit.

  • Yah Saves

    Reading through the comments, I have concluded that religion mucks this whole thing up. In a nut shell, the two Church lies (out of the myriad) that are most damaging to this issue/topic are:
    1. Adam or Eve were NOT the first Homo Sapiens created 6000 years ago. That is NOT what Scripture says.

    2. Scripture also does not speak to a global flood. I know that is what the translation says, but that is not accurate. It may or may not be news to you, but the translation of Scripture is pathetic at best.

    • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

      2 Peter 3:5-6, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:”

      • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

        .
        Lather, rinse, repeat.
        .

  • Paul M

    “creation science”

    LOL.

  • Paul M

    Dear Creationists,

    What has “creation science” done for the world lately? What has it done to help humanity?

    • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

      It cannot do but so much…humanity does not want to be helped. The belief in Creation is the belief in a Creator that creates life. Now look around…is humanity making attempts to preserve the very life that was created? Even if you do believe in evolution, where is the life preservation there? How is humanity helped when women make decisions to kill their offspring? How is humanity helped when men copulate with men and produce zero offspring? How is humanity helped when the majority of the “Christian” sects today push the hell and brimstone message to everyone who does not believe what it in their doctrines? There are baseball stadiums that cost WAY more than this project…where are the outbursts? How is humanity helped by sitting and watching grown men chase balls? Let’s be serious here. This project is miniscule compared to the average tax dollars wasted on complete and utter garbage daily (i.e. the “war on terror”)

      • Paul M

        Whilst we’re clearly on opposite sides of the theism fence, I can’t help but agree with most of what you say.

        • Paul M

          I must’ve skim read a lot of what you wrote…

      • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

        .
        So every creationist is cheering on the EPA?
        .

  • Moyce Andrew Wallis

    Velikovsky !!! 🙂

  • Peter Hinchliffe

    I think “museum” should be a protected term.

    • bowie1

      That would be against freedom of speech to limit the word museum to a narrow definition.

      • Peter Hinchliffe

        Probably and it would probably be impossible to enforce as everything would be disputed, but it would be nice for people to be able to differentiate between a real museum and a theme park.

  • http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ Rich

    Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the BEGINNING OF THE CREATION God made them male and female. ..'” -Mark 10:5-6

    “That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” -Luke 11:50-51

    You can see it in just comparing us with animals that we are nothing alike.

    First of all, it is true because of our fallen state, because of sin, we wear clothes. No animal is interested in wearing clothes. We comprehend life, death, judgement to come and eternity, where no animal has a thought about that, not even apes. We explore space, explore the ocean, span the globe, and are given into marriage through covenants and laws. There is a reason for all this. We have jails, knowing there is judgement, and governments knowing there is justice to be served. We are to be held accountable for our lives and sins.

    You also need to study more how humans have always know about dinosaurs, from cave paintings to pottery (and did you know we still have people living in caves today? It wasn’t some prehistorical living arrangement…all history has been documented, especially in the Bible…there is no prehistoric)…they were called dragons in those days, and the Bible even shows that humans knew about them and had encounters with them on this huge earth.

    • Paul Hiett

      Are you actually claiming that man and dinosaurs lived together?

    • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

      .
      Clothes optional!

      I like that. =8^o

      Let’s address your litany, @mahnster:disqus:

      Jesus never wrote anything, and certainly not in English, or should I say verily not in English.

      Shame is socially induced — ever been to grammar school?

      The only things truly unique about humans are thing like our ability to kill others for nothing more than what’s in our own thoughts.

      The need for protection from the elements is testimony to man’s shoddy design, physically.

      Clothing, traveling to harsh climes, and food preservation, are testimony to self invention.

      Yes, there are people who live in primitive conditions; marvelous opportunities to study social evolution.

      Many animals build permanent relationships and families.

      Apes and elephants and others at least are known to weep and mourn their lost family, just as we do ours.

      Just because we can’t communicate with someone does not mean we know them and does not mean that they cannot communicate with each other, and with themselves.

      What you say about animals is the same thing people used to say about blacks, about aboriginals, about the deaf, dumb, and blind, about mentally and physically compromised people — they can’t dream, they can’t learn, they are heathens, savages, pitiful, dangerous, to be enslaved or annihilate.

      You are (probably clinically) Narcissistically myopic, full of hubris, afraid of the unknown, insisting on filling the unknown, which for you is vast, with poppycock and gibberish just to release your fears of not being the center of attention and importance.

      It’s not all about you.
      .

  • http://loveandtruth.co.uk Faithful and True

    All things are created through evolution. A day is a task God has set to accomplish His work. We are on day six, approaching the seventh day, when all will rest and keep Holy. Mankind cannot possibly comprehend this without reflection and prayer.

    • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

      .
      That’s a great interpretation, @faithful_and_true:disqus : Genesis as metaphor.

      NOT LITERAL.

      Perhaps you could make signage for the Creation Museum:

      [ CAUTION:
      Things in the museum
      are larger than they appear,
      metaphorically speaking. ]

      .

  • Khalid Avito

    I find it disgusting that they would suggest that an evolution based curriculum lead to the Columbine shootings. So are you saying that if we allowed the Christian Bible in schools this would not happen?

    That their morality would be better dictated by a book that covers a loving god that kills almost every living thing on the earth? The morality of a god who murders all Egyptian firstborn… We are talking about the book that condones slavery, sexual slavery, rape weddings and genocide right? The one that says to murder people who don’t follow the Sabbath, to stone women who are not virgins on their wedding night?

    Also if you have scientific evidence then present it. I would love to see it. Oh, but do I need to buy a ticket to your museum to see your “evidence?”

  • bowie1

    I wish them well in their new enterprise as a highlight against the prevailing viewpoint, which is what I was taught in the Canadian Public School System.

  • http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ Rich

    If the ocean was millions of years old, assuming the rate at which the salinity is rising has always been constant, we should be able to walk on the ocean by now, it would be that salty.

    • Joe Agnost

      That would be interesting if true, but the salinity isn’t increasing with time. The oceans aren’t getting saltier:

      http://science1.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/physical-ocean/salinity/

      Unless you think there’s a NASA conspiracy to lie about the data…

    • Paul Hiett

      Where on earth did you learn about science from? Were you home schooled?

    • http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/ Rich
      • Paul Hiett

        “Answers in Genesis”

        Really?

        • Lark62

          Answers in Genesis?

          Okay, I want an answer – Was Adam created before other animals or after other animals. Pick only one.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s an impossible question, there was no “Adam”.

          • Lark62

            Details, details …

          • Paul Hiett

            Well yeah…if there’s no Adam, how can your question be answered?

          • Lark62

            The same way I answer whether Frodo was born in Buckland or Hobbiton. It’s their perfect and infallible myth. And in it, Adam was the pinnacle of creation, created on the 6th day, then he watches as god creates the plants and animals created earlier.

            I’m still waiting fof christians to tell me when god created time machines.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, if you believe in fairy tales, it makes sense.

          • Deina

            But if Adam & Eve were the first humans, who did their sons marry, their sisters? Or were they the children of Adam & his first wife, Lilith, & thus their half-sisters?

            Inquiring minds want to know!

      • Joe Agnost

        AnswersInGenesis (AIG) has a mission statement anyone working there has to agree to. It contains the following:

        “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field,
        including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
        scriptural record.”

        How can you conduct science, or search for any kind of truth, if you throw out any evidence that contradicts your bible. That’s know way to find truth…

      • Lark62

        Answers in Genesis?

        Okay, I would like an answer – Was Adam created before other animals or after other animals. Pick only one.

    • http://www.peterblaise.com/ peterblaise

      .
      So THAT’S how Jesu walked on water.

      Then he turned it into wine, right?
      .

  • bowie1

    I wish them well in their new enterprise and hope it works out for them.

  • Nick Bulka

    “Creation Science” – A contradiction in terms.

  • Michael Grace

    I’ll just sit back and wait until they receive their Nobel prize for providing us with their overwhelming evidence for Creation. Of course, it will be a vast conspiracy if they don’t get one.

    • jacuzzi37

      Your naivety is showing. You apparently don’t realize that the radical left wing atheist zealot ideologues control all of academia and most of the world. Please don’t go to hell based on false propaganda.

      • Michael Grace

        The irony of a Christian warning me about hell “based on false propaganda” would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Unfortunately, you and I will never see eye to eye. That’s the tragedy of the human experience.

  • http://www.remnantofgod.org/ John1429dotorg

    I smell terror attack the day this opens for business…

    • Paul Hiett

      You really think anyone cares about a creation museum opening in Idaho?

    • Deina

      Terrorist attacks typically happen where there are the most potential victims, as in people.

      I suspect Mr. Bennett’s “museum” will be significantly safer than, shall we say, The Thing?
      The Thing (roadside attraction) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_%28roadside_attraction%29

    • oregon_man

      I will bet it never happens. It will never be built because they won’t raise the millions necessary, and the managers will embezzle and/or mismanage what they do raise. Maybe they can help Creflo Dollar buy his $65 million jet for his ministry.

  • truecreation_dot_info

    I guess they can teach the following men a thing or two about how to interpret Scripture!

    “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man… whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

    – Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man

    “…that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection.”

    “For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends.

    “Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me,’ which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. This new consciousness ruled and illuminated the whole organism, flooding every part of it with light, and was not, like ours, limited to a selection of the movements going on in one part of the organism, namely the brain. Man was then all consciousness.”

    – C. S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain

    “It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true Word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to Him. When it becomes really necessary (i.e. for our spiritual life, not for controversy or curiosity) to know whether a particular passage is rightly translated or is Myth (but of course Myth specially chosen by God from among countless Myths to carry a spiritual truth) or history, we shall no doubt be guided to the right answer. But we must not use the Bible (our ancestors too often did) as a sort of Encyclopedia out of which texts (isolated from their context and read without attention to the whole nature and purport of the books in which they occur) can be taken for use as weapons.”

    –C. S. Lewis

    “We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.”

    – Augustine of Hippo

    “If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.”

    – Augustine of Hippo

    “But if you look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will there see more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.”

    – Charles Spurgeon

    “Years ago we thought the beginning of this world was when Adam came upon it; but we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvellous skill, before he tried his hand on man.”

    – Charles Spurgeon

    (Spurgeon didn’t accept evolution, but as you can see from the quotes above, he had no problem with millions of years of creatures living and dying before Adam.)

    “If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man,then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, He were outside time.”

    – G. K. Chesterton: Orthodoxy

    “There is a Christian conception of evolution, and in light of it, I propose to interpret the fall and the redemption of man. To prevent misunderstanding, I must define what I mean by evolution. Evolution is not a cause but a method. God is the cause. He is in his universe, and he is the source of all its activities with the single exception of the evil activity of the human will. When I speak of evolution as the method of God, I imply that the immanent God works by law; that this is the law of development; that God, and the old the basis of the new, and the new an outgrowth of the old. In all ordinary cases God works from within and not from without. Yet this ordinary method does not confine or limit God. He is transcendent as well as immanent. His is not simply ‘in all’ and ‘through all’ but he is also ‘above all.’ “

    – Augustus H. Strong

    “It should scarcely be passed without remark that Calvin’s doctrine of creation is, if we have understood it aright, for all except the souls of men, an evolutionary one. The ‘indigested mass,’ including the ‘promise and potency’ of all that was yet to be, was called into being by the simple fiat of God. But all that has come into being since- except the souls of men alone – has arisen as a modification of this original world-stuff by means of the interaction of its intrinsic forces. Not these forces apart from God, of course…”

    – Benjamin B. Warfield

    “‘Evolution,’ in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name for ‘creation,’ only that the creative power now works from within, instead of, as in the old conception, in anexternal, plastic fashion. It is, however, creation none the less.”

    – James Orr

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      Thank you so much for sharing these quotes. Serious and devout men of God have no problem harmonizing the Word of God with the evidence of science. I’m especially fond of Augustine’s quote about the ridicule of non-believers. You don’t get many patristic quotes around here. I checked out your blog and will read and comment on it. Please see mine bbcatholics dot blogspot dot com. Different focus but I would love to have some dialog that rises above all this pettiness from time to time.

  • truecreation_dot_info

    Many people don’t understand the purpose or the methodology of science. What they understand is the caricature that is presented in the media (and unfortunately, sometimes in the classroom, when the teachers themselves are poorly trained).

    It isn’t the purpose of science to prove anything. If more people — Christians and atheists alike — understood this, our Christian witness to atheists would be much more effective. Proofs are for mathematics. Science only offers the best available explanation for a set of facts. Such an explanation, when it is well-supported, is called a theory. It’s funny how some people decry the use of statistical models in climate change, and then it’s usually those very same people who turn around and use statistical models (very poorly made ones) to “prove” how evolution cannot be true.

    Gravity is a theory. So is evolution. They are both extremely well-supported theories, and they are both observable — even macroevolution. And for Christians (like myself), there is nothing in the theory of evolution that preludes God’s involvement. God is the cause, but Christians should at least be open to the possibility that macroevolution is the method that God used for the diversification of life over millions of years.

    http://truecreation.info

    http://truecreation.info/is-evolution-statistically-impossible/

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    http://phylointelligence.com/evidence.html

    And for those who decry “Darwinism”, recognize that there is nothing in Darwin’s writing which precludes the existence or direct workings of God in nature.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/09/what_darwin_said_about_god.html

    Nonetheless, equating the modern theory of evolution with “Darwinism” would be akin to equating the modern theory of gravity with “Newtonism”. We’ve come a long way in both. Do science offer all the answers? Nope. For all we know about gravity, we still don’t know everything about how it works. Gravitons? Gravity waves? These things are still being tested. Similarly, we don’t know every last detail about evolution. But the theory paints a very consistent picture of how life diversified.

    • jacuzzi37

      Wrong. Not only does purposeless mindless evolution not exist, but it is impossible. There is no mind, power, purpose or ability in the model of evolution. There is no creator for it. You don’t have a mind, power, purpose or ability to start it. You don’t have it to progress it forward. And you don’t have it to maintain what it supposedly created. There is absolutely no ENTITY OR ATTRIBUTE in the model of evolution that would allow anything but total dysfunction & failure; therefore, evolution is a farce, it’s impossible & it has no tools to even do the job you claim it does. Yet
      millions are brainwashed by the atheist anti-God liars that promulgate this lie
      of evolution, which is part of the doctrine of demons (atheism, evolution,
      abiogenesis) that will literally take millions to hell. On top of that, you are
      telling me you are certain of evolution, when it’s SOMETHING YOU HAVE
      PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN!! Therefore, ALL YOU PROVE HERE is that you are totally gullible to false propaganda. Evolution is a purposeless mindless unguided
      process, which makes it impossible to do anything. If you don’t believe me,
      jerk out your brain and make me a ham sandwich. Let’s see how far you get. Go
      ahead and tell me that the human being came from a rock by purposeless mindless
      unguided processes, while it’s nothing but stone cold stupidity.

      • truecreation_dot_info

        Wow. Such a poor argument, and such anger you have in expressing it.

        We have abundant forensic and observed evidence for macroevolution.

        Why do we agree about atomic theory — that atoms are composed of
        electrons, protons, neutrons, and that protons and neutrons are in turn
        constructed from quarks? Nobody has ever seen these tiny particles. But
        we trust that the practice of the scientific method has yielded accurate
        results because of the sheer weight of the evidence in favor of atomic
        theory. We don’t have all the answers about atomic theory. Scientists
        are still debating what quarks are made of. Yet, this doesn’t mean that
        we toss atomic theory in the trash or consider it a “theory in crisis”.
        It’s extremely unlikely that any new discovery will turn our current
        understanding of atoms on end. Does science, as it currently stands,
        have all the answers about evolutionary biology? Of course not. However,
        all of the basics — mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, common descent,
        and natural selection — have withstood the test of over 150 years of
        research, and the evidence from genetics and developmental biology
        within the last 20 years has provided exceptionally strong support for
        evolution that is in agreement with what we have seen in the fossil
        record. The 2010 NOVA documentary, What Darwin Never Knew, is a very
        approachable explanation of some of this recent research. Still, there
        are those who refuse to accept this evidence simply on the basis that
        their interpretation of the Bible (or something else) says it must not
        be true.

        • jacuzzi37

          If it’s such a poor argument, why is it that I can’t be debunked?
          And why is it that I debunk you so easily? Atoms are observed and the quarks are part of the atom and thus, are accepted as theory. But big bang, evolution and abiogenesis have NEVER been seen and they are not a part of anything observed, such as the atom. So you’ve been debunked. Next, mutations are observed, but have nothing to do w/ evolution, which is not observed and has been proven impossible. And nobody uses the fossil record to prove evolution anymore, because both sides agree it’s impossible. So you are clearly behind the times. So I hope I”ve set you
          straight on the difference here. You had very little to say compared to my diatribe, which should be a rather LARGE “red flag” that you have a
          lot to learn.

          • truecreation_dot_info

            Behind the times? Debunked? You clearly think that poor rhetoric and capital letters are enough to formulate an argument. You are way past misunderstanding the methodology of science. You’re in the realm of delusional, and clearly one of the folks that Todd Wood, himself a young-Earth creationist (!), speaks of in this diatribe:

            “Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

            “I say these things not because I’m crazy or because I’ve “converted” to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I’m motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.”

            If you want the reference, Google the above quote and check out his web site.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. Not only does purposeless mindless evolution not exist, but it is impossible. There is no mind, power, purpose or ability in the model of evolution. There is no creator for it. You don’t have a mind, power, purpose or ability to start it. You don’t have it to progress it forward. And you don’t have it to maintain what it supposedly created. There is
            absolutely no ENTITY OR ATTRIBUTE in the model of evolution that would allow anything but total dysfunction & failure; therefore, evolution is a farce, it’s impossible & it has no tools to even do the job you claim it does. Yet millions are brainwashed by the atheist anti-God liars that promulgate this lie of evolution, which is part of the doctrine of demons (atheism, evolution, abiogenesis) that will literally take millions to hell. On top of that, you are telling me you are certain of evolution, when it’s SOMETHING YOU HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN!! Therefore, ALL YOU PROVE HERE is that you are totally gullible to false propaganda. Evolution is a purposeless mindless unguided process, which makes it impossible to do anything. If you don’t believe me, jerk out your brain and make me a ham sandwich. Let’s see how far you get. Go ahead and tell me that the human being came from a rock by purposeless mindless
            unguided processes. Let’s see just how ridiculous you can be, due to your Godless desperation.

          • truecreation_dot_info

            Evolution is a purposeless, mindless process in the same sense that the weather is a purposeless, mindless process. Does that mean that the weather does not exist? Or can you accept that the weather does exist, but that it is, at a fundamental level, used by God to further His own purposes? I am a Christian, as are many others who accept evolution. Most Christian denominations accept evolution — even macroevolution. But I’m not even sure that you believe in God. And you don’t appear to be capable or willing to engage in rational discussion. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that it is even possible for God to have created and used the process of evolution to diversify life? It sure doesn’t sound like it. You don’t think God can do it.

            I believe in a God so great that He can, and does, use every force of Nature which He created, down to the motion of the most minute fundamental particle. Nothing that happens, happens outside of God’s will. If you can believe that God has numbered every hair on our heads, and knows the fate of every person who will ever live, before they were even born, you should have no problem with a God, who created everything and under His providence guides and cares for His creation.

            jacuzzi27, most Christian denominations disagree with you about evolution. Organizations like BioLogos, the American Scientific Affiliation, Christians in Science, would all disagree with you about evolution. And these are all God-fearing organizations. Check out Francis Collins. He’s an outspoken evangelical Christian, the head of the NIH, and he’s written or co-authored several books on this very topic. Check out Kenneth Miller, the author of one of the most widely used biology textbooks, who is also an outspoken Christian. They have the sense to understand that attitudes such as yours are actually driving out millions of kids from taking the Christian faith seriously. This forum discourages the posting of links, so I can just suggest that you google them.

          • jacuzzi37

            Evolution is a purposeless, mindless process in the same sense
            that the weather is a purposeless, mindless process. Does that mean that the weather does not exist? Or can you accept that the weather does exist, but that it is, at a fundamental level, used by God to further His own purposes?
            >>> The weather exists, but is not credited
            for high-complexity arrangement, such as the farce of evolution. As for you being a Christian that accepts evolution, Genesis does not support evolution whatsoever: “Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same KIND–livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals…” – Genesis 1:24

            Not only does purposeless mindless evolution not exist, but it is impossible. There is no mind, power, purpose or ability in the model of evolution. There is no creator for it. You don’t have a mind, power, purpose or ability to start it. You don’t have it to progress it forward. And you don’t have it to maintain what it supposedly created.
            There is absolutely no ENTITY OR ATTRIBUTE in the model of evolution that would allow anything but total dysfunction & failure; therefore, evolution is a farce, it’s impossible & it has no tools to even do the job you claim it does. Yet millions are brainwashed by the atheist anti-God liars that promulgate this lie of evolution, which is part of the doctrine of demons (big bang, atheism, evolution, abiogenesis) that will literally take millions to hell. On top of
            that, you are telling me you are certain of evolution, when it’s SOMETHING YOU HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN!! Therefore, ALL YOU PROVE HERE is that you are totally gullible to false propaganda. Evolution is a purposeless mindless unguided process, which makes it impossible to do anything. If you don’t believe me, jerk out your brain and make me a ham sandwich. Let’s see how far
            you get.

          • truecreation_dot_info

            You’ve reposted this very same post in response to me, almost word for word, three times now. I guess it’s true, in your case, no new information can be generated.

          • jacuzzi37

            Oh, we’re just getting started 😉

            30 Reasons why Evolution is impossible

            1. Mutations degrade information
            & do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

            2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never
            been observed.

            3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is
            impossible.

            4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

            5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

            6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants — not a record of the evolution of life forms.

            7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record period.

            8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

            9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

            10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

            11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately “know” the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

            12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

            13. Evolution is a mindless unguided process and therefore is incapable of intelligent arrangement.

            14. An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere, evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth’s early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth.

            15. All forms of raw energy are destructive. The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he
            employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. Here
            evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available.

            16. DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and
            ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that “Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine).”6 Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the
            chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

            What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and
            survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution.

            17. The “Living Fossil” Fish Proves Evolution is Wrong The
            Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman’s net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs.

            This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.

            The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years, the fish still doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

            18. Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong.

            Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

            This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals, yet evolutionists believe this protein was created by accident.

            The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.

            The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.

            The smallest single-cell creature has millions of atoms forming millions of molecules that must each be arranged in an exact pattern to provide the required functions.

            The cell has an energy-producing system, a protective housing, a security system to let molecules into and out of the housing, a reproductive system, and a central control system. This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance.

            19. Intelligent Design can be Seen in the Smallest Bacteria and the Largest Galaxy

            The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing Intelligent design in nature.

            One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system, called a bacterial flagellum, found in many bacteria, including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules, including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller.

            The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism.

            The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much too small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an Intelligent Designer and not by the mindless unguided process of evolution.

            20. Scientific Fact: Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization in both open & closed systems, cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics, which has never been proven wrong.

            The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally towards disorder or chaos.

            21. Scientific Fact: Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.

            Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

            Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

            22. Scientific Fact: Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem.

            The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang Theory” doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

            23. Evolutionists claim that high-complexity organisms arose spontaneously from a primordial soup of low-complexity chemicals that randomly came together in the beginning of what we now define as “life” BUT this breaks the second law, as order can only go to more disorder. No scientist or group of scientists has ever replicated the primordial beginning of life from pure chemistry to biology
            ON PURPOSE, yet they claim it happened by accident without an intelligent source, which is impossible.

            24. There is no way to get life from non-life. Something from nothing is mathematically, scientifically, and logically impossible and we’re not talking just “something from nothing,” but “a high-complexity/high function cell from nothing” by accident, which is impossible.

            25. The impossibility of spontaneous generation is one of the
            first fundamental tenets of science that a child learns, and yet it is a basic tenet of the evolutionary scientist whether he cares to admit it or not.

            26. Evolutionists believe that life came into being in a sterile
            environment. The intense heat of the primordial world would have killed any potential life form. (This is a testable hypothesis today.)

            27. It’s impossible that the non-physical mind, the non-physical
            “laws” of logic, non-physical reason and the immateriality of morality all were the products of evolution which acted on INFORMATION to make everything work.

            We need to keep reminding evolutionists that they have not
            explained or demonstrated through empirical evidence how even the most simple organism got its start in a hostile chemical soup billions of years ago let alone evolve into what we are today.

            28. It’s impossible that information arose spontaneously.

            29. How did information organize itself to bring about our
            designed world? The computer analogy: The components of a computer did not arise randomly.Computers didn’t just put themselves together.The non-material information needed to run a computer was designed.ithout the program, a computer is worthless.There is no program without a programmer. It’s impossible that information came from mindless unguided processes.

            30. To begin with chemicals and end with humans (let alone
            everything in between) requires changes that increase the genetic information up the evolutionary ladder. This would be like claiming 2 plus 2 equals 5000, which is impossible.

          • truecreation_dot_info

            The prevailing view of the universe among most people at the time that Genesis and the other early books of the OT were written — Israelites and pagans alike — was that the Earth was flat, supported on an unmoving foundation, with an expansive ocean in the sky separated from the Earth by a firmament, or dome (Hebrew “raqia”). Some modern translators translate the word raqia as “expanse” instead of “firmament”, hoping to accommodate some notion of an expanding space which we now know to be true. But it’s clear that the original writers actually meant to describe a hard, solid surface. In describing the firmament, Job 37:18 states, “can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?”

            At that time, the Earth itself was still the immovable center of the universe fixed upon a solid foundation, for this is clearly stated, in very strong language, in multiple places in the Bible, including 1 Chronicles 16:30, 1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5. In 1543, the astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus announced that the Earth moved around the Sun. Blasphemer! Or so the prevailing leaders of the Church — even the Reformed Church — said. Martin Luther is credited with saying, “People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolved, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon… This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

            Even the foremost Reformer of our faith was completely wrong when it came to understanding the natural world through the Bible. How could God in His glory cause the Earth to circle an object that was the subject of so much pagan worship? But now we know that it is true. He grossly misinterpreted Scripture as a scientific text. If Martin Luther can botch this one, it can be forgiven that many Bible teachers with a “creation science” agenda do the same today. But they stand to be corrected.

            John Calvin, in his doctrine of accommodation, explains that God accommodated his style of explanation in the Word to match the sensibilities of the people to whom it was written. Calvin explicitly wrote that he did NOT believe there were waters above the firmament, even though this is specifically and literally stated in Genesis 1, because science had clearly revealed by his time that this was simply not true.

            Calvin did believe in a literal six days of creation, for there was no evidence to the contrary during his lifetime. Augustine of Hippo, one of the earliest Christian theologians, rejected a literal six-day creation, but he did believe that the Earth was approximately 6000 years old. Like many others throughout early Church history, he calculated this age using only the genealogies of Genesis. However, his many other writings about science and Scripture made it very clear that he would adhere to this belief only if there was no evidence to the contrary. We now have an abundance of evidence to the contrary — solid evidence verified by every branch of scientific investigation.

            So now we come to evolution.

            As Christians, we believe that the Bible is inerrant in its original languages. The verses in the Bible, particularly in Genesis Chapter 1, which would be used to argue against evolution (v. 11-13, 20-27) are interspersed with the very same verses that explain the nature of the firmament (v. 6-8), the Sun and the Moon (v. 14-18), and the waters above the dome (v. 6). However, we have already accepted that there is no dome, and there is not (and never was) any water hovering above such a dome.

            Common sense tells us that we should use the same Biblical hermeneutic to interpret ALL of these verses together, in the only way that would render ALL of them inerrant. We can’t pick and choose which verses to take literally based on our emotional response to them. If our interpretation of Genesis doesn’t coincide with what is shown to be true, then it is our interpretation and understanding of the Word that is incorrect, not the Word itself. God used a picture of the universe that the ancients were already familiar with, not to instruct them about how the universe was made, but to reinforce the idea that the universe as they knew it was made by God — the God of Moses. As time advances, the Word remains the same, and its original meaning remains the same, but translations and interpretations are fallible. Thus, it is critical that our interpretation of any Biblical text grasps its true purpose.

            If we understand the purpose and style of the first chapter of Genesis, we understand that it is not a scientific description of the “how.” Even so, there are some truths to be found about the natural world. The order of progression of animal life on Earth from sea creatures to land animals is somewhat in line with the ordering of the days of creation, although we now know that land plants appeared after sea life, and birds appeared much later. And it’s subtly stated that God did not create life directly — verses 11, 20, and 24 show us that God commanded the earth (meaning the ground) and the waters to BRING FORTH plants, fish, birds, and all other animals. It does not say that God brought forth the plants and animals from the earth and the waters, but rather that the earth and the waters BROUGHT FORTH plants and animals under God’s direction. The earth and waters do not have any supernatural powers, for the primary message of Genesis 1 is clear — there is no god of the earth or god of the water. There is only the one true God. Under God’s governance and providence, the earth and waters brought forth all living things, naturally, not supernaturally. If all of these plants and creatures were not created through natural processes, but were instead created fully formed, why bother to identify the earth and the waters as the agency through which God created life?

            Even Adam was made from the dust of the earth, but Adam was something special. God could have made Adam’s body out of nothing, or through supernatural means, but there’s nothing in the text that specifically indicates anything supernatural other than the breath of life, which is identified as the source of Adam’s soul, not his body. For Adam’s body, Genesis shows that like the animals, Adam’s body was formed from the earth, but he was not a living soul until he received God’s supernatural breath of life.

          • jacuzzi37

            30 Reasons why Evolution is impossible

            1. Mutations degrade information
            & do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

            2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never
            been observed.

            3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is
            impossible.

            4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

            5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

            6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants — not a record of the evolution of life forms.

            7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record period.

            8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

            9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

            10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

            11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately “know” the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

            12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

            13. Evolution is a mindless unguided process and therefore is incapable of intelligent arrangement.

            14. An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere, evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth’s early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth.

            15. All forms of raw energy are destructive. The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he
            employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. Here
            evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available.

            16. DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and
            ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that “Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine).”6 Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the
            chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

            What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and
            survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution.

            17. The “Living Fossil” Fish Proves Evolution is Wrong The
            Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman’s net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs.

            This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.

            The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years, the fish still doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

            18. Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong.

            Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

            This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals, yet evolutionists believe this protein was created by accident.

            The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.

            The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.

            The smallest single-cell creature has millions of atoms forming millions of molecules that must each be arranged in an exact pattern to provide the required functions.

            The cell has an energy-producing system, a protective housing, a security system to let molecules into and out of the housing, a reproductive system, and a central control system. This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance.

            19. Intelligent Design can be Seen in the Smallest Bacteria and the Largest Galaxy

            The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing Intelligent design in nature.

            One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system, called a bacterial flagellum, found in many bacteria, including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules, including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller.

            The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism.

            The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much too small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an Intelligent Designer and not by the mindless unguided process of evolution.

            20. Scientific Fact: Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization in both open & closed systems, cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics, which has never been proven wrong.

            The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally towards disorder or chaos.

            21. Scientific Fact: Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.

            Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

            Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

            22. Scientific Fact: Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem.

            The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang Theory” doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

            23. Evolutionists claim that high-complexity organisms arose spontaneously from a primordial soup of low-complexity chemicals that randomly came together in the beginning of what we now define as “life” BUT this breaks the second law, as order can only go to more disorder. No scientist or group of scientists has ever replicated the primordial beginning of life from pure chemistry to biology
            ON PURPOSE, yet they claim it happened by accident without an intelligent source, which is impossible.

            24. There is no way to get life from non-life. Something from nothing is mathematically, scientifically, and logically impossible and we’re not talking just “something from nothing,” but “a high-complexity/high function cell from nothing” by accident, which is impossible.

            25. The impossibility of spontaneous generation is one of the
            first fundamental tenets of science that a child learns, and yet it is a basic tenet of the evolutionary scientist whether he cares to admit it or not.

            26. Evolutionists believe that life came into being in a sterile
            environment. The intense heat of the primordial world would have killed any potential life form. (This is a testable hypothesis today.)

            27. It’s impossible that the non-physical mind, the non-physical
            “laws” of logic, non-physical reason and the immateriality of morality all were the products of evolution which acted on INFORMATION to make everything work.

            We need to keep reminding evolutionists that they have not
            explained or demonstrated through empirical evidence how even the most simple organism got its start in a hostile chemical soup billions of years ago let alone evolve into what we are today.

            28. It’s impossible that information arose spontaneously.

            29. How did information organize itself to bring about our
            designed world? The computer analogy: The components of a computer did not arise randomly.Computers didn’t just put themselves together.The non-material information needed to run a computer was designed.ithout the program, a computer is worthless.There is no program without a programmer. It’s impossible that information came from mindless unguided processes.

            30. To begin with chemicals and end with humans (let alone
            everything in between) requires changes that increase the genetic information up the evolutionary ladder. This would be like claiming 2 plus 2 equals 5000, which is impossible.

          • truecreation_dot_info

            You are quite behind the times in your arguments against evolution.

            Even creation “scientists” don’t use these arguments anymore. Wherever you cribbed this list from, it must be at least 20 years old.

            Mutations have been proven to create information. We now know that there are many different ways that genetic mutations can arise and increase the complexity of the genetic code, such as point mutations, gene duplications, deletions, chromosomal inversions, frameshift mutations, repeat expansions, horizontal gene transfer, endogenous retroviruses, translocations, and others. New information is added to the genome by means of duplications and subsequent divergence in function. In plants, an entire genome duplication can create a new species in a single generation.

            The following reference is from a Christian publication! And he gives concrete, observable examples of mutations creating new information. There are many others referenced in my own article on my web site, truecreation dot info.

            Watts, Jonathan K. “Biological Information, Molecular Structure, and the Origins Debate”. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Volume 63, Number 4, December 2011. pp. 231-239.

            Evolution of a new species resulting from genetic mutations has been observed many times.

            Regarding abiogenesis and its statistical improbability, that has nothing to do with evolution. Nobody teaches any scientific theory of how abiogenesis happened. But we do have plenty evidence showing how evolution happened, which is why we have a well-established scientific theory describing how it works.

            That said, there are no strong mathematical arguments against abiogenesis, just as there are no such arguments against the probability of beneficial mutations leading to evolution. See my own article “Is Evolution Statistically Impossible” on my site truecreation dot info. I’m not posting links, because they are discouraged by this forum.

            There are no fossils of intermediate forms? Are you serious? A third grader could come up with hundreds of examples. Seriously, where did you get this list of arguments from? Even the creation “museum” doesn’t use this argument. Just google “Transitional Fossils”. Go ahead. 🙂

            Most of the remainder of your arguments are just repeating the same arguments about the inability of evolution to increase complexity and information content of DNA which are easily debunked, I have a lengthy list of references on my own web site truecreation dot info.

          • jacuzzi37

            I’m clearly the expert here. You’ve not been able to debunk any of my irrefutable facts, while I’ve debunked all of yours and even proved evolution is impossible 30 times over and I’m not finished. So it’s you that’s behind the times and we both notice you didn’t debunk even one of my proofs.

            Mutations do not create new information. Any new information
            is impossible, due to the fact that you have to go OUTSIDE the genome to get it and from what? And by what mechanism? Sorry, but you don’t get to pull to aces out of the air to win. You must play the hand you’re dealt. The theory of evolution teaches that complex
            life-forms evolved from simple life-forms. There is no natural law
            known that could allow this to happen. It violates the 2nd law and the best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there – therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase
            in genetic information. Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. Fantasy.

          • truecreation_dot_info

            I guess you can teach the following men a thing or two about how to interpret Scripture!

            “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man… whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

            – Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man

            “…that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection.”

            “For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends.

            “Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me,’ which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. This new consciousness ruled and illuminated the whole organism, flooding every part of it with light, and was not, like ours, limited to a selection of the movements going on in one part of the organism, namely the brain. Man was then all consciousness.”

            – C. S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain

            “It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true Word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers will bring us to Him. When it becomes really necessary (i.e. for our spiritual life, not for controversy or curiosity) to know whether a particular passage is rightly translated or is Myth (but of course Myth specially chosen by God from among countless Myths to carry a spiritual truth) or history, we shall no doubt be guided to the right answer. But we must not use the Bible (our ancestors too often did) as a sort of Encyclopedia out of which texts (isolated from their context and read without attention to the whole nature and purport of the books in which they occur) can be taken for use as weapons.”

            –C. S. Lewis

            “We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.”

            – Augustine of Hippo

            “If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.”

            – Augustine of Hippo

            “But if you look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will there see more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.”

            – Charles Spurgeon

            “Years ago we thought the beginning of this world was when Adam came upon it; but we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvellous skill, before he tried his hand on man.”

            – Charles Spurgeon

            (Spurgeon didn’t accept evolution, but as you can see from the quotes above, he had no problem with millions of years of creatures living and dying before Adam.)

            “If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man,then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, He were outside time.”

            – G. K. Chesterton: Orthodoxy

            “There is a Christian conception of evolution, and in light of it, I propose to interpret the fall and the redemption of man. To prevent misunderstanding, I must define what I mean by evolution. Evolution is not a cause but a method. God is the cause. He is in his universe, and he is the source of all its activities with the single exception of the evil activity of the human will. When I speak of evolution as the method of God, I imply that the immanent God works by law; that this is the law of development; that God, and the old the basis of the new, and the new an outgrowth of the old. In all ordinary cases God works from within and not from without. Yet this ordinary method does not confine or limit God. He is transcendent as well as immanent. His is not simply ‘in all’ and ‘through all’ but he is also ‘above all.’ “

            – Augustus H. Strong

            “It should scarcely be passed without remark that Calvin’s doctrine of creation is, if we have understood it aright, for all except the souls of men, an evolutionary one. The ‘indigested mass,’ including the ‘promise and potency’ of all that was yet to be, was called into being by the simple fiat of God. But all that has come into being since- except the souls of men alone – has arisen as a modification of this original world-stuff by means of the interaction of its intrinsic forces. Not these forces apart from God, of course…”

            – Benjamin B. Warfield

            “‘Evolution,’ in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name for ‘creation,’ only that the creative power now works from within, instead of, as in the old conception, in anexternal, plastic fashion. It is, however, creation none the less.”

            – James Orr