Senator Introduces Resolution to Support Designation of Feb. 12 as ‘Darwin Day’

Blumenthal pdWASHINGTON — A U.S. Senator from Connecticut has introduced a resolution that would express Congressional support for the designation of Feb. 12 as “Darwin Day.”

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal introduced Senate Resolution 337 on Dec. 17, which was referred to the Congressional Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for consideration.

“Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection, which, together with the monumental amount of scientific evidence Charles Darwin compiled to support the theory, provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth,” the measure reads in part.

While asserting that teaching biblical creation in public schools “compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the education systems of the United States,” the resolution rather contends that “Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on which to focus and around which to build a global celebration of science and humanity intended to promote a common bond among all the people of the Earth.”

Blumenthal’s effort serves as a companion to a resolution introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Jim Himes also of Connecticut. Co-sponsors of Himes’ measure include Charles Rangel, D-New York; Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-District of Columbia; Alan Grayson, D-Florida; Alan Lowenthal, D-California; Matt Cartwright, D-Pennsylvania and Mark Pocan D-Wisconsin.

The American Humanist Association says that it has been attempting to have the resolution passed for the past five years.

As previously reported, since 2006, hundreds of so-called churches across the nation have commemorated Darwin’s birthday each year with “Evolution Sunday.” But to counter the celebration, Tony Breeden, the founder of Creation Letter, created “Creation Sunday” in 2009 so that churches could publicly proclaim the truth of Genesis.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Even in Darwin’s day, there were ministers who said that there was no contradiction between evolution and Genesis, [and] the fruit of that position is telling, for today Europe is a spiritual wasteland where Christianity is concerned,” he told Christian News Network last year. “This is precisely why we urge churches in the United States and abroad to make a stand for the ultimate authority of the Bible and the historical veracity of Genesis by celebrating a Creation Sunday rather than an Evolution Sunday.”

According to historical documentation, not all of those who accompanied Darwin on his journeys supported his theories. During the 1860 Oxford evolution debate, Admiral Robert FitzRoy, who had once served as the captain for Darwin’s voyage to the Galapagos Islands and played a significant role in the development of the Origin of Species, repented of his participation.

Reports state that FitzRoy walked to the front of the room during the debate, “lifting an immense Bible, first with both and afterwards with one hand over his head, [and] solemnly implored the audience to believe God rather than man.”


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
  • Emmanuel

    Give me a day off to celebrate NOTHING.

  • Reason2012

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

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

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact
    (b) Make up a belief *contrary* to that scientific fact
    (c) Where that belief *never happens, can only be believed in* and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

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

    Evolutionists are ignoring what is observable, scientific fact, make up beliefs that are contrary to this observable, scientific fact, where these beliefs never happen.

    • gogo0

      that is such a disingenuous argument, considering the time over which such a change would occur is far longer than any human lifespan. its not magic like god’s creation, it is a process that takes an incredible amount of time.

      if evolution is ever proven to be incorrect, science happily moves onto the new theory until something better comes along. that is the difference between science and religion. science is always marching forward and looking for better answers, religion vehemently denies anything but the explanation written down thousands of years ago.

      • afchief

        I’m still waiting for an evolutionist to tell me how life started from non-life.

        Waiting………………….

        • gogo0

          youre not waiting for an answer because you dont want an answer that differs from what you read in the bible: spontaneous magic

          like i said, the difference is that science is actually *looking* for answers to questions like the one you just asked, and it has no problem with saying “i dont know”.

          science doesnt professes to have the ultimate answer to that question, you do

          • afchief

            No! I know evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell. It is a tool of satan to discredit God. He uses on people like to you, to cast doubts in God.

          • gogo0

            there is no reason a person cant believe in both science and god at the same time

          • afchief

            Science yes! Evolution no! Evolution contradicts God. It is based on lies.

          • gogo0

            evolution is based on the evidence that we have available to us.

            the bible says nothing of the method used to create everything, only that it happened. not that i agree with it, but intelligent design manages to shoehorn science into the creation fable without contradicting it.

            there are many theists in the world that are not also anti-intellectuals that are working hard on ways to allow people to accept modern knowledge alongside their blind faith.

          • afchief

            The Word of God states that which is known about God is clearly seen. It is KNOWN within you so that YOU are without excuse.

            Romans 1:18-20 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

          • gogo0

            so, your response is to admit you have no argument worth presenting by ignoring everything i said and admonishing me with a random scripture… took you longer than usual

          • afchief

            We Christians live by faith!!!

            Hebrews 11:6 (NASB) And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            He is very good at that.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism is based on an interpretation of evidence based on a religious worldview along with assumption, speculation, and blind faith.

          • David Cromie

            Can you adduce any evidence/proof for the real existence of your supposed supernatural sky fairy?

          • afchief

            It is KNOWN about God within you. You just have suppressed with sin.

            Romans 1:18-22 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

          • David Cromie

            The claims in a book of fables are not evidence of their ‘truth’. The only evidence that would tend to collaborate your position, would be independently verifiable proof of the real existence of your supposed, supernatural, sky fairy.

          • gizmo23

            Just like medical science

          • Oboehner

            spontaneous magic – exploding dot, life popping out of ooze, etc.

          • John N

            … humans created out of dust, woman cloned from a rib, talking snakes and donkeys, the sun standing still …

            Yes, I know what you mean. But I guess religion can make people belief even the stupiest things.

          • Valri

            Beautiful.

          • Oboehner

            Spontaneous life and exploding dots is quite stupid, too bad it’s touted as science – even more stupid.

          • gogo0

            do you *really* not understand that spontaneous magic is what you believe in via the creation myth?? the only people saying that they are happy with everything suddenly popping out of nothingness are CREATIONISTS.

            those who believe evolution takes place are not at all satisfied with saying things popped out of nowhere, and have worked for decades to learn more so they can try to explain it.

            the arguments creationists use against evolution are perfectly applicable to christianity and creationism. “untestable”, “blind faith”, “its a religion”. it is hilarious to see you guys ignore that fact.

          • Oboehner

            I see, the evolutionism myth can speak of life popping out of ooze and that’s true.
            First, any comments on creation only prove a total lack of substance on the part of evolutionism. Second creation is not taught in government schools as some kind of “science”. Thirdly, evolutionism is untestable, un-provable, unrepeatable, unobservable – that’s the fact. It’s a religion.

        • gizmo23

          I think chickens evolved into Air Force chiefs

        • Lexical Cannibal

          I’m still waiting for a Christian to objectively explain why we should trust the bible over literally any other book.

          See, I can play this game, too.

          • afchief

            Why?

            Hebrews 4:12 (NASB) For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            Citing a book as stating that it, itself, is credible isn’t an objective reason to trust it; that’s the antithesis of objectivity. It’s like if I defended a book by quoting

            “Hey, this book is 100% legit and if any other book contradicts it, that other book is wrong.”
            The Book Book pg. 216, Lexical Cannibal.

            Obviously that claim isn’t credible by itself. Most books think they’re right on a given subject, and a lot of them are pretty bunk. This in mind, I have yet to see what factor or factors makes the bible an objectively superior source of knowledge and guidance.

          • afchief

            No, that which is known about God is within you. You just have suppressed it with lies and sin. You will be without excuse when you stand before Him.

            Romans 1:18-21 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            See, you’re doing that thing again where you make a claim that I have no actual objective way to verify, and I’m frankly not sure you understand what that looks like from my perspective. Not convincing, I’ll tell you that.

            If, for instance, I told you that goblins lived in your nostrils and directed your every action, you’d want proof, right? Like putting aside how silly that is, you’d want me to put forward something that confirmed the existence of nose goblins or you’d think I was totally bonkers. If I said “The existence of nose goblins can only be apparent to people who already accept the goblins in their nose.” then you still wouldn’t believe me, because not only have I not offered proof of nose goblins, but I’ve put forward a claim that is not testable; that if you want confirmation of any sort of sinus-based goblins, you first have to believe in them. Bonus, if you start to believe but still don’t see/hear/feel them, I can say that you’re just not believing right, or hard enough for them to appear; something must be wrong with you because I know my nose goblins are there.

            That’s you right now. You’re trying to assert the reliability of a book that does very little more than promise really really hard that it’s for real, and now you’re essentially blaming me for not seeing the logic in your non-proof. Like, don’t get me wrong; I make it a policy of being open to being proven wrong, and if you or someone else can offer objectively real reasons to consider the bible as more of what it claims it is and less as a collection of semi-historical Jewish and early Christian books cobbled together by a bunch of old men with political agendas in the 16th century, then I will seriously consider it as an argument.

            What you’re doing now though, it’s not that. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of “Believe me or you’re dumb.” If nothing else, can you see that from my perspective? How maybe from my end what you’re doing may look like a coverup for having no evidence at all? You’re really adamant about your beliefs, and that’s great; I don’t actually begrudge your belief at all and I hope it keeps you happy for the rest of your life and beyond even; but to those of us without your beliefs, you’re not giving a lot of reason to consider changing our minds, doubly so when you try to tell us that we’re “foolish” and have somehow unconsciously suppressed the truth. If nothing else, if absolutely nothing else, just maybe consider the possibility that the way you like to do things might be pushing more people away from your god than helping move them towards him. If that were true, what would your god have to say about that?

      • ASDRTRE

        Its strange how your theory requires Billions of years to pan out and is practically un-testable. The organism used for Genetic testing is the tsetse fly due to its short lifespan. I’m not aware that science has been able turn them into the beginnings of say a common house fly.

        your problem is that Evolution is MAGIC. Your stating a belief that we Humans evolved from a stone or a rock !!!!

        • John N

          ‘Genetic testing’ is sone a lot on fruit flies (Drosophilla). But I guess that’s all the same ‘kind’ to you. Anyway, ‘genetic testing’ is not supposed to turn fruit flies in common house flies – that would actually refute the theory of evolution.

          I guess you did not really check a science book before commenting here, did you?

          Idem for your claim about humans evolving from rocks. No scientist would claim such a stupid thing. But I happen to know a fairytale of a human that was created from dust. And after that, the magician took his rib and cloned it to a woman! Now that was indeed MAGIC.

      • Reason2012

        <>

        So in other words you imply, in so many words, that science is presenting mythological beliefs that the human race has never seen then “well my beliefs take too long that’s why the human race will never see it – so take my word for it that it happens anyway, call the reasons I believe in it “evidence” or “proof”, and call it science anyway”.

        Thank you for proving my point. Fish to men evolutionism is as anti-science as one can get.

        <>

        You mean like nothing creating something that fish to men evolutionists also tend to believe in?

        Life just magically popping into existence from non-life rather than God creating it?

        You ascribe mythological powers to time passing.

        And it’s interesting in order to defend fish to men evolutionism you fall back on attacking belief in God, which shows why this anti-science belief system of fish to men evolutionism is so dogmatically and rabidly defended.

        <>

        Yes, science adjusts – fish to men evolutionism is not science and they have no intention of discarding it.

        Not to mention you can’t “test” that mythological made up belief – saying “yes I believe in it too for the same reasons you do” is not a “test”.

        It’s been proven wrong by showing what *is* science: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on.

        What do you have against this observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact?

        <>

        Yes, science moves forward – fish to men evolutionism retards science and holds progress back. Along with “explanations” like “nothing did it” or “nothing created something” or “give it time – anything is possible”.

        • David Cromie

          It is you Dark Ages Creationists that are desperately trying to hold back science, by insisting that a supposed ‘god did it’, once and for all, set in stone, thereby making science redundant when it comes to finding out how the actually universe ticks..

          • Reason2012

            You mean as opposed to your “nothing did it” explanation? “It just happened”? “Just takes time”? “Don’t look into any more uses for those organs because they’re vestigial” only to find out later they had uses after all?
            Ad hominem is all you can bring to the table to defend what’s supposed to be science. Fish to men evolutionism as as anti-science as one can get.

          • David Cromie

            You definitely know nothing about science, survival of the fittest, or evolution in general.

            But you rely on a book of fairy tales, legends, and folklore, coming up with ‘my supposed sky fairy is the answer to the origins of the universe’, and that must be true because I believe it to be so’, having ‘faith’ in the ‘truth’ of mere fairy tales, and because millions of others have done/do believe so too. Now that is real scientific method in action!

      • Oboehner

        If evolutionism is proven incorrect, the evidence will be buried, and the person responsible fired and black listed.

        • John N

          If.

          • Oboehner

            It fails time and again. The big “if” is if it is ever proven at all, which it won’t.

    • gizmo23

      We never have observed gravity or an electric current so they must not exist

      • Reason2012

        We observe objects fall to the ground – no faith required. Has the human race ever seen populations of fish ‘evolve’ over generations over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish? No such thing has ever happened for any populations of animal in the existence of the human race – faith galore.

        • gogo0

          can you SEE gravity? no you cannot, only an effect we attribute to this invisible thing. maybe it isnt anything like what we think it is. this being the case, you ought to add the theory of gravity to your list of things you cant see and therefore dont believe in. or… is that things you cant see and therefore DO believe in…? its hard to remember, you guys use the same argument against evolution that you use in defense of the bible.

        • gizmo23

          We didn’t see the Sun form either so it didn’t happen

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    If we can celebrate Benjamin Franklin’s birthday, why not other famous Americans like Darwin? Maybe we can have an Obama day too.

    • gizmo23

      Darwin was English. We do have a presidents day

  • ASDRTRE

    Darwin wrote there was no fossil evidence to support his theory and to date there still isn’t any.

    • John N

      One word: Archaeopteryx

    • gogo0

      http :// www . skytopia . com/project/evolution/human-skull-evolution-3840.jpg

      oh yeah, none. none at all…

    • afchief

      You are correct!

      Evolution: Science or Creation Story?

      The uninformed are sometimes of the opinion that the debate over evolution is about science versus the Bible. This could not be further from the truth. The modern debate is about whether or not science itself supports the theory of evolution. This article is about the scientific problems of Darwinism. In other articles we address the theological aspects of the debate. This 2-part video is an excellent summary of the scientific problems with evolution: Icons of Evolution.

      As evidenced by a wave of recent books on the subject, there is a growing uneasiness in the scientific community about the validity of Darwinian evolution. Many scientists and philosophers are taking a fresh look at evolution, and based on the latest evidence are raising huge questions. Indeed, a hard look at the scientific data accumulated since the time of Darwin in the late nineteenth century, is leading some observers to conclude the following: The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so fragmentary that it would not command any respect at all, if it were not for the fact that the evolutionists have agreed in advance to exclude all thought of intelligent design.

      There are, it seems, two definitions of science. One is to look at the facts, test the hypothesis, and see where it leads you—even if you don’t like it. This, of course, is the traditional definition. But many are now questioning whether evolutionary dogma may have used a second definition—to start with a definition of naturalism, and look only at the pieces of evidence which fit that philosophy.

      The purpose of this essay is to survey several books on the topic, and to present their arguments about the growing problems for evolution. The reader is asked, for the moment, to look at this question as a true scientist would—that is, without a preconceived conclusion. Rather, examine the evidence as a jurist in a court of law.

      Over 700 scientists worldwide have signed a statement of scientific dissent from Darwinism. See this website for the statement and list of signers of the statement: Scientific Dissent Statement.

      This article is primarily an article about science. But we will examine aspects of the philosophy behind this debate. We specifically will not draw from the Bible. Yet we will demonstrate how Darwinists are more closed-minded than Christians.

      http://www.faithfacts. org/evolution-or-creation/evolution-science-or-creation-story

      • Cady555

        This is false. There is absolutely no scientific doubt about the fact of evolution.

        The 700 names on the Disvovery Institute’s list is old news. This list includes non scientists and several who were surprised to find themselves on the list and asked to be removed.

        Google Project Steve. The National Center for Science Education answered the Discotute’s list of names with their own list. To be on the NCSE list, one must affirm evolution, have a PhD in a relevant field, and be named some variant of Steve. There are about 1400 Steves and counting on the NCSE list.

        • afchief

          EVOLUTION— THE BIG LIE!

          http://www.lovethetruth. com/evolution/big_lie.htm

          • gizmo23

            Evolution is fact

          • Amos Moses

            Evolution is not observable and is not science.

          • gizmo23

            Science doesn’t have to be observable. Biology is science

          • Amos Moses

            All science is observable, testable and repeatable…… or it is not science.

            Biology is all that. Evolution is not.

          • gizmo23

            We have never observed genes splitting, molecules being formed, x-rays, gravity, yet these things are all science.

          • Amos Moses

            Explain how Golgi apparatus “evolved”.

          • gizmo23

            I have no idea. Describe what a quark looks like

          • John N

            Evolution IS Biology. Maybe you missed some classes in college?

            Again, which scientific method needs ‘repeatable’ events? I guess you don’t belief in forensic science, cosmology, geology, archaelogy and history either?

          • Amos Moses

            Biology is the study of living things, Bio – life, ology- the study of….

            You cannot argue if you do not understand the basic meaning of the terms.

          • gizmo23

            Evolution deals with living things

          • Amos Moses

            No, it does not. It deals with seeing a bone and making up a story about how it got there. It is make believe.

          • gizmo23

            Have have absolutely no understanding of science or evolution

          • Amos Moses

            Neither does anyone who pushes evolution as science.

          • John N

            Strange that a creationist is explaining a biologist what his expertise is all about.

            Evolution is the gradual change of inherited threats in LIVING ORGANISMS.

            And now please answer my question: which scientific method needs ‘repeatable’ events? I guess you don’t belief in forensic science, cosmology, geology, archaelogy and history either?

          • Amos Moses

            Biologists do many things that have nothing to do with science.

            Sorry to inform you, but just because a scientist says it is science, does not make it science.

            “And now please answer my question: which scientific method needs ‘repeatable’ events?”

            They all do or it is not science. It is opinion and it is fantasy.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Don’t feed the the copy paste champion. He gives you a lot to read. Oh and his mantra is, I don’t agree with you, so you’re lying.

          • gogo0

            “I don’t agree with you, so you’re lying.” -that pretty much sums up the creationist position.
            I think that it is exciting to be an unbeliever! if there was some breakthrough tomorrow that definitively replaced evolution, it would spark a new age of study and understanding about the beginnings of life. science doesn’t fear this, it welcomes it, and that embrace of change has led humanity to remarkable breakthroughs.
            creationists continually trying to discredit evolution as “science” is so that they can continue to enjoy the benefits of scientific breakthroughs without having to acknowledge that they are anti-knowledge hypocrites.

        • Amos Moses

          “There is absolutely no scientific doubt about the fact of evolution.”

          It is all based on faith and unproven. It is not science. It is not observable, it is not testable, and it is not repeatable. That is science.

          Show me even one time any animal changed into another animal by “evolution”.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            You are thinking about religion right now. It is all based on faith and unproven.

          • Amos Moses

            Evolution is religion…………..

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Evolution is truth, religion is not. You believe what you want, I’ll do the same.

          • Reason2012

            <>

            You unwittingly admit fish to men evolutionism can only be believed in – science is about things that actually happen where no belief is required.
            Objects drop to the ground: no belief required.
            Disease spreads: no belief required.
            Matter affects matter: no belief required.
            Populations of fish evolving over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish? Belief of mythological proportions required.

            You’re free to believe “what you want” – others are just pointing out what you unwittingly admitted: it’s just a belief (i.e., not science).

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            It’s science. Science I believe, your bible I do not.

          • John N

            ‘It is not observable, it is not testable, it is not repeatable’

            Wrong. Wrong. Not relevant.

            ‘Show me …’

            Why? The Theory of evolution does not say that.

            Show me any example of an organism that was created from nothing.

          • Amos Moses

            “Wrong. Wrong. Not relevant.”

            Then it is also not science.

            “Show me any example of an organism that was created from nothing.”

            That is what evolution and TBBT claim. That everything came from nothing. That it “assembled” on its own.

            So you explain it……………..

          • Meepestos

            Anyone with a grasp of what Theory of Evolution entails, that agrees with it or not, would not come up with statements like “That is what evolution and TBBT claim. That everything came from nothing. That it “assembled” on its own.” I suspect you have not been thoroughly evaluating your sources.

          • Amos Moses

            So no real refutation, just …………….. not sure what you would call it ……. i would say Ad Hominem …… but you have a round about way of saying nothing.

          • John N

            Since when is repeatability of the event a necessity for scientific evidence?

            I’m sorry, no scientific theory says everything came from nothing. Creationism does claim that, but creationism is certainly not science.

            So it is you who has a lot of explaining to do.

          • Meepestos

            “but creationism is certainly not science.”
            I’ve yet met an educated ordained priest or theologian that would call creationism science; it seems mostly fundamentalists do though.
            Good to see on the forums there are religious folk that recognize creationism is not science.
            “You can find religion without creationism, but you will never find creationism without religion.” – Jerry A. Coyne

          • Amos Moses

            “Since when is repeatability of the event a necessity for scientific evidence?”

            Ah, gee, ahhhhhh, SINCE SCIENCE WAS CALLED SCIENCE.

          • John N

            Wrong. You clearly do not know what defines science. Try again.

          • Amos Moses

            Clearly you don’t, i do not care what degree you may hold.

            Just because a scientist says it is science, does not make it science.

          • John N

            Right.

            But if a religious zealot says it is not, therefore it is not. Whatever the scientist community agrees on.

          • Amos Moses

            “Whatever the scientist community agrees on.”

            Gee, did they not “agree” on this…..

            Global warming,,,, no wait,,, that was 10 years ago,,, Climate change,,,, no wait, that was yesterday…. Sorry,,,, Hey Fred,,,, What is the new change in terms so i can get my lies straight………………

            15 years ago they wrote articles about saying good bye to snow….

            Sure,,,, i got this bridge i need to sell……………….

          • John N

            Trying to further derail the subject, Amos? No arguments left for refuting evolution?

            In that case we can close the discussion. Science 1 – Religion 0.

          • Amos Moses

            At least you got the score right. i do not need religion to destroy evolution.

            In case you have not noticed, i am using SCIENCE to destroy it. And you are losing.

          • John N

            You are USING SCIENCE? Don’t hurt yourself.

            A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. You never know when it will backfire.

            DId you also USE SCIENCE to find out what extant dinosaurs are or do you need me to explain it?

          • Amos Moses

            “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

            And no knowledge is even more dangerous. But even worse is having knowledge and not using it, like you.

            “extant dinosaurs”

            Not sure what that is and it is the second time you have used it. i know what an EXTINCT one is.

            And you have no evidence if it was warm blooded or cold blooded or anything else.

          • Amos Moses

            Extant – still in existence……………

            i guess you could say reptiles are but beyond that you have no evidence that they became birds or anything else.

          • John N

            Like I said, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

            Reptiles are actually ancestors of dinosaurs, birds and mammals. I’m afraid there is conclusive evidence of their relationship in the form of transitional fossils, and anatomical and molecular similarities.

            The only dinosaurs remaining today are birds.

          • Amos Moses

            “Reptiles are actually ancestors of dinosaurs, birds and mammals.”

            No evidence, where is the evidence.

          • John N

            This is looking more and more like a merrry- go-round.

            So you want evidence of birds being dinosaurs.

            One word. Archaeopterix.

          • Meepestos

            It’s been awhile since I looked at my books, but my understanding is that a surviving single group of feathered dinosaurs evolved over millions of years into modern birds hence we can classify birds as reptiles. Birds are more closely related to reptiles than anything else. And then there is Therapsids, a group of reptiles, branched off, which eventually became modern mammals.

          • John N

            Yes, that is about it. And Archaeopteryx is today considered not an ancestor but a sister group of all extant birds. Still a fine example of a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

          • Amos Moses

            Again, a reptile that looks like a bird, that we only have in fossil form, means nothing. It is not testable as to what it was.

            A koala bear looks like a bear. It is not, it is a marsupial. But if all you had was a fossil, someone might claim it was a bear. Meaningless without a test that can be repeated to prove what it is.

            Got any DNA?

          • John N

            Just like I said. Evidence doesn’t mean anything to you.

            The fossil remains of Archaeopteryx shows a mix of reptile and bird characteristics. If you have got a better way of explaining that, please do it!

            A koala might look like a bear to non- scientists like you, but when the skull is present, fossils of marsupiala can not be mistaken for those of other mammals. And of course the anatomy of marsupials shows clearly the descendance from reptiles, just like the anatomy of birds.

            Glad you ask about the DNA. Yes, we have. Bird DNA shows us they are most related to crocodiles, even closer than crocodiles are related to turtles. Now again, what is your explanation for such a remarkable fact?

          • Amos Moses

            It means something if you have any…………………………. you don’t.

            An explanation based on a snap shot in time means nothing as to what was going on. Take a picture of a bullet leaving a gun.

            Who pulled the trigger, what did the bullet hit, did it hit anything, did it kill anyone? You do not know from what you see…… because…. you have no evidence.

            I do not have to explain it. There is no explanation. Mostly because there is no evidence and therefore no context.

            Feel free to continue to make up stories about it though.

          • John N

            Thanks, but I leave the making-up of stories to the religious folk.

            Isn’t it strange though, you admit creationists have no explanation for even the most common facts of reality, but still want to push their religious belief as science?

            How much indoctrination is necessary to reach such a level of dissonance?

          • Amos Moses

            “Isn’t it strange though, you admit creationists have no explanation for even the most common facts of reality, but still want to push their religious belief as science?”

            Try bringing some facts and we will see, but what little you have brought is this. A fossil of what may look like a bird but we can say nothing beyond that as there is no context.

            If you want people to believe a lie, you sprinkle in a little truth. Fraudster have been doing it since man could talk. If you want to prove christianity a fraud, that is a different conversation that continues to fail through history…… but go for it.

            Piltdown man, Peking man…………….. both proven hoaxes from your side of the aisle. And you encourage others to follow those footsteps.

            “How much indoctrination is necessary to reach such a level of dissonance?”

            Answer your own question.

          • John N

            >’A fossil of what may look like a bird but we can say nothing beyond that as there is no context.’

            No, a fossile that looks BOTH like a bird and like a reptile, in so much as that even you can’t even decide what it is – calling it first a reptile and now a bird.

            Combined with the anatomical and molecular evidence of birds being the closest relatives of crocodiles … I still got no explanation from creationists for that.

            Piltdown man was a hoax created by people who deliberatly tried to abuse science to support their own, in this case nationalistic, ideas. Sounds very much like creationists if you ask me.

            Peking man a hoax? How so?

          • Amos Moses

            “No, a fossile that looks BOTH like a bird and like a reptile, in so much as that even you can’t even decide what it is – calling it first a reptile and now a bird.”

            And thus you point out correctly that YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT IT IS. A picture means nothing and adds nothing to your case. You have no data, you have no evidence, you have nothing…… but a story to go along with it.

            “Peking man a hoax? How so?”

            Where are they? The fossils. They have disappeared. You would think that something of such a monumental discovery would be safeguarded. But an evidence they may have held is gone.

            “Piltdown man was a hoax created by people who deliberatly tried to abuse science to support their own, in this case nationalistic, ideas. Sounds very much like creationists if you ask me.”

            No, evolutionists trying to bolster their lie. And they got caught.

          • John N

            >’And thus you point out correctly that YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT IT IS. ‘

            No Amos, pointing out that YOU don’t know what it is.

            Luckily we don’t depend on creationists like you to explain the world, we have scientists.

            >’Where are they? The fossils.’
            The teetth are in the Paleontological Museum of Uppsala University, like I told you. And the cast made of the original bones are all over the world.

            … and they got caught by scientists who checked the facts. Unlike creationists, who never make their hands dirty except by reading the bible.

          • Amos Moses

            “No Amos, pointing out that YOU don’t know what it is.”

            No, you don’t know what it is either. You have a story about what it looks like. Like a koala bear looks like a bear, bu is not.

          • Amos Moses

            So what you said is only partially correct as only four teeth have been found:

            The fossils of Peking Man were stored at the Union Medical College in Peking. Eye-witness accounts state that in 1941, while Beijing was under Japanese occupation, but just before the outbreak of hostilities between Japan and the Allied Forces during the Second World War, the fossils were packed into two large crates and loaded onto a US Marine vehicle bound for the port of Qinhuangdao in northern China, close to the Marine base at Camp Holcomb. From there they were to be sent by ship to the American Museum of Natural History in New York, but the fossils vanished en route.[20]

            Various attempts have been made to locate the fossils, but so far without success. In 1972 US financier Christopher Janus offered a $5,000 (USD) reward for the missing skulls; one woman contacted him asking for $500,000, but she subsequently vanished.[21] In July 2005, to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, the Chinese government set up a committee to find the bones.

            Theories about the fate of the bones range from their having been on board a Japanese ship (the Awa Maru), or an American ship that was sunk, to being ground up for traditional Chinese medicine.[20] Four of the teeth, however, are still in the possession of the Paleontological Museum of Uppsala University.

            And it does not change the connection to the fraudster Chardin.

          • Amos Moses

            “… and they got caught by scientists who checked the facts. Unlike creationists, who never make their hands dirty except by reading the bible.”

            Mainly by three scientists who followed the scientific method and caught them. Oakley, Clark, and Weiner.

            Not caught by the hundreds of “scientists” who just accepted what they were told, for over 40 years, like what we are told about birds “evolving” and showing no evidence. The vast majority of “scientists” did no research or even asked questions about such a foolish and obvious fraud. So it seems they could not “dirty their hands” either. They just swallowed what was fed to them.

          • David Cromie

            Where is the evidence that you have a brain?

          • Amos Moses

            So you have no evidence and all you have is ad hominem.

            Good one…….. and you still have no evidence.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            What about turtles and crocodiles?

          • John N

            Turtles and crocodiles are reptiles, but not dinosaurs. They miss the typical dinosaurs erect limb posture and they were/are all cold blooded.

            Crocodiles are ancestors of dinosaurs and therefore the closest living relatives of birds. They are even more closely related to birds than to turtles.

          • gogo0

            we dont know the answer to that question, thats why people devote their time and effort to learn more and bring us closer to an answer.

            science is not content, as you are, to say ‘someone wrote down the answer 2000 years ago, there is nothing left to learn’

          • Amos Moses

            then you cannot make the statement that “it is settled” when it is not.

          • gogo0

            okay, so what is a better theory?
            following creationist anti-evolution criticisms as guidelines, it must be something testable, repeatable, and not a religion of course.

          • Amos Moses

            Religion is not science, not the same standard. Sorry.

            You are the one here pushing your theory. Creation is not a theory. It is common sense. Things do not just appear and become after an explosion a million years ago and actually, the more time you add to that, the Less likely it becomes, not more likely.

            Chaos does not bring order, Common sense. Destruction does not bring order, Common sense. Buildings, books, roads, and everything you can name was created. You are infinitely more complex than any of those things, a single cell is infinitely more complex than any of those things, but you believe it just appeared out of chaos. That is evolution and it is a lie.

            And it is not settled.

          • gogo0

            yes we know that religion cannot be proven, measured, tested, or even understood. your position is indefensible because it makes no sense. the theory of evolution is humanity’s latest, and so far best attempt at understanding life.
            if a seed blows off a flower into a forest fire, it will burn, die, and not grow. if a seed blows onto fertile soil, receives regular water and exposure it to sunlight, it will likely grow.
            the only difference between “chaos” and “ideal conditions” is luck, and in the case of the seed above, that is clear because we have knowledge of what a seed needs to grow. the universe’s beginning is incomprehensible to us because we don’t know why or exactly how it happened, and that’s why people continue to study it. it is the same with the beginnings of life. hopefully some day we will know enough to understand that as well as we now understand the microtransistor, an incomprehensible device not even 100 years ago.

          • gogo0

            evolution being known as “settled” does not mean that it is “the” answer, it means that it is the best answer we have as people continue to study.

            astronomy is “settled” and there are constant new discoveries and changes. similarly, if something better than evolution is identified, then it will be adopted.

          • Bob Johnson

            Germ Theory is also settled science and yet much work still needs to be done. However, I lament that some here still believe in demon caused illnesses.

          • Meepestos

            Aside from you appearing to be scientifically illiterate, your ill informed creationist-like statements certainly demonstrates you know little of the subject you are debating about. In order to come up with some better arguments and opinions for your fellow forum members, please consider educating yourself and attaining a thorough understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

            You might also want to consider understanding how observations agree with or conflict the predictions derived from an hypothesis by using experiments. A lot of the scientific knowledge that we have accumulated over the years is not always built directly through observation.

          • Amos Moses

            Even Dawkins will tell you that evolution Is Not Observable.

            Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none of those.

          • Meepestos

            You clearly do not understand the subject you are discussing. It seems your opinions stem from your beliefs and some mine quoting hence for now it is hard to take you serious. Perhaps you could take up your misconceptions and opinions with Dawkins himself or with a professor or even a theologian with a tertiary education from a prestigious university, You could take up your opinions with David R. Pilbeam, Professor of Human Evolution at Harvard. He can be contacted by his email on the department’s site. Fair warning though, he had his quotes taken out of context by creationists.

          • Amos Moses

            “You clearly do not understand the subject you are discussing. ”

            Clearly one of us does not, and it is you.

          • gogo0

            he is on the side that wants to understand more, you are on the side that believes an ambiguous chapter of an old book has answered all the questions. regardless of evolution’s accuracy and reproducibility, coming from the anti-knowledge side discredits you

          • John N

            Dawkins wrote several books filled with observations of evolution.

            I guess you did not take the time to read them further than the cover, did you?

          • Amos Moses

            Show me one instance of any animal “evolving” into being another animal or plant or a plant “evolving” into an animal or anything besides what it is.

            There is none…………………………

          • John N

            Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly.

            Culex pipiens forma molestus, the London Metro mosquito.

            The E. coli strains that evolved in the Lenski-experiment.

            Need more?

          • Amos Moses

            And what were they and what did they become?

            You may be talking about micro-evolution, the development of new or different traits. Evolution also includes macro-evolution where a new species appears. There is no such mechanism to make the theory work and it does not work without it.

          • John N

            The were animals evolving into different animals, just like you asked. Animals with a different genotype and as a result a different phenotype. You’re not going to move the goalposts again, will you? Mind the floor!

            I may not be talking about micro- and macro-evolution, I prefer scientific terminology. And in fact, there is no known mechanism that keeps animals from speciation.

          • Amos Moses

            “The E. coli strains that evolved in the Lenski-experiment.”

            Became what? Oh right, they were still E. Coli…..

            “Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly.”

            Became what? Oh, right, still a fly…………

            “Culex pipiens forma molestus, the London Metro mosquito.”

            Still a mosquito……………

            Did traits change? Sure, no question but…… (and the goal posts are not moving as i said previously, animal from one animal to another animal or plant)

            “And in fact, there is no known mechanism that keeps animals from speciation.”

            But you cannot show it as a process of evolution… Got a dog turned into a cat or a palm tree or the other way, or any way? As a result of “evolution”?

            No you don’t………………………

          • John N

            Wow, wait … first you tell me evolution is a lie … when I show you examples, then you say you actually accept evolution …
            but within certain constraints … and that is not moving the goal posts?

            So what kind of constraints do you see? How flexible are they? What mechanism is inhibiting organisms from evolving beyond those constraints?

            You give the example of turning a dog into a cat – as if the theory of evolution actually says that, which it doesn’t – but what do you think is inhibiting a cat to ‘ turn into’ a dog? Could a cat ‘turn into’ a lion? Into a sabre tooth? Into a hyena? Why or why not?

            So many questions, so little answers so far – but I’m sure you’ll come up with some, because you know what real science is, don’t you?

            By the way, our musea are filled with transitional fossils, intermediate between cats and dogs, dinosaurs and birds, fish and amphibians, etc., showing your constraints in reality do not exists.

            How do you explain that?

          • Amos Moses

            Adaptation is accepted. But that is such a small part of evolution as to be laughable to build the rest of the theory on.

            And you still have no evidence of a dog becoming anything but a dog, a cat anything but a cat, a tree anything but a tree…….ad nauseum.

            But if you every find any evidence, and that would be science, then let me know.

          • John N

            Adaptation is acceptable? Now that is a relief.

            But wait – what is your definition of ‘adaptation’? Is ‘turning’ a cat into a lion adaptation? If not, why is it acceptable?

            By the way, I can not show you evidence of a cat ‘turning’ into a dog. That would refute the theory of evolution.

            I could show you evidence of them having a common ancester, but then you already decided fossil, anatomical and molecular evidence doesn’t count …

          • Amos Moses

            “I could show you evidence of them having a common ancester, but then you already decided fossil, anatomical and molecular evidence doesn’t count”

            No, i did not say it does not count, a fossil is not definitive evidence.

            Just because it may have the appearance of both means nothing. A koala bear looks like a bear and if you found one that was a fossil thousand years from now, someone might say it was a bear.

            It is not, it is a marsupial. Looking at a fossil or a bone, and then making up a story to go with it is an hypothesis. But an hypothesis proves nothing if it is not tested. and if that test is not repeatable, it is useless as far as proving your theory.

          • John N

            Look who’s talking.

            So you have decided now that because you are not able to determine the fossil remains of a koala as a marsupial, therefore professional paleontologists will neither and therefore will make up a just-so story to explain the facts.

            Talking about hubris? Or religious projection?

            And of course if professional paleontologists find a lot of very complete fossils of Archaeopteryx clearly showing a combination of both reptile and bird characteristics, and combine these finds with anatomical and molecular evidence, the result is still a just-so story.

            And all this just because a bunch of religious zealots don’t like the conclusion because they think it contradicts their version of their holy book.

          • Amos Moses

            “So you have decided now that because you are not able to determine the fossil remains of a koala as a marsupial, therefore professional paleontologists will neither and therefore will make up a just-so story to explain the facts.”

            No, they have decided that, with no evidence other than a picture, that is all a fossil really is, that is is a bird that was a dinosaur and it was warm blooded, and there is no other evidence to prove the point.

            “Talking about hubris? Or religious projection?”

            Yes, that is what they are doing. They are using their own a-theistic hubris and projection to push an agenda. With no evidence……………….

          • John N

            A fossil is just a picture … i guess the only fossil you ever saw was in an elementary school book.

            Well, I wish you good luck in staying ignorant. You’ll need it when one day you might drop your bible and come in touch with the real world.

          • Amos Moses

            See, you cannot refute the argument so you insult and condescend as if that settles anything. You are being asked for more evidence. You do not have any. You insult. It is a diversion and a very poor debate tactic. It is a false debate tactic.

            Piltdown man, – (The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknownearly human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England.) was “settled science” for so long, until it was proved to be a fraud.

            Peking man – (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French: [pjɛʁ tejaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃]; 1 May 1881 – 10 April 1955) was a French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as apaleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man.) Also proven to be a fraud.

            Sorry, just making up stories has a long history in “evolution” theory.

            Get some evidence………………………

          • John N

            Like I said, Piltdown man was a fraud created by people with an agenda, just like creationists abuse science to promote their agenda. By the way, scientists already identified it as a fraud one year after the discovery.

            And Peking man is an example of H. erectus. If you have proof of it being fraud, please contact the Paleontological Museum of Uppsala University, where the remaining teeth of Peking man are stored. But I guess you just believe what your pet creationist websites publish.

            So you make up whatever stories you need, never give any explanation for the observations I present, but still want more evidence for a settled scientific theory? You dare, I must say.

            I was indeed being asked for more evidence. Evidence for the evolution of butterflies, of holometabolism, of birds, of marsupialia …

            Everytime I came up with an explanation pointing to the evidence, you somehow did not find it acceptable: first you start moving the goal posts (butterflies), you just skip the subject when you are out of arguments (metamorphosis) or you declare fossils don’t count (Archaeopteryx), …

            My conclusion (like I said in the beginning): you don’t want evidence. You don’t need evidence. Your mind is already made up, your conclusion is clear, your holy book is al you need. Goddidit.

          • Amos Moses

            Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French: [pjɛʁ tejaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃]; 1 May 1881 – 10 April 1955) was a French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as apaleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man.

            This man was involved in both and was a trained paleontologist and geologist. and was involved in both Peking man and Piltdown hoaxes.

            “The identity of the Piltdown forger remains unknown, but suspects have included Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Arthur Keith, Martin A. C. Hinton, Horace de Vere Cole and Arthur Conan Doyle.[“

          • John N

            I see you can copy and paste.

            And what is your point? Do you consider Peking Man a fraud?

          • Amos Moses

            Absolutely, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was involved in both……..

          • John N

            Interesting.

            Now talking about evidence… what is your evidence Peking Man is a fraud?

            Or are you just Gishing?

          • Amos Moses

            Well, if a bank is held up, and we catch the guy involved, and then he is involved in a similar action, then i have to question why is the same guy there and what is he doing. People do not change what they do, they tend to do the samething over and over.

          • Amos Moses

            Please feel free to point out the creationists:

            The focus on Charles Dawson as the main forger is supported by the accumulation of evidence regarding other archaeological hoaxes he perpetrated in the decade or two prior to the Piltdown discovery. Archaeologist Miles Russell of Bournemouth University analyzed Dawson’s antiquarian collection, and determined that at least 38 of his specimens were fakes.

            Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Arthur Keith, Martin A. C. Hinton, Horace de Vere Cole and Arthur Conan Doyle.[

          • John N

            Please feel free to actually read what I said.

          • Bob Johnson

            Read? Evidence? I have a hypothesis that someone has built a Turing Machine based on the old Eliza computer program.

          • David Cromie

            Since you are so keen on evidence; Where is the irrefutable evidence for the reality of your supposed supernatural ‘creator’ sky fairy, and what scientific tests could be used to confirm it?

          • Amos Moses

            Sir, science is based on EVIDENCE, religion is based on FAITH.

            If you want to argue science, then the standard is EVIDENCE. Otherwise you are just trying to substitute your FAITH for another. And it is a different conversation than the one we are having.

            You don’t want to believe in God, I DO NOT CARE. But you do believe in and have FAITH in “evolution”, it is blind FAITH and it god is Darwin……..

            and to a lesser degree Dawkins.

            Hope that works out for you.

          • gogo0

            “It is all based on faith and unproven. It is not science. It is not observable, it is not testable, and it is not repeatable.”

            you just explained creationism

          • Amos Moses

            And evolution. And the difference is, i accept it is a faith thing, but you deny that truth, that evolution is all based on faith, and blind faith at that.

          • gogo0

            I will admit there is some faith to it. people smarter than me have performed decades worth of study in the fields of biology and paleontology to come to the commonly-accepted conclusion of human development by evolution. I have faith in them and their analysis of the exciting new specimens that are found.
            it is similar to having faith in space probes having successfully utilized planetary gravity to slingshot themselves through our solar system for the first time based solely on mathematical formulas and measurements taken from billions of miles away. I don’t understand that math, but I have faith that people smarter than me who have spent years studying it knew what they were doing.
            science is explicitly not faith-based, that is why scientific articles are peer-reviewed before released publicly for further criticism, study, and ultimately either to be discredited or advanced. you have faith in an immutable book that disallows either discrediting or advancing.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            So wait, your position here is that evolution is tripe because, as you posit, it is based on “blind faith.” Okay.

            But you do this while admitting that your own views are also based on blind faith, making them at least as flimsy and unsupportable as you claim evolution to be, i.e. creationism is also tripe, but tripe that you like. Worse than that, while evolutionary theory can’t presently answer all questions surrounding it ad infinum, it can certainly answer a lot and it shows its work; something people who believe an alleged deity spoke existence into existence tend to be less good at.

            Like, I don’t actually care whether or not you believe in evolution, but can you not see how that’s actually a very weak position? By claiming that evolution requires the same amount of faith and should be discounted, you’re implicitly stating that your position isn’t worthy of consideration either. After all, I can’t dismiss one viewpoint for allegedly having no evidence, then accept another because at least it admits to having no evidence.

          • Amos Moses

            My faith is not blind. You see, i have the testimony of the only person who was a witness to creation.

            The Creator.

            And evolution just cannot answer some REALLY basic questions.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            First of all:

            i have the testimony of the only person who was a witness to creation. [sic]

            *Allegedly.

            Secondly, You did literally say that your faith is at least as blind as belief in evolution, and I quote:

            gogo0: “It is all based on faith and unproven. It is not science. It is not observable, it is not testable, and it is not repeatable.”

            you just explained creationism

            Amos Moses: And evolution. And the difference is, i accept it is a faith thing

            Admitting that belief in creationism is 1) based on faith 2) unproven 3) not observable, testable, or repeatable. I’ll let the “not science” one slide on both sides because “science” is kind of a nebulous term.

            Again, I’m not even here to argue about evolution with you. You go on believing whatever you like. I just want to help you understand that you’ve chosen a rhetorical position that’s really, really weak when taken to its logical end (Your position defending creationism, that is, not creationism itself). I repeat, I’m not critiquing your belief, I’m critiquing your argument. If it helps, consider me less trying to refute you and more trying to help you talk about your beliefs in ways that make more sense to people who don’t already agree with you.

            Let me see if I can walk this one out for you. Whether you intended to or not, you just asserted that both evolution and creationism have substantial gaps between theory and absolute 100% confirmation; we can’t easily observe macro-scale evolution and we lack sufficient supporting evidence to 100% doubtless back up a created universe; essentially, you’ve posited that it would make equal amounts of sense for an outside, unaffiliated observer to choose either one, because after all, they’re both based on faith.

            What this then relies on is asserting that, while they may both require faith, your side (creationism) is superior in some other way: It’s more cohesive or it helps people have happier, fuller lives, or it complements a worldview that benefits mankind, whatever. if you can support that secondary assertion then you make your original claim (creationism) more plausible; that outside observer will say “Well, I can’t strictly “prove” either one, but this creationism thing just seems to make more sense.”

            What you have done instead is…nothing. Well, not exactly nothing; you claimed that you at least admit to being faith based and that evolution is somehow “faithier” in some unspecified way which is…bad? Probably? You don’t explain. The problem with this is that in a dead heat between creation and evolution, regardless of which one’s actually true, evolution is always going to look more convincing, because while you cannot directly observe and 100% verify evolution, there’s been enough work done and documented to push it well into the realm of plausibility. Creationism meanwhile necessarily tends to get to that point of “you just have to believe me” a lot sooner, because of how it’s attached to the workings of God. It may “explain” contrivances like the butterfly metamorphosis or whatever animal’s whatever peculiar feature, but it also raises a series of questions that just don’t have objective, provable answers by design.

            Maybe you can say that God invented the golgi aparatus while an evolutionist struggles a bit more, but doing so also raises questions about timescale inconsistency, whether it’s the god of the Jews, the Christians, or the Muslims (all three accept the Genesis story!), if all parts of the bible are factual or just some, and how to tell the difference, and the entire catalogue of theological questions that get fired at Christianity all the time. Because of this, creationism as a category invites a lot more work for itself just to start with, since it is necessarily attaching an entire theology whereas evolution is not: it is compatible with atheism or any number of religions. Your inability to answer these related questions (because canonically, you can’t give a satisfying answer to a lot of them) is going to weaken your position already, on top of evolution’s ability to rely on observable evidence in the fossil record and other sciences, means that if you want to put these two together as evidencially equivalent, evolution is still going to have the edge. By definition, your side has to work that much harder to gain the same ground.

            Claiming that evolution can’t answer “basic questions” isn’t going to help either, because while pointing out the flaws in your opponent’s model is a valid method of discourse, it doesn’t solve the “basic questions” that yours struggles with. Example: Why did God have to make a tree of knowledge of good and evil? That’s a pretty deceptively hard question, and there isn’t really a solid theological answer to it. What I want to point out though is that in this case, your point that evolution can’t answer basic questions just indicates that it’s incomplete, not wrong, and opens yourself up to evidence that your argument is also incomplete, i.e. Not Superior.

            This is really long, so I’m going to do a quick wrap-up and recap for you, to just try an put it all in a nutshell.

            IN CONCLUSION
            Whether or not you realize it, the argument you just used tries to assert that evolution at least as much faith as creationism. This is not necessarily a bad place to put yourself, but it requires that you give some solid reasons why creationism is still more plausible despite the admitted faith gap, or at least more desirable, and no: “The bible says so” is not a solid reason by itself. It needs to be supported by outside evidence or it can be easily dismissed by just about anyone with five minutes and a question mark. Regardless of whether or not evolution is true, the belief has a better time (Note: better, not perfect) connecting its dots in ways that everyone can see and understand regardless of theological belief. Because of this, evolution necessarily starts with an edge from the position you’ve put yourself in, and any of the secondary arguments you assert need to be stronger and better supported than the edge that evolution naturally has.

          • Amos Moses

            “rhetorical position that’s really, really weak when taken to its logical end (Your position defending creationism, that is, not creationism itself)”

            Until we get to every other position….. and then it is not.

            “Secondly, You did literally say that your faith is at least as blind as belief in evolution,”

            Where? Cause i search my postings going back 10 days and i cannot find that. What i did say was in reference to belief in evolution. Below:

            i said: And the difference is, i accept it is a faith thing, but you deny that truth, that evolution is all based on faith, and blind faith at that.

            “and no: “The bible says so” is not a solid reason by itself.”

            And again, you are wrong. Why? Because the bible is right. It has stood the test of time. It has weathered assaults far worse than your wordy answer. And again, i am sorry, you are wrong and you have failed. It will be here long after you and i are gone as it has been for thousands of years.

    • Cady555

      There are hundreds of thousands of fossils of transitional species. Examples: There are transitional fossils providing evidence for the evolution of whales from land animals, for the evolution of the horse, for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, etc. etc. etc.

      Sticking fingers in ears and closing eyes does not make evidence vanish.

      Yet despite all of this evidence, evolution would still be true if not one fossil had been preserved. The evidence from genetics, embryolgy, geodiversity, vestigial traits and more is sufficient to demonstrate the truth of evolution.

      Pluto orbited the sun for billions of years before humans knew Pluto existed, or humans existed. Evolution has been occurring for billions of years and is true regardless of whether humans recognize the evidence.

      • ASDRTRE

        utter bollocks

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Okay, prove him wrong then.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Wow, you asking a lot.

      • Jolanda Tiellemans

        I see them all sitting now, fingers in ears going, lalalalala.

        • Amos Moses

          Evolution cannot even explain the butterfly and why metamorphosis occurs and why there was a need for it to develop in that manner and if one step in that process was not all in place in the exact time and in the exact order for the butterfly to even become a butterfly, it would all fail. Nothing of the caterpillar survives the process.

          The butterfly flies in the face of “evolution” as a “science”.

          • gizmo23

            Evolution is an ongoing science subject to revision and new ideas. Not everything has been discovered.
            We can’t explain cancer, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

          • Amos Moses

            Then how can you even make a statement that “it is settled”? As you did make that statement.

          • gizmo23

            Evolution is settled science just like astronomy we just don’t know everything there is to know about it, just as we don’t know everything about the planets

          • Amos Moses

            If we don’t know everything then guess what…….. It Is Not Settled.

          • gizmo23

            Sure it is. We know there are planets we just don’t know everything about them. The fact that they exist is settled science

          • Oboehner

            They are observable, evolution isn’t.

          • gizmo23

            Electric current isn’t visible so it must be fake also

          • Oboehner

            Stick your finger in a socket, I’ll observe what happens.

          • gogo0

            the planets, events, and other celestial objects we observe from other galaxies are remnants from millions of years ago. you accept observing things that are millions of years old and often no longer physically exist, however you do not accept observing human ancestor fossil records that exist now? what is your justification for cherry-picking what observable things you agree and disagree with?

          • Oboehner

            Millions of years – religious belief.

            “observing human ancestor fossil records” You mean an ape (Piltdown Man), or a pig’s tooth (Nebraska Man), or a baboon, (Lucy), or whatever fraud they can conjure up next?

          • gizmo23

            Science not religion exposed the fraud

          • Oboehner

            Only because it came to light, “science” created the fraud in the first place.

          • gizmo23

            No con men did

          • Oboehner

            These days they are often times one and the same.

          • David Cromie

            I think you mean ‘religiot con men’, still living in the Middle Ages.

          • Valri

            Science is actually glad when it makes mistakes because it learns from them. When has your faith EVER admitted to being wrong about anything?

          • Oboehner

            So deliberate fraud is a mistake now.
            If my faith was wrong, I would drop it, but then that is COMPLETELY irrelevant to yours.

          • Valri

            You got that right since mine isn’t a religion.

            Also, science might have its share of charlatans, but compared the fundamentalist Christianity? Not enn close.

          • Oboehner

            Sorry, religion not science unless I can observe it – which we all know nobody has, they just have faith.

          • Valri

            You can observe it. The trick is that you have to keep your eyes open.

          • Oboehner

            I highly doubt any of us will be around for “bazillions of years”, the trick is to have faith – just like any other religion.

          • Valri

            There is no “trick”. You learn from science and its repeatable, testable theories and you accept them, just as you would any other fact.

          • Oboehner

            I really want to see an example of a fish turning to a lizard, do you have video of that or any other similar event? I suppose I just have to take it on faith though.

          • Valri

            Evolution takes a very long time. Fortunately we have the fossil record and other methods of knowing it to be true. No faith involved.

          • Oboehner

            So I just have to take it on faith then, got it.
            Can you prove a fossil shows anything other than something died or do I have to take it on faith like “takes a very long time”?

          • Valri

            if you don’t believe the methods used to determine the age of a fossil to work then I suppose it’s convenient enough for you to roll over and play brain dead and say it’s faith. Meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at you.

          • Oboehner

            Well how do we know the radiation levels at year zero? We have to take it on faith?

          • Valri

            What do you mean, “year zero”? Is that the year your God magically poofed it into existence or something?

          • Oboehner

            No the year it was formed, or was it magically poofed into existence by an exploding dot or something?
            Show me some documentation on that, or just tell me I need to take it on faith.

          • Valri

            Since you constantly state that you find the dating methods (measured, tested and confirmed) to be a matter of faith, you are helplessly ignorant on this matter and will stay that way until someone strongarms you into a museum.

          • Oboehner

            Save the epithets and post that documentation. Post up or shut up.

          • Valri

            I think the issue is actually refute the vast libraries of evidence before you or shut up.

          • Oboehner

            I keep hearing fairytale of “vast libraries of evidence” yet never see any. Now about that documentation, either you can post it or if you can’t it will prove my point evolutionism is a religion. Hop to it let’s see that documentation, it must be somewhere in the “vast libraries of evidence”.

          • Valri

            Well Oboehner, when you’re confronted with a “vast library of evidence”, maybe the best place to start looking would be…a library? I cannot possibly dumb this down for you any more than that. Here’s a hint, you’ll find it in the 500 section of the library, appropriately enough in the SCIENCES section. Oh gosh, look at that, it’s a science. Damn. Even the world’s libraries are in on the global conspiracy of teaching that evolution is a science and not a religion. Gee whiz. But still not going to give up and admit your embarrassing, humiliating error, are you?

          • Oboehner

            Cop out, you have nothing but blind faith.

          • Valri

            So now a library’s worth of information on evolution is blind faith? What kind of wanton, cowardly stupidity is this?

          • Bob Johnson

            You see Valri, libraries are run by the state and are therefore part of the overreach of our liberal government. They only stock stuff that conflicts with the Bible. Libraries do not add to the national defense and so are unConstitutional. They are also part of that “free stuff” that gets minorities to vote liberal. As soon as we get a REAL CONSERVATIVE in office all libraries will be closed.

          • Valri

            It’s all a game to Oboehner. You give him a quote from any authoritative source and he scours it for any trace of a word implying vagueness like “may” or “might” or “suggests” or “possibly” and then he instantly shuts the entire thing down by calling it “speculation”. Try it sometime, I guarantee you that’s what the outcome will be.

          • Bob Johnson

            And in a scientific journal, if you are absolutely certain of something you write, “the data tends to suggest.”

          • Valri

            Music to Oboehner’s perpetually closed ears.

          • Oboehner

            More cop out.

          • Valri

            I’ve met every single ridiculous, science-denying, fundamentalist piece of hogwash you’ve thrown my way squarely in the face every step of the way. You’re of course entirely welcome to state WHY you are denying what science, the education system, the public library system, the dictionary, etc., already KNOW to be fact, but all you’ve done so far is say it’s not fact when it is. That is both lazy and dishonest.

          • Oboehner

            Lying is both lazy and dishonest, you haven’t met squat, but if you can provide documentation on the starting radiation levels of any rock of fossil you claim is millions of years old…

          • Valri

            And what sort of documentation would you like? A certificate written millions of years ago, which you know is not possible to provide? You don’t get to put conditions on the proof. This is your convenient little cop out. “If I didn’t see it happen, then you can’t prove it happened.” Except that we can.

          • Oboehner

            Conditions on the proof? What proof?
            “A certificate written millions of years ago, which you know is not possible to provide?” Then there is no possible way to determine the age of anything by using any of the current aging processes – none, they are all useless.

            “Except that we can.” Empty claims.

          • Valri

            “Empty claims.”
            Only to those embarrassingly ignorant of scientific principles. Do you actually believe science would use dating methods it knew to be inaccurate? Or is that all part of the conspiracy theory?

          • Oboehner

            “Only to those embarrassingly ignorant of scientific principles.” Principles such as testable, observable, repeatable – evolutionism is none of those.

          • Valri

            Actually, no, it’s all of those. But by all means, listen to the talking snake instead of a scientist.

          • Oboehner

            You forgot the exploding dot which has far more to do with evolutionism that the Bible.

          • Valri

            The “exploding dot” – still number one on the hit parade of your favorite strawmen.

          • Oboehner

            The “talking snake” – still number one on your diversionary tactic hit parade.

          • Valri

            Genesis 3:1. Your religious book.
            Also, there’s no diversion going on. The exploding dot is your invention and another strawman.

          • Oboehner

            Exploding dot, your religion. If you have something better post it.

          • Valri

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            Can I ask why you choose to ignore a legitimate definition in favor of asking moronic questions?

          • Valri

            Hm, wow. Such a simple question. I wonder why I should have to ask it six times. I’ll try again.

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            Hm, wow. Such a simple question. I wonder why I should have to ask it six times. I’ll try again.

            Can I ask you, what does a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith have to do with superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution – other than a feeble straw man?

          • Valri

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            Can I ask you, what does a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith have to do with superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolutionism?

          • Valri

            I have answered all of your questions and you have answered none of mine. It is your turn.

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Bob Johnson

            Instead of google try “scholar google com” use the search word “evolution” you will get 4,750,000 articles. Some of these technical articles may be a bit off topic. The general form of Google Scholar is to include the abstract so you can skip over non-relevant papers.

            This should provide several centuries of light reading.

          • Oboehner

            4,750,000 articles containing assumption, speculation, and blind faith. Been there done that, don’t care to spend centuries on your religion.

          • Valri

            What makes this statement more moronic than usual is that if it WAS assumption and speculation, you’d think all these scientists would be coming up with their own conclusions. And they’re not. They’re all reaching the same conclusions.

            All part of the conspiracy I guess, eh?

          • Valri

            Industrial melanism in peppered moths for the win.

          • Oboehner

            Except it is still a peppered moth – for the loss.

          • Valri

            Are you expecting it to turn spontaneously into something else? Do you know what evolution is? Did you fail science in school? Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            “Are you expecting it to turn spontaneously into something else?” I would expect something to turn into something else, but alas I am just supposed to take it on faith.

            “Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?” That’s not the type of religion it is, it is one that consists of a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith – or is the dictionary part of some world-wide conspiracy?

          • Valri

            You don’t take it on faith, you trust that scientists using the dating methods know what they are doing and not just making random guesses. They believe in their work, it’s not their fault if your religion has taught you not to.
            Would you care to mention any other “religion” that doesn’t have a deity, holy book or promise of salvation? Based on your description above, I don’t see how evolution fits that description either….as you have also been told previously.

          • Oboehner

            “you trust that” – faith. “making random guesses” like the beginning radiation levels.

          • Valri

            No guesses. Facts. Science. Proof. All of it.

          • Oboehner

            Blind faith, all of it.

          • Valri

            You versus the world. How cute.

          • Oboehner

            der oylem iz a goylem

          • Valri

            Everyone but you apparently, who know better than all the scientists.

          • afchief

            Amos there are a lot of paid liberal/homo trolls on this site.

          • afchief

            Then tell me how life started from non-life.

            Waiting……………………………………..

          • ASDRTRE

            Read john c Sandford work on genetic entropy and tell me if you think the evolutionary MAGIC you belive in is as crediblebas you claim. Your entire idea of life is based on the premise that everything we see including ourselves evolved from a stone!

          • Amos Moses

            Read carefully… or maybe you misposted…. i do not ascribe to evolution.

            Peace.

          • Oboehner

            It is a religion.

          • Valri

            No, it is proven observable science, with reams and volumes of evidence, refuted only by idiots and fundamentalists.

          • Oboehner

            Observable? Show me some photos of something evolving then, if not that only proves it is a religion.

          • Valri

            If evolution is s religion, who is its deity? What is its holy book? And what promise of salvation does it make?

            Answer all three please.

          • John N

            You make it sound as if religion is a bad thing.

            Well, knowing how some religious people behave, you could be very well right.

          • Oboehner

            It is a bad thing when it is fraudulently called science and used to brainwash children at taxpayer expense in government schools.

          • Valri

            And if that were the case, the government would clamp down on it. Fortunately we know that it IS science, and has extensive proof to back it up, so it’s just the extreme religious lunatics that make noise about it and they are roundly ignored…as it should be.

          • Oboehner

            Sure they would, duck and cover Timmy!!

          • Valri

            It must be horrible living your life where everything is a conspiracy theory. Everyone’s out to crush Christianity, right?

          • Oboehner

            Who said that? Digging in the desperation sandbox again? That and history seems to elude you, try watching “Atomic Café” to get a clue as to the lies the government is capable of disseminating. Then check Rachel Carson’s story to further enhance your knowledge on governmental dishonesty.

          • Valri

            Your problem is that you aren’t thinking for yourself. You’re allowing stupid people to do it for you.
            Think for just a second, now: Even if the government is lying about evolution on a grand scale to get it taught in schools, how does that explain how it’s taught as science in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY of the world?
            Or – let me guess – it’s a GLOBAL conspiracy!

          • Oboehner

            Your problem is that you aren’t thinking for yourself. You’re allowing stupid people to do it for you.
            Think for a second now, secular humanism is the prevailing religion in the world today, what other belief system are they going to push? Where did the BS originate?

          • Valri

            Secular humanism = the absence of religion. That’s how it SHOULD be. What religion would you LIKE them to push? Don’t bother. You want fundamentalist Christianity or nothing. Your problem is that you aren’t thinking for yourself. You’re allowing stupid people to do it for you.

          • Oboehner

            Secular humanism was declared a religion by a federal judge in the case of American Humanist Association v. United States. A case pushed by atheists.

          • Valri

            Appeal to authority fail. Secular humanism has no holy book, no deity, and no set of rules making it completely as unlike religion as it could possibly be.

          • Oboehner

            Let’s see… is evolutionism a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith… yup a religion.

          • Valri

            Evolutionism might be, but evolution is not. And you didn’t answer my questions. Who is the deity in evolution? Who is worshiped? Who is the earthly leader? What is the holy text?

            See what you’ve got, Oboehner? Nothing. A big fat goose egg.

          • Oboehner

            Documentation on that radiation level? Do I have to take it on faith? Stop dodging the question at hand.

          • Valri

            Your question can’t be answered because your premise is so idiotic. I cannot give you an initial radiation level because nothing is magically poofed into existence by your God. It doesn’t work that way.

          • Oboehner

            “I cannot give you an initial radiation level” So I just have to take it on faith then right? One cannot determine the age of anything based on decay rates without a starting point. That is as asinine as trying to determine how long a car traveling at 60 MPH was on the road when one has no clue as to how many miles it actually traveled.

          • Valri

            I did not say:
            “I cannot give you an initial radiation level.”
            I said:
            “I cannot give you an initial radiation level because nothing is magically poofed into existence by your God.”
            It’s getting a little difficult to keep up with all the strawmen you are frantically building. Your pathetic failure to understand evolution doesn’t help here. You keep assuming things show up fully formed in this world and they don’t.

          • Oboehner

            Well poofer, how can anyone know the amount of radioactive decay if one is clueless as to the starting point? Take it on faith?

          • Valri

            Poofer? No, that’s entirely YOUR domain, Mr. Fundamentalist Christian. Because there IS no starting point. Things evolve from other things. Every time you say “starting point” you are no longer speaking about evolution, and I’ve got tireless energy to keep pointing out this little FACT to you as many times as you need to have it repeated. I know fundieism is a terrible disease, but if mindless repetition got you were you are now, I think it can also get you out.

          • Oboehner

            Where oh where did it all come from then? I’m still waiting for documentation to show dating systems are even worth wiping one’s… Or perhaps a how minor adaptation produced anything other than the same species. All I ever get from you is blind faith taking a grain of sand and attempting to construct a cement wall.

          • Valri

            Maybe no one knows, and they’re still working on the answer to that one? If the answer’s too slow in coming for your liking, playing the “goddidit” card might make you feel better but it’s a cop out. In fact, it’s…guess what? Blind faith.
            As for dating systems, yes they are proven and utilized for that very reason. What’s so hilarious about you is that everything you accuse our side of that DOESN’T fit, i.e. blind faith, speculation, magic, things being poofed into existence…DOES fit your belief system to a T. As so many people have pointed out, the irony meter is through the roof with you.

          • Oboehner

            If dating systems are worth a crap, then answer this: a car goes by at 60mph, how long was it driving?

          • Valri

            How does your rather bizarre question relate to dating systems, if you don’t mind me asking?

          • Oboehner

            Answer it and I’ll tell you.

          • Valri

            OK, I’ll bite. Not enough information has been provided to answer your question.

          • Oboehner

            Just use the same formula for dating fossils, that has the same amount of information.

          • Valri

            I see, and what method are you using to measure? Radiometric?

          • Oboehner

            Pick one and go with it.

          • Valri

            Doesn’t work that way. Read Evolution for Dummies. It’s perfect for you.

          • D.M.S.

            Evolution is fiction. If you like fiction you might try
            Joan Wilder.

          • Valri

            If it’s fiction, why is it taught in science class in schools and filed in the SCIENCE section of public libraries?

          • D.M.S.

            It’s a theory and has been a theory for centuries. Just recently in the last forty+ years ,we have been trying to pass it off as fact. Which it is not. When my Dad went to school it was taught as a theory.

          • Valri

            Yes, it IS a theory. Just like gravity. Clearly you need to understand better what a “theory” means, it doesn’t mean guesswork as I’m sure you think it does, at least not within the scientific realm.

            It is proven, we have fossils, we have facts, and have had for decades. We win.

          • D.M.S.

            LOL, Goodbye!

          • Bob Johnson

            And Germ Theory is just a theory and it has been around since the 1500s. It has just been since WW II that doctors have stopped using sulfa drugs and gone to bio-enginerring.

          • D.M.S.

            Whoppy!

          • D.M.S.

            You still haven’t answered my question. What is the fig tree that Jesus Christ is cursing. Did you happen to know that the cursing of His day has nothing to do with what we call cursing today.

          • Oboehner

            Dancing around another simple question, let me help you out a little then maybe you can answer.

            a car (fossil) goes by at 60mph (radiation decay rate), how long was it driving (how old is it)? There you go, now shoot me an answer.

          • Valri

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            a car (fossil) goes by at 60mph (radiation decay rate), how long was it driving (how old is it)? There you go, now shoot me an answer.

            Can I ask you, what does a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith have to do with superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution
            ism?

          • Bob Johnson

            There are two basic “dating systems” – celestial movement and atomic clocks. From these we can manufacture mechanical and electronic devices to help us keep track of time. Celestial systems are fun but not to practical. However, atomic clocks are great for GPS, ….

          • Oboehner

            Well isn’t that special, just how long has it been?

          • hamfish

            I hear Match dot com is a good dating system. You might even meet someone as willfully igrorant as yourself 🙂

          • Oboehner

            Match dot com would be more accurate.
            Willingly ignorant of what exactly?

          • Bob Johnson

            How do we know what time it is without a starting point? My watch works just fine. I can measure seconds, minutes, hours without any problems. For longer periods of time I change to a calendar.

          • Oboehner

            Then you can tell me how long it’s been.

          • Elie Challita

            Because we know the rate at which most radioactive materials decay.
            We know what concentration of it is left in the mineral today, and we know how fast it decays into non-radioactive material.
            So, assuming a uniform distribution of the radioactive material in its inert surrounding mineral, we can estimate its concentration at any time X in the past, or conversely we can determine how much time has passed since it started decaying from its original concentration of Y.

          • Oboehner

            “assuming” Not very scientific. The rate of decay has absolutely nothing to do with the concentration in the past, another assumption – an assumption based on one’s worldview. If you have faith the earth is “billions of years” old you will assume accordingly.

          • Elie Challita

            You’ve gotten it the other way around. Radiocarbon dating, for example works by estimating the ratio of C14 to C12 in organic material. Physicists discovered that all living flora contains the same ratio of C14 to C12 when the plants are alive and photosynthesizing, and that the rate of decay of C14 to C12 is constant over a short period of time.

            In order to test their hypothesis they took pieces of wood from a tomb which was known to date approximatively 2750 years prior to their experiment. By measuring the current radiocarbon concentration in those pieces of wood, and knowing that all plant life begins with the same C14 to C12 ration shortly after it stops photosynthesizing, they calculated using their formula that the wood was around 2800 years old.

            This means that radioactive dating was conclusively proven. You’re being disingenuous with your baseless claim that they don’t know if it didn’t behave differently millions of years ago. There’s as much reason to assume that that there is to assume that gravity behaves differently depending on the current weather.

          • Oboehner

            So scientists have data going back “millions of years” or are they assuming things were the same back then?

          • Elie Challita

            Boner, baby, do you think that the laws of physics change from one week to the next?

          • Oboehner

            bazillions of years is hardly a week cupcake.

          • Elie Challita

            That does not matter to physical laws, Boner dear.
            Physical and chemical processes can change under certain circumstances, but they have never been proven to change simply because of the passage of time.
            You have yet to demonstrate why it isn’t a reasonable assumption to claim that physical laws were the same ten million years ago, when they’ve been proven to be the same ten thousand years ago.

          • Oboehner

            “they have never been proven to change simply because of the passage of time.” Neither has living things but…

          • Elie Challita

            Actually, they have. Evolution doesn’t actually need time: It needs the passage of generations.
            We’re used to thinking of generations as spanning a very long time, but they actually vary very much by species.
            That’s why you can observe viruses evolving visibly over a period of years or even months, but why observing humans evolving would require a much longer period.

            Besides,oh friendly erection, you’re dodging the issue. Physical laws don’t change with time. That’s the underpinning of the entire field. I could write the equations for measuring force and momentum on a tablet, bury it in a vault, and a million years later my descendants could unearth the tablet and perform the same experiments to derive the same formulas.
            You still haven’t proven why we should assume that isn’t the case.

          • Oboehner

            You must be referring to laws like the second Law of thermodynamics.

          • Elie Challita

            Among many others, yes.

          • Bob Johnson

            Nope not a religion. Evolution is a tool for feeding the world, creating cures for deseases – stuff like that. A very handy way to understand how the world behaves. Give me a better tool and I’ll dump evolution.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism has absolutely nothing to do with feeding the world, creating cures for deseases – stuff like that. That would be the observable, repeatable, testable science – not some “bazillions of years” religious belief.

          • John N

            How you can see Oboehner feels he is losing the argument?

            He starts making up sciencey words.

          • Valri

            Give him an actual piece from an evolution text sometime. This is all a game to him and he tries so hard to bait people into doing exactly that. When you do, he will scour it for any trace of a word suggesting anything vague like “possibly” or “may” or “might” or “believe” and if he finds even ONE word like that, he’ll quote the phrase back to you and say “speculation” and strut off like he’s shut you right down. Game, set, match, Oboehner-style.

          • Oboehner

            Sure thing ad hominem, appeal to authority boy.

          • Valri

            Where’s the ad hominem? You ARE making up sciencey words.

          • Oboehner

            Your posts are riddled with them, you really are ignorant.

          • Valri

            No, it’s simply that I never encounter people who claim to know more than the world’s scientists who have facts and consensus.

          • Valri

            I’ll ask you again:

            In evolution (not evolutionism):

            – who is the deity being worshiped?
            – what is the holy text?
            – what promise of salvation does it make?

            I believe you need to fulfill all of these criteria to make it a religion. Please stop dancing around these questions and answer them.

          • Oboehner

            Read the above for a definition of a religion, any questions – read it again.

          • Valri

            “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”
            That’s the first definition I found, two seconds into Google. Where did you get yours from?
            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution? Please don’t make me have to ask you several times as I do everything else that you elect to dodge.

          • Oboehner

            Figures you would stop before you got a complete definition, like I said – read the above it is a genuine definition.

          • Valri

            Let’s break it down for you this way then, since you don’t want to acknowledge the dictionary’s clear definition.

            Who is the deity being worshiped?
            Christianity: God/Jesus.
            Evolution: None/not applicable.

            What is the holy text?
            Christianity: The Bible.
            Evolution: None/not applicable.

            What promise of salvation does it make?
            Christianity: Everlasting life.
            Evolution: None/not applicable.

            And if you think for even a SECOND that these are not germane to the definition of a religion, let me ask you what your belief system would be WITHOUT Jesus, the Bible, and everlasting life? Still want to tell me those things are irrelevant to the definition?

          • Oboehner

            Talk about straw man, here is a legitimate definition of a religion: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” Evolutionism fits perfectly.

          • Valri

            Ah, yes, Merriam-Webster. Let’s post its FULL definition, shall we?

            Simple Definition of religion

            : the belief in a god or in a group of gods

            : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

            : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

            Full Definition of religion

            1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion)b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

            2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

            3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

            4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

            Will you look at that! You’ve eliminated ALL but the one way down the list at number four. CONVENIENTLY taking out all the parts referring to worship, God, the supernatural, systems, ceremonies, rules. Now WHY would you do, that, Oboehner? Do you do it to deliberately mislead, or do you do it as you do with everything ELSE you do, to avoid looking at it, avoid being confronted by it, and so you just pretend it’s not there? Rather like you do with the vast spectrum of scientifically proven information on the SCIENCE of evolution? (Reminder: evolution’s taught in SCIENCE class in schools, and filed in the SCIENCE department of public libraries…)

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            If only one definition covered it, there would be only one listed.
            You can stop beating the dead “appeal to authority” dead horse, I asked specific questions, so with all of your information, start producing more than hearsay and blind faith.

          • Valri

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            If only one definition covered it, there would be only one listed.

            I asked specific questions, so with all of your information, start producing more than hearsay and blind faith.

          • Valri

            Your deceit is so thick I can smell it.

            Here’s the primary dictionary definition telling you that there’s got to be a God involved, worship, all the things we learned all our lives were hallmarks of religion, and you ignore it and skip down to some loose system of belief thing which STILL cannot be applied to evolution no matter how you slice it. Look at all the work you went through to LEAVE THE PRIMARY DEFINITION out completely, because it disproved you so completely and thoroughly.

            The information you want cannot be summarized as you are demanding. If you want it, it’s there. In the science section, the 500s. Which is where it belongs. Which is why it is taught in science classes in schools.

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            If only one definition covered it, there would be only one listed.
            Your denial and avoidance is so thick I can trip over it.
            I asked specific questions, so with all of your information, start producing more than hearsay and blind faith.

          • Valri

            it’s a bogus definition – please give me an example of a religion with no deity, no holy book and no promise of salvation. Not including your obvious smartass response of “evolution” because that’s what you’re trying to crowbar in to fit the definition, and the above criteria must be observed.

            What am I denying and avoiding, Oboehner? Who on earth is telling me that evolution is a lie except for fundamentalist Christians with no understanding of evolution at all, who think nothing of tossing all the accepted science and volumes of knowledge into the trash can and have the nerve to suggest that governments and libraries are part of a worldwide conspiracy because they allow its teaching in science class?

            Who on earth but yourself would make such a totally embarrassing, humiliating claim?

            This is a game to you, you’re simply a troll. When your non-demonstrable crapola is thrown in your face, your default position is to to try to reduce evidence based science to the level of your own non-demonstrable crapola.

          • Oboehner

            It’s a bogus definition – right from an accredited dictionary. Don’t hurt yourself dancing around having to answer simple questions I’ll reply when you actually have some substance and not just more denial and avoidance.

          • Valri

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            Can I ask you, what does a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith have to do with superhuman controlling power or personal God – other than a feeble straw man?

          • Valri

            So, to summarize, you cannot provide the name of a deity worshiped by adherents of evolution, you cannot provide the name of a holy book used by adherents of evolution, and you cannot state what promise for eternal salvation makes. And you cannot state how verifiable, testable and repeatable facts qualify as causes or “belief systems” which would make evolution a religion.

            Thank you for your admission that evolution qualifies in no sense whatsoever as a religion. You may return to your talking snake now.

          • Oboehner

            So to summarize, you are going to continue to beat the “deity” dead horse and ignore a legitimate definition from an accredited source in you pathetic attempt at a diversionary tactic, further proving my point.
            You may now return to your exploding dot and your blind faith.

          • Valri

            Yep, your summary is a crock of crapola, Oboehner. All the usual strawmen present and accounted for – strawmen, blind faith and accusing me of diversions when I’m meeting you head on. You are the biggest load on two feet. You are right and all the scientists and school systems and libraries in the world are wrong. Wow. That’s arrogance mixed with idiocy on a level I never imagined possible.

          • Oboehner

            Not head on, babbling on – babbling on about libraries and useless crap. You haven’t done or said one thing to even remotely show evolutionism is anything more than a religion. So how far did that car travel?

          • Valri

            Really, you think libraries are useless crap? The 500 section of the Dewey Decimal System which deals with sciences – crap?

            “Evolutionism” might well BE a religion, you made the word up. Evolution, however is a science.

            Your car example is a farce. It should be discounted because it’s completely daft. Sorry.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Even if I would accept that evolution would fit that definition of religion that you say it does, (and I don’t) that’s still only the broadest possible definition of religion. Whereas something like Christianity would cover most of that definition that Valri quoted. You seem to be confusing evolution with something called “evolutionism”, which isn’t really a thing anyway, as such.

          • Oboehner

            If one would pick and choose which definitions of religion one would consider relevant (as Valri does) one would be intellectually dishonest. Evolution-ism fits into the category of something held to by faith as no one was around nor are there any records going back even millions of years let alone billions.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            First of all, how are you not “picking and choosing” by using only the broadest definition of religion possible? If you’re going to use that definition, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”, you could call about anything a religion. Also, what people sometimes miss is that there’s more than one sense of the word “faith”. Just to copy the first few from a definition of faith I just found:

            1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.

            2. Belief that is not based on proof.

            3. Belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.

            So one could say they have faith in the theory of evolution without meaning they believe in it without any proof.

          • Oboehner

            The religion definition fits. 2 under faith fits as well.
            One would HAVE to say they have faith in the theory of evolution as there is zero proof.

            There are no records going back, “dating” methods are highly flawed and based on assumption and speculation. There are no records of the starting amount of radiation or any other influence that may have influenced said radiation levels, One would be laughed out of a court room with evidence like that. Just like the old “a car went past at 60mph, how long was it traveling?”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ve read that potassium/argon dating gives an estimated error range of way less than 1%, so I don’t know how that would be called “highly flawed”.

          • Oboehner

            “estimated”

            “The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield “ages” up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same “dating” on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?” – Dr. Andrew A. Snelling

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Snelling? I knew I read about that guy before….

            Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic’,
            Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

            There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

            Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

            But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of
            credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

          • Oboehner

            “There appear” There appears to be multiple postings of the exact same story, one would have to assume if there were more to this there would be more information than three verbatim articles.
            However the fact remains that in these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed, assumption is not scientific and yields highly unreliable results.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Also, from the wikipedia article on potassium-argon dating:

            “Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough argon-40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable.”

            So in other words, you can’t use it on things 50 years old (which is slightly less than 100,000 years)

          • Oboehner

            3.5 million is slightly more than 100,000 years.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            True. What’s your point?

          • Oboehner

            That was the “age” that falsely came up.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It’s actually because of the nature of potassium itself, that it’s most effective on things over 100,000 years, because it decays at a very slow rate. I’m no expert on such things (are you, to declare that the whole method is faulty?) but I’m guessing they have other methods to determine if they’re being given a false age of something.

            Also, that’s one of the great things about science, that it doesn’t take any of its own findings as etched-in-stone, unalterable, gospel truth forever and ever. If scientists found something that completely changed their understanding of evolution, the theory of evolution would be changed.

          • Oboehner

            “because it decays at a very slow rate.” That may be all well and good, but what was the starting amount to even remotely determine just how much potassium has decayed? It is as asinine as “a car went by at 60mph, how long was it driving”.
            Scientists have found things, ever see the movie “Expelled”?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            They’re not measuring how much potassium remains, they’re measuring how much of whatever there was decayed into argon.

            This explains it better than I could…

            ncse(dot)com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

          • Oboehner

            So how much was there? No one knows, that’s the beauty of these dating methods, they can be whatever someone claims they are. Just as no one was there to validate the starting data, no one was there to discredit it either, genius!
            The article failed to explain how one can determine how much actually decayed because no one knows how much there was in the first place – how can that be scientific? It can’t.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It “failed to explain” it because that’s not a relevant question in the first place.

          • Oboehner

            How is the initial amount not relevant? Without that, any findings are purely speculative based on the whim of the one supposedly testing the object, making the end result no more than a joke.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It’s not relevant because they’re measuring the PROPORTION of K that decayed to Ar, not the amount. If X percent of it has decayed, you have a rock that is Y years old.

          • Oboehner

            “If X percent of it has decayed” Percent of what? One has to have a starting number. That’s the same story as other “dating” methods, they get what they want, accurate or not. They were shown to be highly inaccurate when dating volcanic rocks of know origin, so they had to toss in the 100,000 year kicker. Now they can claim whatever they want like I said before.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It’s not a “kicker” tossed in there just because, it’s due to how the potassium decays slowly. And you don’t need to know exactly how much potassium was there in the first place. I’m no expert on this, but I’m assuming they take a sample, and then measure what percentage of the potassium in it decayed.

          • Oboehner

            “measure what percentage of the potassium in it decayed.” Decayed from how much? A gallon jug that has an ounce of water in it, if I can drink an ounce a second, tell me how long have I been drinking?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            From another wikipedia article: (on “half-life”)

            “As an example, the radioactive decay of carbon-14 is exponential with a half-life of 5730 years. A quantity of carbon-14 will decay to half of its original amount (on average) after 5730 years, regardless of how big or small the original quantity was.”

            And like I was talking about earlier, with carbon dating as well, they’re not measuring JUST the quantity of C-14, they’re measuring the ratio of C-14 to C-12. However much carbon was there in the first place, it will be 50% decayed after 5730 years.

            I can’t explain it any better than that. Your “gallon jug” example doesn’t apply because we’re talking about something totally different.

          • Oboehner

            “original amount” Not known, 5730 years ago there was no documentation of said object. Another problem with carbon14 dating is the assumption the earth, and what is on it, is millions of years old and has reached saturation.
            Yes my gallon jug example fits as well.
            A gallon jug that has an ounce of water in it (Carbon 14 level), if I can drink an ounce a second (decay rate), tell me how long have I been drinking (age of object)?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Scientists do make assumptions, you’re right about that. The assumption that the earth is millions of years old is a good one, though.

          • Oboehner

            Those assumptions are not scientific, it is no more than just a belief – based on an atheistic (religious) worldview.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ve already been over this…atheism is not a religion. Not everything is a religion. There’s really no point in arguing with you, anyway, if you’re just going to think that.

          • Oboehner

            Atheism was declared a religion in a federal court at the behest of atheists themselves. It falls under the same type of belief whether God or no God as his existence or non-existence cannot be proven.

          • Valri

            Atheism’s a religion now?
            Is bald a hair color too?

          • Valri

            What I think you want to say SO badly but can never quite manage to muster up the courage to is that you are fighting evolution so strongly because you want to replace it in schools with your fundie crap. If you’d just cut to the chase and say this, at least your true intentions would finally be public. You’re just like a gay man trying desperately to come out of the closet.

          • Oboehner

            If one cannot accurately date something less than 100,000 years, then one would have to assume the object is greater than that when reporting results. One could not say with any certainty if the results were correct, or if the test subject was too young and the results were skewed.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There’s other dating methods that do tell for sure if something is not that old. I’m assuming they combine them, or have some other way of getting a very rough estimate, at least enough to say it’s over a certain age.

          • Valri

            If you have luck penetrating this skull, please let me know.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not really counting on it….

          • Oboehner

            The other dating methods are themselves rife with assumption and speculation and are just as worthless.

          • Valri

            No, that’s horse crap, Oboehner, because there is simply nothing about Evolution that qualifies as a religion. Period. It is a science, as verified by the fact that it’s taught in science classes in schools (not comparative religion) and because it is housed in the science section of public libraries, and there is no worldwide conspiracy against you.

          • Oboehner

            “as verified by the fact that it’s taught in science classes in schools… it is housed in the science section of public libraries” The most pathetic “proof” for evolutionism in existence today. Evolutionism is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith which makes it a religion.
            I have grown weary of your patheticism, appeal to authority argument and ad hominem attacks, so unless you have something of substance or can tell me how far the car has traveled – don’t waste your time.

          • Valri

            Well of COURSE you are giving up, Oboehner, because you have a completely unsupportable position. We’re not TALKING about evolutionism, there is no such thing. You seem to need to be taught like a child over and over, you can’t make up BS words (some here have accused you of the same thing, calling them “sciencey”) and substitute them for words in common parlance like evolution. Evolution is a science, it’s got so much evidence available, you’ve been directed to it on websites and libraries and everywhere else that normal people accept it as scientific fact with no issue. You for some reason are not able to do that. If I were in your shoes I wouldn’t be sitting here telling the smartest minds on earth they are wrong and you know better. I would be saying “OK, my religion has lied to me and clearly I need to actually READ UP on this scientific proof and toss my talking snake book in the trash.”

            But you’ll never do that, because you enjoy your false sense of security and your vast sense of superiority, and you don’t seem to possess the self-knowledge that you’re being humiliated on a grand scale on SEVERAL internet websites now.

          • Bob Johnson

            So Trickle Down Economics is a religion?

          • Oboehner

            Unless it is observable, testable, and repeatable.

          • John N

            I couldn’ t agree more.

            Well, to ease your mind, in most countries of the western world creationism is no part of the science curriculum.

            Only real scientific theories are allowed to be taught in science classes.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism is. A religion being used to brainwash children, just look how well it worked on you.

            “Only real scientific theories are allowed to be taught in science classes.” Evolutionism dispels that myth.

          • John N

            Well, you seem to recognize that religion is in fact about brainwashing children.

            So what do you suggest to stop doing that?

          • Oboehner

            Stop teaching evolutionism in schools.

          • Valri

            Oh, I get it now. The reason you are so hell-bent on referring to evolution as a “religion” is so you can try to convince the powers that be that it’s faith- rather than fact-based to get it thrown out of schools. That’s step one. Then you will try to get them to recognize fundie Christianity as “truth” to REPLACE it in schools.

            Good luck with that.

          • Oboehner

            You yourself have demonstrated it’s faith-based – “it takes a very long time” so nobody can actually observe it or repeat it or… it has to be taken on faith.

          • Valri

            No, I said “long time” to dumb it down for you because you’re like a broken record with your “bazillion years” type comments.

          • Oboehner

            Or you with your “it’s science” type comments, millions, billions, bazillions, it’s all the same poppycock.

          • Valri

            No because a “bazillion” isn’t a number. “Long time” is admittedly vaguer, but when we state the age of the earth to be between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years it elicits the same sneering derision from you. Taking facts and fiction and mixing them up in a huge bowl and labeling it “poppycock” is your specialty.

          • Oboehner

            Taking facts and fiction and mixing them up in a huge bowl and labeling it “science” is your specialty.
            I wouldn’t sneer if you could document and show the exact history of 4.6 billion years instead of having me take it on faith.

          • Valri

            Do you or do you not have access to a public library? That’s what most people ignorant of evolution turn to for answers. Just make sure you look in the correct section – sciences are in the 500s, so don’t be looking in the theology section.

          • Oboehner

            So by not producing documentation you are admitting evolutionism is a religion and all you have is faith.

          • Valri

            Which one of the millions of books on the subject, summarized, would you like?

            They wouldn’t give it a 500 Dewey decimal number if it was a faith, Oboehner. You still lose.

          • Bob Johnson

            Valri, you have to condense all the scientific wisdom into one blog post, complete with inline verification and validation. Please cross reference with supporting work, also inline. You do not have to personally write the text; you may as afchief does cut & paste very long posts taken from other sources.

          • Oboehner

            Cop out, a really sad state of affairs when you can’t even defend your religion. Best leave discussions like this to adults.

          • Valri

            Not a cop out. You requested documentation. You were given documentation – not just by me, but by others here. Over and over and over. You’re presented with science and you argue with religion. You’re presented with evolution, you respond with cosmology/abiogenesis. You don’t even understand the subject you’re fighting so passionately against.

          • Oboehner

            You lie as bad as the rest of the religious evolutionists, I never saw anything with a starting radiation level – never given.

          • Valri

            Well, maybe stop asking stupid and irrelevant questions. Have you STILL not got it through your head that evolution isn’t about origins?

          • Oboehner

            Then provide documentation of a whale evolving into a cow, or what ever combo you choose. Spare me the “fossil record” crap as you can’t even prove anything other than the creature died – nothing.

          • Valri

            No one is going to provide you documentation of your little strawman, Oboehner, because no one believes that whales evolve into cows. You’re looking in the wrong direction on the time scale – look the other way and see where there are COMMON ANCESTORS and then you’ll understand it. Because you clearly don’t understand it now.
            Everything in the fossil record fits. We have the transitional fossils too, you know.

          • Oboehner

            Don’t hand me the “strawman” crap, that is evolution and if it is a fact, let’s see that documentation. Show me the mythological “common ancestors” too while you’re at it – unless I am just supposed to take that on faith as well. Then I want documentation of any fossil claimed to be transitional, I want proof it is just not another dead creature.

          • Valri

            Find me ONE SINGLE scientist who’s ever said that whales evolve into cows. I DEFY you. And when you don’t, then come back and admit it’s a strawman argument.

            The common ancestors aren’t myths. Like I told you before, we’ve got the fossils. Fossils, by the way, are located in the 560 area of your public library, and I know you must have one in your town because everyone does. 562 through 569 in fact. That would be your documentation.

            Transitional fossils? No problem:

            https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

            I think you’ll find the list pretty exhaustive and well-prepared.

          • Oboehner

            “Find me ONE SINGLE scientist who’s ever said that whales evolve into cows.”
            “or what ever combo you choose.” Quit dodging, get on with it.

            “The common ancestors aren’t myths.” So says you without one shred of anything to back it up except blind faith.

            I see a lot of speculation, assumption and religious belief, by no proof whatsoever that these are any more than dead creatures. So you’ve got dead things, doesn’t prove anything but blind faith.

          • Valri

            “Quit dodging, get on with it.”

            Get on with WHAT, Oboehner? You can’t vomit up some completely ludicrous statement about whales turning into cows and try to pass it off as evolution and expect I’m just going to let it go by. If you said that to ANYONE who knows even the first thing about evolution, they’d laugh in your face and tell you that you need to go and LEARN about evolution. As so many of us have been telling you for so long.

            “So says you without one shred of anything to back it up except blind faith.”
            Your public library. 500 section. It’s all there. What are you waiting for? Not a single bit of religion involved, nor speculation, nor assumption, nor blind faith. Pure, unadulterated science – in book after book after book.

          • Oboehner

            The documentation you are running from, get on with it.

          • Valri

            I am not doing your homework for you, Oboehner. Any book will do, they all tell the same story. Try Evolution for Dummies. You can even download it as a PDF file so you don’t even have to leave your house.
            Quit dodging your own questions now. Tell me what scientific person has EVER said that a whale evolved into a cow. Admit you were lying, or concede that this is a really weak strawman.

          • Oboehner

            The documentation you are running from, get on with it or admit it is a religion. I am not doing your homework for you.

          • Valri

            Zzzzzzz. More trolling and game playing. Turning my words around don’t work, sorry. Provide documentation please, even a single sheet. I’ve given you whole libraries worth that YOU are running from. You have a lot more homework to do than I do.

          • Oboehner

            The documentation you are running from, get on with it or admit it is a religion. Try to deviate from the appeal to authority playbook and post some documentation.

          • Valri

            You’ve been told exactly where to find it in your public library. Obviously I cannot summarize the whole of evolution for you in a few mere sentences. I know that’s what you want but you don’t make the rules. It is in the sciences section, therefore not religion. You will note that as it is a science, this cannot be considered an appeal to authority in any sense as it is not a request for an opinion but a consultation of facts.

            Now how about you stop playing games and post YOUR documentation. I would like to see any reference of a scientific description of a whale becoming a cow. If you can’t do this, then please admit for once and for all that you are a liar and a troll.

          • Oboehner

            I see you are unable to answer, why is that?
            It is in the science section, so was bloodletting and flat earth, so what’s your point?

            “I would like to see any reference of a scientific description of a whale becoming a cow” Do you have a reading disability? I clearly said to pick whatever combination you choose, so stop weaseling around and answer something for once.

          • Valri

            I’m not unable to answer you. You have a habit of challenging me to answer questions over and over and completely ignore the questions I ask you. I’ve answered at least ten so far and you’ve just trolled around.

            Here it is for the eighth time, let’s watch you dance some more:

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

            “Do you have a reading disability? I clearly said to pick whatever combination you choose, so stop weaseling around and answer something for once.”

            No, you’re not going to deflect some more. You are being asked to provide an example of a scientist talking about a whale becoming a cow. It is a strawman because no scientist has ever said such a thing. Address the issue, please. When has a scientist ever said that a while becomes a cow? Focus. Stop your cowardly running away.

          • Oboehner

            “You are being asked to provide an example of a scientist talking about a whale becoming a cow.” My bad, a cow to a whale (a different spin an the same old fairytale): “The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence” by Raymond Sutera
            He provided no documentation, so it’s up to you.

            “Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution” Can I ask you, what does a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith have to do with superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolutionism?

          • Valri

            For an actual understanding of what you posted rather than a cowardly post-and-run, read this:

            http://ncse. com/rncse/21/5-6/tale-two-entities-whales-hippos

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Oboehner

            do exhibit a form intermediate between cows and whales. Translation, looks like it, but there is no proof it is true, only a religious belief it is.

            “Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?”
            Still picking and choosing and beating the dead horse.

          • Valri

            Nope, if they were speculating, they would say so, and it wouldn’t be considered established science, which it is.

            Can I ask you, what is the superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolution?

          • Ann Kah

            You are related to your cousins through your grandparents. (Diagram this and follow along.) you are related to your second cousins through your great-grandparents, and to your third cousins through your great-great-grandparents. You and a third cousin might have very little resemblance to each other. But if your great-great-grandmother were still alive and passed you on the street, it’s probable that neither of you would recognize the other.

            Now do this a few thousand generations back and imagine the difficulty of figuring out who is the ancestor of whom by looking at their bone structure. Now do you see why your demands are unreasonable? We are doing that with fossil remains ……and we only have a portion of them. Lots of puzzle pieces are missing, but we can still see parts of the picture. That’s what science does. Have I dumbed it down enough for you?

          • Oboehner

            No you haven’t “dumbed it down” you just slathered it with speculation and assumption (and imagination) without one shred of proof that any fossil is anything more than an extinct or yet to be discovered creature. Just because somebody arranged them is some order and claimed they fit that way somehow, doesn’t prove anything other than the gullibility of those who swallow it as fact.

          • Bob Johnson

            Okay, he is off by several orders of magnitude. But hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of rantings.

          • Valri

            All he does is sneer and ridicule, which is all the more embarrassing because he’s wrong about absolutely everything.

          • John N

            Well Oboehner, I can guarantee you that no school anywhere in the world teaches evolutionism.

            Just like no school anywhere teaches algebraism, frenchism, geologism or physicsism.

            But I’ m afraid some do try to teach creationism. We really should stop them doing that, don’t you think so?

          • Oboehner

            Back to the old validation by comparison fallacy I see.

          • John N

            Back to creating your own sciencey terminology I see.

            But I guess it fits your own little universe you created to protect your religious ideas from reality.

          • Oboehner

            Back to creating your own sciencey terminology I see.
            But I guess it fits your own little universe you created to protect your religious ideas from reality.

          • Valri

            So, to summarize:

            You don’t believe a wealth of science texts which confirm evolution.
            You don’t believe a wealth of scientists working within the field confirm evolution.
            You don’t believe evolution being taught in the school curriculum in science classes confirms it as a science.
            You don’t believe the dictionary calling evolution a science makes it so.
            You don’t believe public libraries filing the evolution material in the science section (the 500s) make it a science.

            The only question I have left is, what function does your brain actually serve, because it seems quite plain that you don’t use it for thinking.

          • Oboehner

            So, to summarize:
            Appeal to authority arguments.
            Ad hominem attacks.

            The only question I have left is, what function does your brain actually serve, because it seems quite plain that you don’t use it for thinking, must be for that blind faith.

          • Valri

            If you can repeat nonsense, I can repeat facts. Consulting verified sources does not constitute an appeal to authority because it is not opinion but evidence.

            Ad hominems? No, let’s just call them insults. And you’ve deserved every one of them for your asinine refusal to accept the truth.

            As another person here has said so well, “Valri, you have to condense all the scientific wisdom into one blog post, complete with inline verification and validation. Please cross reference with supporting work, also inline.” This is essentially what you are demanding. And there’s a whole internet and very likely a public library just down the street from you that does all this and more. But no, it’s much easier to just sit here and screech at everyone “popular opinion” and “appeal to authority” and “evolutionism” and “religion” as though anyone’s going to take you seriously.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz…. Wake me when you actually have something besides blind faith.

          • Valri

            Your public library beckons. the 576 section specifically which deals with the science of genetics and evolution. Please don’t look in the 270 section, because that’s the blind faith section of the library. You’ll notice they don’t house it with the sciences because it isn’t one.

          • Oboehner

            What was that? Appeal to authority beckons? Your bling faith can’t produce anything? How sad it is for you.

          • Valri

            LOL yes, the 576 section is the “appeal to authority” section of the library.
            Don’t be sad for me, I’m the one with the fossils and the proof and science on my side. You’re the lone voice in the wilderness who doesn’t like it and sees it all as a big conspiracy theory designed to crush your ridiculous belief system.

          • Oboehner

            You have fossils, that prove something died, the rest is just blind faith.

          • Valri

            You have to line the fossils up over time to see the change, Oboehner. You are the looking at evolution in action. Right before your eyes.

          • Oboehner

            No I would be looking at dead things arranged to fit a religious belief – right before my eyes.

          • Valri

            You’d be staring squarely in the face of evidence you couldn’t dismiss by running away as you do from everything else. Because you’d be seeing evolution. You’d be seeing gradual change. Which is what evolution is.

          • Oboehner

            Evidence? Prove that any one of those fossils is anything more than just a dead creature. I know you can’t, you’ll just weasel around and post more nonsense claiming you’re doing my homework. My homework is done I know evolutionism is a religion, it’s up to you to answer simple questions to prove otherwise.

          • Valri

            Let’s let some of your fans answer this question for you…

            “OK, how do you explain that we can find the fossils of specific species only in geological strata of specific ages?”

            “I guess the fact that we have fossils of animals which no longer exist but are related to animals which do exist is totally lost on this idiot.”

            “Yeah, you can examine all the individuals of a species in one of the large fossil beds and take note of the variations. Where there are variations, change in the species is possible. Bonus, this road trip will get you away from the internet for a while.”

            “So I just have to take it on faith then, got it.”
            No, you don’t: we have in fact observed evolution occurring directly, in real time–how else do you think antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria arise?”

            “[Oboehner] is clearly an expert, especially when he mixes up golgi apparatus (used in glycosylation and vesicular transport) with the mitochondria.”

          • Oboehner

            How do we know the age of the fossil? By the layer of strata it’s in.

            How do we know the age of the layer of strata? Duh by the fossils that are in it.

            “I guess the fact that we have fossils of animals which no longer exist but are related to animals which do exist is totally lost on this idiot.”
            “but are related to” LOL, more religious belief.

            “Yeah, you can examine all the individuals of a species in one of the large fossil beds and take note of the variations. Where there are variations, change in the species is possible. Bonus, this road trip will get you away from the internet for a while.”

            “Where there are variations, change in the species is possible.” More religious belief and speculation.
            “No, you don’t: we have in fact observed evolution occurring directly, in real time–how else do you think antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria arise?”

            – still bacteria (which reverts back when left alone, hardly the formula for change over time) it takes religious faith to speculate that bacteria will EVER be anything else but bacteria

            So if your done posting drivel from religious people who don’t have the intestinal fortitude to address me directly, how about proving that any one of those fossils is anything more than just a dead creature. You already proved my point that you would just weasel around and post more nonsense.

          • Valri

            “So if your done posting drivel from religious people who don’t have the intestinal fortitude to address me directly, how about proving that any one of those fossils is anything more than just a dead creature. You already proved my point that you would just weasel around and post more nonsense.”

            Those people are eminently sensible to not engage a troll in a pointless discussion that you aren’t bright enough to realize you lost before it even started. It’s ME that keeps coming back here thinking I’m going to see the light at the end of the tunnel with you, but you deflect and deflect and deflect every single bit of iron clad evidence before you. There cannot possibly be another person on earth as blissfully uninformed and determined to run from inescapable facts as yourself, to sit here self-righteously sneering at centuries of brilliant scientific minds, thousands of scholarly texts, the education system, the public library system, science experts, all of it. All these people. All this history. All these books. And you know better than them all? LOL

            What can you DO with someone whom when you’re basically sitting there telling them that 2 + 2 = 4 just buries his head in the sand parroting the same stupid platitudes over and over: “Blind faith! Speculation! Religion!” Someone who cannot grasp that evolution doesn’t mean origins, in other words, doesn’t even understand the field he’s arguing about.

            Nope. This is nothing to do with cowardice. In fact you are providing people with more entertainment value than you can imagine. This is what they say: “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” Those people know what they’re dealing with.

            The Dunning-Kruger effect – look it up. You are the poster child for it.

          • D.M.S.

            Baloney! I keep coming across these people that are a legend in their own mind.

          • Oboehner

            “Those people are eminently sensible to not engage” They take time to talk about me… like I said – fortitude.
            “deflect every single bit of iron clad evidence before you” First off the word is “debunk” and the only thing “iron clad” is your faith.

            “scholarly texts, the education system, the public library system, science experts,” Appeal to authority, appeal to authority, appeal to authority, yet no proof was ever offered, simple questions remain unanswered.
            What can you DO with someone whom when you’re basically sitting there telling them that 2 + 2 = 4 just buries his head in the sand parroting the same stupid platitudes over and over: Science! Evidence! Proof! Someone who cannot grasp that attacking other beliefs doesn’t equal proof, in other words, apparently doesn’t even understand the field he’s arguing in favor of.

            Dunning-Kruger effect – admittance is a start, good job!

          • Valri

            They talk about you the way they’d talk about any science-denying buffoon who has only a Bible to defend his ridiculous position. Fortitude? No. Incredulity? Possibly. Hilarity? No question.

            No Oboehner, no one has iron-clad faith in the science taught in schools and in public libraries. That’s simple consultation of information. Faith is your talking snake and talking donkey.

            “Appeal to authority,”

            No. Consultation of factual information.

            “Appeal to authority,”

            No. Consultation of factual information.

            “Appeal to authority”

            No. Consultation of factual information. Get it yet?

            “simple questions remain unanswered.”

            The simple ones are ALL answered.

            “What can you DO with someone whom when you’re basically sitting there telling them that 2 + 2 = 4 j ust buries his head in the sand” >edited for stupidity<
            Ah, one of your trademark switcheroo messages. As usual it doesn't make a lick of sense.

            "Science! Evidence! Proof!"

            Correct, that's what they are. And everyone EXCEPT you seems to comprehend that.

            "Someone who cannot grasp that attacking other beliefs doesn't equal proof"

            "Beliefs" relate to opinions, not facts which are taught in schools and housed in science sections of public libraries.

            "Dunning-Kruger effect – admittance is a start, good job!"

            That would be a lot less hilarious if you'd offer something of your OWN that isn't blind faith, speculation, guesswork, belief, prayer, talking snakes, etc.

          • Oboehner

            More empty rhetoric and out and out lies. You have presented nothing more that “it’s taught in science class” You would be hysterically laughed out of any court room for “proof” like that. How pathetic, you attempt to debate a point and only help mine.

            Well now straw boy, what does talking snakes have to do with evolutionism? Exploding dots has far more to do with it, you know – your religious belief.

          • Valri

            “More empty rhetoric and out and out lies.”

            Name ONE.

            “You have presented nothing more that “it’s taught in science class” You would be hysterically laughed out of any court room for “proof” like that. How pathetic, you attempt to debate a point and only help mine.”

            Why would I be laughed out of a court room that respects the fact that evolution is taught in science classes in schools, and housed in the science section of public libraries? They’d be hysterically laughing at any person who calls all that stuff a conspiracy and takes their cues in life from the cult of the talking snake. You want to debate? Fine, debale the people who’ve got the proof. Don’t come on respectable message boards asking people to dumb it all down for you into a couple simple bite sized easy-to-digest pieces. You need to learn what evolution IS before you can jump in with both feet attacking it as a religion (?!). In fact, maybe take the time to learn what a religion is too. Then come back.

            “Well now straw boy, what does talking snakes have to do with evolutionism? Exploding dots has far more to do with it, you know – your religious belief.”

            Holding your breath until you turn blue isn’t going to ease your temper tantrum. You’ve got the straw (exploding dots just get funnier and funnier every time you try to pin them on scientists, who’ve never said any such thing), the blind faith, and the religious belief. Not us.

          • Oboehner

            “Name ONE.” Here:
            “No. Consultation of factual information.”
            “The simple ones are ALL answered.”
            “Science! Evidence! Proof!”
            “Correct, that’s what they are. And everyone EXCEPT you seems to comprehend that.”
            facts which are taught in schools and housed in science sections of public libraries.”
            “you’d offer something of your OWN that isn’t blind faith, speculation, guesswork, belief, prayer, talking snakes, etc.” Have never offered that.
            “Holding your breath until you turn blue isn’t going to ease your temper tantrum.”
            “exploding dots just get funnier and funnier every time you try to pin them on scientists, who’ve never said any such thing” Try you “holy book” the science class textbook.

            And that’s just one post.

          • Valri

            “Here:”
            Yup. A big, fat nothing, just as I suspected.
            As with everything else in your post. You are a troll; it’s just that simple.

          • Oboehner

            Can I ask you, what does a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith have to do with superhuman controlling power or personal God in evolutionism?

          • D.M.S.

            More baloney. You’re spreading the manure awfully thick. But I guess that’s what legends do.

          • David Cromie

            Appealing to the so-called ‘bible’ is, for christers, appealing to ‘authority’ on any question, such as ‘creationism’.

            Yet no religiot can adduce a viable rationale for the real existence of their particular sky fairy, apart from mere superstitious ‘belief’, backed up by blind ‘faith’. You are a hypocrite!

          • Oboehner

            Now the attack on the Bible – -which has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionism being a religion. Sky fairy, LOL but an exploding dot is believable, ROFL!!

          • Valri

            Isn’t that cute, when he quotes your exact words back to you, thinking he’s being really clever?

          • afchief

            Evolution is a lie!!!

          • John N

            Evolution can not explain a butterfly? How so?

            It is very well known that butterflies had a common ancester in the Trias with caddisflies, which was a member of a now extinct order that also were complete metamorphic. In fact most insects are. Complete metamorphism is much older and we know how it originated.

            So were do you see the problem?

          • Amos Moses

            “It is very well known that butterflies had a common ancester in the Trias with caddisflies, which was a member of a now extinct order that also were complete metamorphic”

            Which is all very interesting but does not explain why a metamorphosis was needed nor does it explain how the process of metamorphosis became. It did not “evolve” as every step of the process had to be exactly as it needed to be for a butterfly to become a butterfly. Any failure in the process means the species dies out because caterpillars do not reproduce.

            So you have no answer.

          • John N

            You asked how evolution could explain butterflies. I gave you an answer. Butterflies evolved from more primitive insects. Do you doubt that?

            How far will you be moving the goalposts next time?

            Now why do you think metamorphosis can not be evolved? For the same reason the bacterial flagellum can not be evolved? The vertebrate eye? The immune system? Any other so-called irreducible complex system? So far every example of such system has been explained. Why would metamorphosis be an exception?

          • Amos Moses

            No, you did not explain how evolution came up with metamorphosis. It did not and evolution cannot explain it. Caterpillars do not reproduce, they do not have the organs to reproduce until they become butterflies.

            So how did that happen over “thousands or millions of years” when a caterpillar cannot reproduce. Caterpillar dies, species dies. No trial and error, no butterflies.

          • John N

            How evolution came up with metamorphosis?

            The same way evolution came up with the bacterial flagellum, the vertebrate eye and the immune system. Via intermediate stages. From completely ametabolous (lacking metamorphosis) via different forms of hemimetabolism (different nymphal and adult stages) to the different forms of hometabolism. And the explanation is that it allows young and adult forms of the species to occupy different ecological niches, which gives them access to more resources and reduces intraspecies competion, which is clearly an evolutionary advantage.

            It is strange that creationists keep coming up with examples of so-called irreducible complex systems, natural processes and structures that they think evolution cannot explain, as if that would be evidence for their pet idea. I’m sorry, but that is not how science works. If you want to promote creationism, then explain how you think your god created butterflies. I did not yet see any explanation for that.

          • Amos Moses

            And you have no evidence that “evolution” came up with ANY of that.

            Caterpillars do not have the organs to make other caterpillars. They do not develop until it matures to a butterfly. So the question stands UNANSWERED and your use of long words only shows that you really cannot answer it.

            How did God create it. Ask me how Picasso painted a picture. i could tell you with a brush, but i cannot make another one like it. It is not answerable as i do not have the mind of Picasso or God. But you have no answer either.

            You cannot get passed the point of the trial and error that is “evolution” to get the immature caterpillar to an adult with any reasonable explanation.

            Period.

          • John N

            Caterpillars don’t have the organs to make other caterpillars. That’s clear. Fly larvae don’t have the organs to make other fly larvae. Chicken eggs don’t have the organs to make more chicken eggs. Human embryos do not have the organs to make more human embryos.

            And your point is? And this proves your creator god how?

            I gave you the answer on how evolution explains complete metamorphosis. If you want to have more details, read a book on evolutionary entomology.

            But I guess you really don’t want to know the answer, because that would deprive you from your creationists’ favorite argument: ‘I don’t understand it. It is too complex. Therefore goddidit’.

            Please, remain ignorant if that is what you really want. Just don’t get involved in scietific discussions if you don’t want to look foolish.

            Period.

          • ajpoll

            Actually I just googled a recent article from Scientific American (by Ferris Jabr, August 2012) on the evolution of metamorphosis (I tried posting the link yesterday, but my entire post was rejected.) I found the article to be inconclusive, as it freely admits, but I am genuinely interested in the latest theory of how metamorphosis evolved.
            Personally I have a hard time believing that small, progressive, unguided mutations could cause the morphing of an eating machine with chewing mouthparts, a gut, a simple eye and no antenna to a flying reproductive machine with antenna that smell, compound eyes, a proboscis instead of chewing mouthparts, and reproductive organs.

          • John N

            I’ve got news for you.

            I know a case in which small, progressive, unguided mutations caused the morphing of a single cell with only some internal organelles, a simple digestion system, no eyes and no antenna to a walking reproductive machine with a nose that smells, vertebrate eyes, jaws and teeth, and reproductive organs.

            Or do you doubt you were born?

          • ajpoll

            Actually you’re right. The human body is extremely complex, and the probability of unguided mutations acting on DNA to produce all those specific proteins required to produce organelles, digestion, metabolism, the nervous system, sight and reproduction is even less than that of producing complete metamorphosis. Really, really low, even given 3.8 billion years.

          • John N

            So you’ve done the math. Care to share your results with the world?

            Or is this just one of the usual creationists ‘ I don’t think it is possible therefore goddidit’ fallacies?

          • ajpoll

            No, I have not done the math. But a number of very thoughtful scientists have.

            First of all, the odds of life being produced by the random production of nucleotides, say, from a bolt of lightning striking primordial soup, are quite daunting. The late, renowned professor A.E. Wilder-Smith pointed out the uselessness of such nucleotides based on their mixed handedness, and, therefore, the impossibility of them ever producing the building blocks for life.

            In 1966 there was a conference at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia dealing with the probability of random mutations acting as an engine for evolution. The conference was attended by many distinguished biologists and scientists of the day, including Mayr and Lewontin. Murray Eden of MIT pointed out that because of the necessary specificity of the sequence of letters in a piece of literature that random replacement of individual letters or words or phrases would degrade rather than enhance their functionality, and that the same principle applies to the genetic code. Dr. Marcele Shutzenberger, also at the conference, was one of the first to try and calculate odds of random, unguided mutations acting on nucleotide bases to produce functional genes and proteins, using computer algorithms. He found that the odds of random interventions acting on computer code to produce different functional computer code, by analogy, was less than in one in 10 to the power of 1000 (impossible).

            You may or may not be aware of the work of Robert Sauer, who estimated that the odds of getting a mutation which might produce a functional amino acid sequence for a short protein length of 92 to be around one in 10 to the power of 63. He calculated this number while trying to determine the functionality of “damaged” proteins – ones that had specific amino-acid substitutions placed at various sites. See Reidhaar-Olsen and Sauer, “Functionally Acceptable Solutions in Two Alpha-Helical Regions of Lambda Repressor.” Proteins, Structure, Function, and Genetics 7 (1990): 306-16

            More recently, Douglas Axe built on and refined the work done by Sauer, and calculated the odds of a getting a 150-amino-acid long chain that would produce a folded protein from the sea of possible amino-acid chains. He calculated the odds to be one in 10 to the power of 77. See Axe, Douglas D. “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds”. J. Mol. Biol. (2004) 341, 1295–1315

            Evolutionists William B. Whitman, David C. Coleman and William J. Wiebe calculated the total number of prokaryotes that get produced on this planet to be about 10^30. From this, scientists estimate that the total number of organisms that have ever existed on Earth to be 10^40.

            Assuming the every organism that ever existed gets a heritable mutation (liberal and generous), the odds of a 150-amino-acid long chain producing a functional folded protein in 3.8 billion years have been estimated these scientists to be 1 in 10 to the power of 37, or one in ten trillion trillion trillion. For one short protein.

            And when I see something as marvelous as the complete metamorphosis of a caddis fly, for example, which would require multitudes of progressive and successful mutations to produce (according to the theory of evolution), I think I can be forgiven for giving credit where credit is due.

          • John N

            >’But a number of very thoughtful scientists have.’

            And the first one you quote is the ‘renowned professor A.E. Wilder-Smith ‘? You mean the creationist that promoted the claims that dinosaur and humans existed together at Paluxy River? The chemist that wrote ‘The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution’, of which a real biologist reacted “the most fundamental flaw of the book is an apparent confusion or ignorance (it is hard to tell) concerning our present understanding of the evolutionary process.”?

            You’re not making a good start here. And quoting scientists from the sixties doesn’t do much to improve that.

            Let’s look at your more recent references:
            ‘Douglas Axe … calculated the odds of a getting a 150-amino-acid long chain that would produce a folded protein from the sea of possible amino-acid chains. He calculated the odds to be one in 10 to the power of 77′

            And in more recent experiments using the so-called mRNA display-technique scientists have enlarged these odds to be between 10 to the power of 10 and 10 to the power of 15. Which, taking into account the number of bacteria and the age of the earth, makes it almost a certainty that these proteins would appear.

            >’And when I see something as marvelous as the complete metamorphosis of a caddis fly, for example, which would require multitudes of progressive and successful mutations to produce (according to the theory of evolution), I think I can be forgiven for giving credit where credit is due.’

            Which is a fallacy (unless you actually checked the number of mutations needed and actually calculated the odds) also known as an argument from ignorance.

            We do know rather well how complete metamorphosis evolved; and the form found in caddisflies is only one in a long line of progressive steps from no metamorphosis (ametaboly) via partial metamorphism (hemimetaboly) fo complete metamorphosis – all in more than 400 million years of insect evolution.

          • ajpoll

            Well, yes, I did start off with Wilder-Smith, who did promote the Paluxy tracks, before they were “exposed” and “improved” by erosion and weathering, declared to be dinosaur tracks, and subsequently abandoned by the creationist movement as evidence for special creation. However his concern with the nucleotides is valid. A later article appeared in Scientific American (February, 1991), in which Stanley Miller and a few of his peers (Joyce, Orgel, Chang, Greenburg) were interviewed concerning origins. Miller had earlier abandoned his own initial enthusiasm about nucleotides, and he concludes the article with “we just haven’t learned the right tricks yet.” I expect that whoever does learn “the right trick” will have his jersey retired at the Nobel Peace Prize Hall of Fame.

            Regarding mRNA display technique, could you please provide me with some references? I googled and searched databases, but could not find any articles claiming that such a technique increases the odds of mutations producing evolutionarily advantageous proteins, so I have a hard time commenting on that.

            And I am really happy for you that you “know” how the caddis fly evolved all those years ago, especially considering we cannot even get a fruit fly to evolve into anything but a fruit fly. Lord knows we’ve tried.

          • Amos Moses

            The point is….. metamorphosis has to be completely in place with ABSOLUTELY no flaws or you do not have new caterpillars.

            Evolution is a theory of trial and error. Minute changes over thousands or millions of years

            Metamorphosis allows NO trial and error. The theory falls apart.

            No metamorphosis, no new caterpillars.

            No new caterpillars, no butterflies. No butterflies ever.

          • John N

            No, it doesn’t, like I showed you.

            There are many intermediary forms of metamorphosis that work as fine as the complete form.

            There is no reason to think holometabolism could not have evolved naturally. Just like the vertebrate eye, the bacterial flagellum, the immune system and whatever ‘irreducible’ complex system creationists came up with trying to refute the theory of evolution.

            They failed. Every time.

            Even Dembski has realised this and is moving on now.

            So ‘I don not understand how this works’ is no reason to refute a settled scientific theory.

            But give it a try and come up with a better explanation?

          • Dennis Trisker

            Dear Amos, have you ever read any of Darwin’s literature. While not completely convinced I am totally unconvinced about creationist theories! Metamorphosis comes about in the same way all change occurs: causes and effects.

          • Amos Moses

            1. Creation, sorry to inform you, is not a theory. It is. It is undeniable.

            2. It is not up to creationists to convince you. It is up to the Creator. You will never be convinced without the assistance of the Creator. The Creator nor the creation will be revealed through science. Science will show you that it is stable, testable and how certain things work and will confirm the creation. But science cannot convince. Science is a creation of the Creator. The painting cannot prove the existence of the painter. It must accept it through faith.

            The creation, the Creator and all its glory is revealed through Christ. If you are not convicted of sin, that sin is a violation of Gods immutable law, and that the way to be saved from the consequences of that law is Christ, there is not much a creationist can do to convince you.

            Have you ever asked yourself why the universe is so immense, so vast, so huge? It is so God could show you your place in it. Tiny, small, insignificant. And yet Christ died for us anyway.

        • Amos Moses

          Explain how the Golgi apparatus “evolved”.

          The Golgi apparatus (/ˈɡoʊldʒiː/), also known as the Golgi complex, Golgi body, or simply the Golgi, is an organelle found in most eukaryotic cells.[1] It was identified in 1897 by the Italian physician Camillo Golgi and named after him in 1898

          • John N

            Why? Have you got any evidence it was created?

          • Amos Moses

            We are examining the evidence for evolution. Golgi apparatus exist. So how it came about is the question. Evolution says it just…..what… appeared one day? How? As an answer to what? How did it evolve? Why did it evolve?

          • John N

            There is not need to examine the evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution is an accepted scientific theory, which means it can explain all known facts, has made verifiable and verified predictions, and has never been falsified.

            If you want to attack the theory, please define a hypothesis of your own. Show us your evidence. Show us how it explains all known facts better than the current theory. Give us some predictions, different from the current theory, that we can check. And above all, tell us what kind of evidence would falsify your hypothesis.

            If you did all that, you make a chance of refuting the theory of evolution.

          • Amos Moses

            “There is not need to examine the evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution is an accepted scientific theory,”

            It is not settled, it is not my theory and you are here on a christian site stating it is settled.

            Explain how Golgi apparatus came to be and “evolved”.

          • gizmo23

            What’s with the Golgi apparatus obsession?
            I’ll ask again, explain what a quark looks like

          • Amos Moses

            Quarks are not part of evolution. Golgi apparatus provide energy to every single cell. Where did it come from and how did it “evolve”? Cells do not replicate without energy.

            How did it evolve?

          • gizmo23

            I have no idea. Quarks are the building blocks of all living things. They are as much a part of evolution as DNA

          • David Cromie

            What is the purpose of the mitochondria?

          • Amos Moses

            Better question, how did mitochondria “evolve”?

          • afchief

            Amos, you and I know this is the “religion” of the Left. We know where it comes from. Here is another good site on the lie of evolution.

            EVOLUTION— THE BIG LIE!

            http://www.lovethetruth. com/evolution/big_lie.htm

          • Amos Moses

            Thnx

          • David Cromie

            Why would the truth of a statement depend on which internet site it was enunciated?

          • Amos Moses

            What “truth” are you referring to……………….. As far as evolution…. i have yet to see any “truth”.

          • John N

            Well, the worlds scientific community thinks it is.

            What you, clearly not a scientist, thinks of it is not going to change that.

            As for the Christian site, the majority of Christians do accept evolution. Creationists are an exceptional breed in that they know how to use a computer, while denying science.

            If you want to know how the Golgi apparatu evolved, you wont find it in your bible. You really should start reading real science books. You know, those things that explain reality, not fairy tales.

          • Amos Moses

            “What you, clearly not a scientist, thinks of it is not going to change that.”

            You are right, those who do not want to follow the rules of science are not going to follow any other rules and they will be deceived. i have no illusion to change a mind that refuses to acknowledge that they do not follow the rules of science.

            i like science. God created a universe that is stable and reliable so that science could exist. So that science could be used to understand God and His creation. In fact God created science.

            But people misuse it and do not want to follow the rules.

            Like you.

          • John N

            You like science? Then why do you not start learning what it means? Or would that interfere with your understanding of god?

            Well, I can predict it will.

          • Amos Moses

            Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt, got two actually, one to blow my nose on, the other to cover it up with.

            Been in your “no god, a-theist” camp……. BORING and lost.

          • Bob Johnson

            But He fooled us with the speed of light to make people think the universe is older than it is, and He buried all those bones in neat layers to fool the geologists. Seems more like Loki.

          • Amos Moses

            Ah, guess what, they fool themselves.

          • David Cromie

            In what sense is the universe ‘stable’, in your opinion?

          • Amos Moses

            The fact that you can test, observe, repeat a test and be assured of consistent results……….. you know….. real science.

            The sun comes up, the sun sets , it rains, you wake up every morning and you don’t have think if today is walk on the ceiling day or no gravity day. You know, simple everyday stuff.

          • Bob Johnson

            I glad you know now gravity works. I’ve been watching a video by Sean Carroll (a scientist) and there seems to be a few outstanding questions about how it works.

          • Amos Moses

            Is it a particle or is it a wave?

            And you seem to miss the context of the question and the answer.

          • Bob Johnson

            particle or wave – that is light not gravity.

            As for gravity, which is in context, you only know a few things about how it works and you can make accurate predictions based on that knowledge. However, there is a great deal about gravity that no one understand – it is one of the great mysteries.

            The same is true of evolution – there is still much to learn, but that does not mean it is not a fully developed science.

          • Amos Moses

            “particle or wave – that is light not gravity.”

            Then you had better read up on magnetic monopoles.

          • Bob Johnson

            First sentence, “A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical elementary particle in particle physics”

            Get back to me when it is settled science.

          • Amos Moses

            So were quarks,,,,,,,,,once,,,,,, and it is a quark. But that is science. And many prestigious labs and universities are involved. It is actually part of unified theory. Again, science.

          • Amos Moses

            Extra dimensions, gravitons, and tiny black holes | CERN
            One possibility is that we don’t feel the full effect of gravity because part of it … One option would be to find evidence of particles that can exist only if extra ..

          • Amos Moses

            Settled science is being able to give a person a blueprint and have them build it. Like an internal combustion engine. Give a person a blueprint or a set of instructions and they should be able to build one.

            Sorry, you can’t even do that with “evolution”, it is not possible to replicate it. It is junk science, it is psuedo-science.

            OTOH, gravitons are an hypothesis and part of the scientific method and is needed to design an experiment. Like CERN. Unlike “evolution” for which no experiment can be designed.

            “Evolution” is looking at pictures and making up stories about what it is. It is a Rorschach test.

          • Amos Moses

            This is where the “science of evolution” is leading you to:

            Could this be humanity’s LAST century? Expert says ‘re-engineering our children’ will lead to the creation of a new species
            This is according to Seth Shostak, director of the Seti Institute
            He believes ‘designer babies’ will create a new type of human
            Our children will be ‘as different from us as dogs are from grey wolves’
            AI will also change society, he says, with robots taking over our jobs

            www dot dailymail dot co dot uk/sciencetech/article-3405312/Could-humanity-s-century-Expert-says-engineering-children-lead-creation-new-species dot html

            Also check out a guy named Zoltan Istvan. He is running for president on the trans-humanist party. Some day they will be looking at our bones and wondering if they were really human or something else.

            Not following the rules of science has consequences.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man.”

            Amos, do you find it remarkable that Jesus made this statement without saying anything along the lines of “…with the exception of the giants”?

          • red81white

            And there is plenty of evidence to support the theory that Darwin ripped off Alfred Russel Wallace….

          • Amos Moses

            Hold Up, Did We Just Crack Time Travel?

            Astrophysicists famously proved Einstein’s theory on the existence of gravitational waves last week. Here’s the less covered part of it all: It might, down the line, bring us closer to moving through time.

          • Amos Moses

            “The same is true of evolution – there is still much to learn, but that does not mean it is not a fully developed science.”

            It is not science. It is not observable, it is not testable and it is not repeatable.

          • Amos Moses

            Google it:

            Superconductors Could Help Physicists Find ‘Gravity Particles’

          • Amos Moses

            Golgi apparatus did not evolve, they were created, just like the spark plug in your car, for a very specific purpose.

          • John N

            Now your speaking.

            So the Golgi apparatus was created, just like the spark plug.

            No I’ve got a question or two to you. I hope you answer them the way I answered yours.

            Was it created by General Electric or Bosch?

            Where is the factory where it was build? Where are the labs? The designs? Who were the designers? The developpers? The testers? When were the created?

            Why did the designers design it this way? Why not use an easier energy generator like a battery? Solar power?

            What else did they design? What did they not design? How can we recognize what is designed and what has evolved? Why did the designers designed all their stuf while making it look as if it evolved?

            When you’ve got an answer on these questions, please come back and I’ll give you a new load.

          • Amos Moses

            i am not sure how the spark plug came to be or who invented it. But the Golgi apparatus and the answer to your questions is God.

            “Why did the designers designed all their stuf while making it look as if it evolved?”

            That is your own delusion that is doing that.

          • John N

            Which god?

          • David Cromie

            There is little point in referring AM to a scientific text, since he would not be able to understand it!

          • gogo0

            “appeared one day”? are you serious, this is your argument?

            the entire concept of evolution is based around the fact that things do *not* simply “appear one day”. you must be joking, this is elementary-school level information.

          • Amos Moses

            Note it was a question, There is a question mark there, a question not to you i might add and it stands.

            Explain how Golgi apparatus came to be, how did it “evolve”?

          • gogo0

            my answer is “I don’t know, I am not a biologist and im not going to do some quick googling to try and come off as an expert”.

            if you think that for evolution to be valid, that there must be a known answer to every genetic mutation in history, you are more deluded than you appear.

            now you can respond to my assertion that your comments indicate you have less than an elementary-school level of knowledge of the most basic premise of evolution. “Golgi apparatus exist. So how it came about is the question. Evolution says it just…..what… appeared one day?”

          • Amos Moses

            Evolution cannot even answer the Basic questions.

          • gogo0

            and neither can you. the “basic” questions are at the very end of the trail of study, at least science is trying to get there. creationists takes pride in rejecting new information and going nowhere.

          • Amos Moses

            What you are calling “science” is really just psuedo-science. It is just made up fantasy.

          • gogo0

            oh man, the ridiculous things that come out of theists’ mouths sometimes… blind belief in an omnipotent/omniscient eternal being is no problem, but evolution with fossil evidence is a fantasy many attribute to satan.
            I guess I should just be thankful you guys aren’t burning heretics on stakes anymore…

          • Amos Moses

            The burning will come soon enough. And it won’t be “theists” that do it.

            And looking at a bone or a collection of bones and “coming up with a theory” is not science. And that is the problem you have. You call it science, but you do not, in fact, you refuse to even follow the rules of science. You won’t even follow your own rules.

            And yet you claim it to be science.

          • John N

            So you, a religious zealot, are going to teach us the ‘rules of science’?

            Oh this is going to be fun! Can’t wait for the first lesson!

            What will that be? That everything is science is based on repeating events?

          • Amos Moses

            “So you, a religious zealot, are going to teach us the ‘rules of science’?”

            None are so blind as those who refuse to see. You are not ready to learn. When you are ready, the teacher will appear.

          • John N

            I guess this is some deepity – better known as ‘woo’.

            Or are you just threatening us with you eternal pits of fire? Because, you know, been there, done that, anything new?

          • Amos Moses

            Just another FYI, cut and paste for those who are above reading such things:

            The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.

            The steps of the scientific method are to:

            Ask a Question

            Do Background Research

            Construct a Hypothesis

            Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment (Testablity)

            Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion (Observability)

            Communicate Your Results (FYI, the reason for this is so others can Repeat your results to see if you lied or were in error) (Repeatability)

            Feel free to ignore these truths.

          • John N

            >’Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment (Testablity)’

            Now I see why you keep on hammering on those ‘repeatable’ events. Your definition of the scientific method is a bit simplistic. Were did you get this, an elementary schoolbook?

            The scientific method does not require experiments nor does it require repeatable events. It requires predictions and repeatable observations.

            One way to test predictions is to do experiments, but there are other ways of doing that.

            The theory of evolutions has allowed scientists to make predictions and – surpise! – they were confirmed. Darwin predicted the existence of Xanthopan morgani, a butterfly pollinating the orchid Angraecum sesquipedale. The story of the prediction and find of Tiktaalik might ring a bell.

            By the way, the Lenski experiment on E. coli is a lab experiment showing the effect of natural selection on real organisms.

            As for the repeatability of observations, all scientific evidence regarding evolution, be it fossils or molecular evidence, of course can be reevaluated by any scientists interested to do so.

            Now to your creationist view again: how do you think ‘creationist science’ is fitting into this scientific rules?

            No hypothesis, no collection of data, no testing, therefore no analyzing of the results, no predictions, no experiments. The only thing ‘creationist science’ has in common with real science is they already have a conclusion: goddidit.

          • Amos Moses

            Been used for years and you don’t like it because it destroys the lies you are selling.

          • John N

            Been used for years?

            And still no results? What a waist of time.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes, it is a WASTE of time to say something is science and then have no science to backup what you are saying.

            Still no results, no EVIDENCE, no data, and no science.

          • John N

            Well, I’m glad you agree. So I suppose you will then leave Creationism?

            Welcome to the real world!

          • Amos Moses

            There is more science in creationism………………………. so no.

          • John N

            Well then, come on and show us!

          • David Cromie

            So says someone who believes a 4th cent. book of fables, legends, and folklore!

          • Amos Moses

            “So says someone who believes a 4th cent. book of fables, legends, and folklore!”

            So says somebody who believes something that changes every few years because they cant get it right.

            FYI, the bible has not changed in Thousands of years. There are over 5000 manuscripts with an extremely high degree of accuracy, proven again and again.

            What you got that compares to it? Nothing.

            Global warming,,,, no wait,,, that was 10 years ago,,, Climate change,,,, no wait, that was yesterday…. Sorry,,,, Hey Fred,,,, What is the new change in terms so i can get my lies straight………………

            15 years ago they wrote articles about saying good bye to snow…. hahahahahahahaaha.

          • John N

            >’FYI, the bible has not changed in Thousands of years. There are over 5000 manuscripts with an extremely high degree of accuracy, proven again and again.’

            So I suppose that is why there are 40.000 different explanations by 40.000 different denomination, each of them claiming they have the correct interpretation of the most complete edit of the one valid version of the only errorless translation of the most original set of bible books ever found.

            And every one of them prepared to condemn anybody else who disagrees with their …

          • Amos Moses

            “So I suppose that is why there are 40.000 different explanations by 40.000 different denomination, each of them claiming they have the correct interpretation of the most complete edit of the one valid version of the only errorless translation of the most original set of bible books ever found.”

            There is only one. Men do not interpret scripture, scripture interprets scripture.

            But even if what you say is true, and it is not, 40,000 is wrong and hyperbole on your part, the bible still has not changes one iota. Period. End of discussion. We have the manuscripts, there are over 5000 ancient manuscripts. You have nothing. And God has kept His promise to protect His word forever.

          • John N

            Which god?

          • Amos Moses

            The God that made science, from a grade school text book, that is destroying “evolution” because you have no science, no data, and no evidence..

          • John N

            Oh , Odin. I know him. Cool guy.

            And at least as much evidence for him as for that Jewish god, Jahweh.

          • David Cromie

            Where are these 5,000 ancient MSS stored, and are they freely available on the internet for inspection?

          • Amos Moses

            They are stored in a number of different museums, If you want to view them you have to talk to the holders of them,,,,, you know them, the scientific community. But they are confirmed by the discovery in the dead sea scrolls in 1946-1956 and much of it is available in digital format, online at

            deadseascrolls dot org

          • Bob Johnson

            The Bible must be true. I found a copy in a Marriott hotel and then a few weeks later I found another copy in a different city in a Hilton hotel. Other people have told me similar stories from other cities all over the country.

          • David Cromie

            🙂

          • David Cromie

            If you are interested in the real history of your so-called ‘bible’, then research the Codex Sinaiticus online (the British Library site would be a good place to start), and then try telling yourself that ‘the bible has not changed in Thousands of years’.

            As for the rest of your piffle on global warming, it is ignorant nonsense, and risible.

          • Amos Moses

            i know all about the Codex Sinaiticus and do not use it, for those reasons.

            i rely on the Textus Receptus.

            Anything else.

          • David Cromie

            So you rely on a syncretically cobbled together text, just because you have been brainwashed into believing it authentic, ignoring all the evidence of its legendary fairy tale origins?

          • Amos Moses

            They all confirmed by the dead sea scrolls.

          • afchief

            Amos, get to this site and read about the lie of Evolution. Very illuminating!!!

            The Big Lie – Exposed!

            http://deeptruths. com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html

          • Valri

            Oh my God that’s hilarious.

            Why is it that all the fundie websites with names like “deep truths” and “amazing facts” always contain utter garbage?

          • afchief

            Ahhhh yes, more proof that truth is the enemy of liberals and homosexuals.

          • Valri

            Nice try Jack, but I’m not homosexual. And even if I was I’d find your website to be a joke.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Oooohh now I really need to read it. I’m always in for a good laugh.

          • Bob Johnson

            by the way the way if you can falsify the theory of evolution, you will get the Nobel prize and a check for $1.5 million.

          • Bob Johnson

            No one has to explain how it evolved. It is acceptable for both evolution and creation to say,”I do not know.” The important part is discovering how it does, in fact, work. This knowledge can then be used to determine if either theory is being falsified.

            By the way the way if you can falsify the theory of evolution, you will get the Nobel prize and a check for $1.5 million.

          • Amos Moses

            “No one has to explain how it evolved. It is acceptable for both evolution and creation to say,”I do not know.””

            Then it is not settled, is it. FYI, creationist believe God created it. Evolutionists believe it “evolved”. Big difference.

            i cant tell you how Rembrandt or any other painter painted their works. They used brushes and paint. i cannot tell you how but i can tell you they created it.

            The building across the street did not accidentally assemble, it was created. Trees, bugs, birds, dinosaurs, people, even a simple cell is infinitely more complex. Yet those who propose evolution as the answer and as science cannot answer even some of the most basic questions and provide evidence. Nothing happens just because of time and random events. They are all created.

            “Evolution” says the exact opposite and offers no evidence of what is stated, and those who espouse it demand that people provide evidence of God, but when they are asked for evidence and held to that standard for “evolution”, they get offended and condescending.

            Evolutionists tend to state that they do not believe anything they cannot feel, see, taste, touch,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yet cannot apply that same standard to their theory and at the same time demand it of creationists.

            No, they do not want to be held to the same standard that they demand of others or any standard for that matter.

      • Amos Moses

        “for the evolution of birds from dinosaurs,”

        And you explain the reverse position of the pelvic bone………….how?

        Birds do not have a pelvic bone in the same position as a dinosaur.

        • John N

          Isn’t it strange that the position of Archaeopteryx’ pubis is halfway between that of Saurischians and modern birds?

          Now how would a creationist explain that?

          • Amos Moses

            An Archaeopteryx is not a bird, it is a reptile, as far as we know, and cold blooded. How did it become a warm blooded bird? It did not, it died out.

            FYI, a reptile is not a bird.

          • John N

            All birds are dinosaurs, and therefore reptiles.

            Dinosaurs, at least some of them, were warm blooded.

            Got any real points?

          • Amos Moses

            “Dinosaurs, at least some of them, were warm blooded.”

            Got any evidence that is measurable to prove that data point? No, you don’t. All you have is a story. A fantasy.

          • John N

            Why do you ask if you think you already know the answer?

            I could point you to the website of the University of California Museum of Paleontology, where there is a page where all evidence pro and contra endothermy in dinosaurs is collected. Would you check it? Would it change your mind?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            He wouldn’t even read it, or claim that it is a lie. Or even one better, it’s from Satan.

          • Amos Moses

            It is not evidence for one reason……….. all the dinosaurs are dead and you have no data points. It is all conjecture. Do you know the difference?

          • John N

            All the dinoasurs are dead? Wow, I just saw one flying past my window. And it certainly was warm blooded – too cold here for cold-blooded reptiles.

            If we do know that all extant dinosaurs are warm blooded, why would it be conjecture to say that their ancestors were warm blooded to? Besides the fossil evidence, of course.

            Oh right, you don’t ‘believe’ in fossils either.

          • Amos Moses

            “If we do know that all extant dinosaurs are warm blooded, why would it be conjecture to say that their ancestors were warm blooded to?”

            Show me the data. See, the beginning of your statement begins the problem, “IF”. You don’t know as you have no data. Science is data. You have none. Show me the data.

            You don’t know if they were all one or the other or a mix and which ones were and which ones were not. Conjecture!!!!! Not Science. And you have no data to even show if they were once one or the other and switched or did not switch. Conjecture!!!!!

            No, all you have is a story you made up in your head. It is not science.

            And i do not need the bible to destroy your “theory”, it does, all i am using is science to test what you are saying to show that it is all junk.

          • John N

            I rephrase: We do know all extant dinosaurs to be warm blooded, therefore …

            Ok know?

            And you are using science? You wouldn’t recognize science if it bit your nose. Thinking that science = data makes that clear. No real scientist would claim such a stupid thing.

          • Amos Moses

            “We do know all extant dinosaurs to be warm blooded, therefore …”

            EVIDENCE………………………. Where is the evidence? Where is the data? Where is it?

          • John N

            Do you know any extant dinosaur that is not warm blooded?

            Pinguins? Didn’t think so.

          • Bob Johnson

            .

          • Bob Johnson

            I have no data points.

            It is only conjecture on my part that you can turn on a computer, understand English, and can type. You could of course be a Turing Machine. Na, I’ve seen better Turing Machines – you must be human.

          • Amos Moses

            And you have no evidence.

          • BarkingDawg

            Of course not.

          • John N

            Oh the desillusion!

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            How come there are warm blooded horses and cold blooded.horses? Evolution

          • Amos Moses

            Excuse me, warm and cold BLOODED refers to the temperature regulation of the body, not what temperament an animal has.

            The term ‘Cold Bloods’ is usually used to describe draught (‘draft’ in the USA) horses; that is, large horses that are bred specifically for heavy, tiring labour such as agricultural work

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Excuse me, actually it has everything to do with temperament. Educate yourself, cause it’s obvious you didn’t.

          • Amos Moses

            Learn to parse deary.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Sorry, I’m not a IT professional. But if you want to know anything about horses just let me know.

          • Amos Moses

            If you want to know anything about cold blooded v warm blooded temperature regulation, which was being discussed, not horse temperament, let me know.

            FYI, all horses are warm blooded and maintain a constant temperature, despite their temperament. All mammals do. One of the things that makes them mammals.

            All mammals:

            Are vertebrates (which means they have abackbone or spine).

            Are endothermic. Also known as “warm-blooded,” endothermic animals regulate their own body temperate which allows them to live in almost every climate on Earth.

            Have hair on their bodies.

            Produce milk to feed their babies. This allows them to spend more time with their young and teach them important skills they need to survive on their own.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Oh, I thought we were talking about evolution. Sorry my bad.

          • Amos Moses

            So what part of evolution were you trying to address?

      • afchief

        Can you tell me how evolution can produce a brain? An eye? A heart?

        • Cady555

          There are creatures, alive and fossilized, with functional useful “eyes” that range from light sensitive cells to the full mammalian camera eye. Each form is useful to the creature and the every stage in the evolution of the eye is found in nature. There is no mystery on how the eye evolved.

          A similar progression can be found for limbs and organs, and bodily systems like the nervous system and the immune system. The wealth of knowledge is overwhelming.

          One of the most amazing things is the liver. At one point, the human embryo has a liver that resembles a fish liver. This gets absorbed. The embryo then has a reptilian liver, which is also reabsorbed at which point the embryo gets a normal mammalian liver.

          • afchief

            That does not tell me how the eye evolved or anything evolved. How did it start? What caused it to start? In what animal did it start? How do we know it evolved? How can it go from nothing to an eye seeing everything?

            What about the brain? What caused it to form? What gave it thought?

          • John N

            Well, it clearly tells us the eye, the brain or whatever organ you can point to, were not created.

            So if you have got a better explanation, please show us.

          • afchief

            So it is ALL based on “faith” that our organs evolved!!! Because we have NO proof, only theory!!!

            Ahhh yes, the religion of the atheists…………….evolution!!!

            It actually takes MORE faith to believe that we evolved then to believe that we are created!!!

          • John N

            Well if I look at your comments it indeed takes a lot of faith to believe that you actually evolved …

            Maybe there are exceptions.

        • BarkingDawg

          Slowly, step by step over a billion years.

          • afchief

            Really? So how did an animal hunt before the eye was developed? What about the nose? How did the nose develop…smell? I could think of a thousand questions, but there are NO answers. No proof! Only a blind faith (yes faith) in something that can NEVER be proven!!!!

          • John N

            The first eyes developped long before there were animals, in micro-organisms. Before that, micro-organisms had to rely on chemical receptors (a ‘nose’). The first complex eyes in animals developped in or before the Cambrium and gave rise to predation as a way of life. If you life a live of browsing on organic molecules, eyes are not really necessary.

            You see, it is not that difficult, already one question answered. I’m sure you can find the rest yourself. Wikipedia is a good place to start.

          • afchief

            Ohhhh, show me the proof!!!

          • John N

            I showed you the proof. I looked in Wikipedia myself and the answers are there. If I can do it, it shouldn’t be that more difficult for you … – oh I see.

          • afchief

            There is NO proof there. Data is not proof. Data helps support a theory. Theories can not be proven true, they can only be proven false. Evolution is a theory…in fact they call it the “Theory of Evolution.” If evolution was true would we still be calling it a theory?

            The debate is not about EVOLUTION…it is over ORIGINS. All of the “theories” are meaningless if these scientists can’t tell us where the dirt came from. I want to know how a rock evolved into life explain to me where the rock came from. The PROOF is in origins, not evolution.

            I WANT TO KNOW HOW IT WHAT HAPPENED “in the beginning.” i.e ORIGIN!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            “Theories can not be proven true, they can only be proven false. Evolution is a theory…in fact they call it the “Theory of Evolution.” If evolution was true would we still be calling it a theory?”

            Yes, it would still be a theory because theories, as you say, can never be proven true. So if you or anyone else can find prove that it is wrong, say a bunny rabbit in the Precambrian, then it will no longer be a theory.

            As for ORIGINS – that research is ongoing and not as well documented, however, if you search “abiogenesis”, I am sure you will find several days worth of reading.

          • afchief

            You mean you liberal/homos/atheists don’t know the BEGINNING of evolution off the top of your head? Tell me it’s not so???? Oh, I get it!!! It’s all based in FAITH that something happened to form life from non-life!!! Yes evolution is a religion.

            I can tell you about creation off the top of my head!!!

            LOL!!!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            Maybe you are having trouble with your short term memory. Roberta answered this for you 10 days ago. Here I’ll repeat her answer…

            Everything necessary for life to evolve could have done so from just hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet. Scientists found that using just those three basic ingredients they were able to produce more than 50 nucleic acids—precursors to DNA and RNA molecules. Early meteorites carried with them ingredients that would react with nitrogen already in the atmosphere, producing hydrogen cyanide. By dissolving in water, it could have very easily come into contact with hydrogen sulfide, while being exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun. And that, they claim, would have been all that was needed to get life started.

          • afchief

            So what are the origins of hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet?

            “Early meteorites carried with them ingredients that would react with nitrogen already in the atmosphere, producing hydrogen cyanide.”

            Really? How do we know this? Do someone go to a meteor?

            Water? What is the origin of water?

            I WANT PROOF!!!! LOL!

          • Bob Johnson

            You’re consistent. This is the same question you asked 10 days ago.

            The answer hasn’t changed… we are talking about some of the most common elements in the universe. As for the UV light – take your shirt off and step into the sunlight.

          • afchief

            What is the origin of the sun?

            I want proof!!!

            LOL!

          • Bob Johnson

            Here I am less certain. Genesis 1:16 ” Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day” He didn’t actually name it the sun.

          • afchief

            Let’s put it this way; I believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ. And I KNOW in my heart that it is HE who made all things. The god of this world (satan) has a job of blinding you to the truth. You cannot see it. We Christians can. You or anyone can post evolution garbage all day and I will KNOW IT IS A LIE!!!

            Colossians 1:15-18 (NASB) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

          • Bob Johnson

            I know you believe in God as do I. However, a belief in God does not mean that we must exclude science. Yes, both evolution and cosmology. It also means we can not be sure which of us satan is deceiving. I could claim satan is limiting your view of the power and grandeur of God’s creation – who knows. For me to believe that I have the only, right view of God and His Plan is the pinnacle of hubris.

          • afchief

            I don’t exclude science. However, when it “contradicts” with God, I KNOW it is based on a lie. What I believe is base on God’s Word. It will NOT change. And what I say is truth!!! Satan’s job is to make one think there is no God. To make one think the pleasures of sin has no consequences. That there is no after life. He is doing his job quite well

            The debate is not about evolution. I believe in evolution. I am not a scientist but I can look at a dog and see evolution at work. Breed a poodle with a cocker spaniel and you get a cockapoo. The result is a new breed of the same species. The cockapoo is still a canine…dog family…it is not a new species of animal. That is micro-evolution …changes within species…we all believe that. We see evidence of that all around us.

            But there is ZERO evidence of MACRO-evolution…changes across species…a frog becoming a bird. None. All they have are theories. Theories are not proof.

            The debate is not about EVOLUTION…it is over ORIGINS

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            You keep demanding proof of the theory of evolution. Just out of curiosity, how do you KNOW that the Bible is true? Why do you accept the “truth” of the Bible as compared to the holy books of other religions?

          • afchief

            John 14:6 (NASB) Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            It is a circular argument to use a book’s statement that it is true as proof that it is true.

          • afchief

            It’s all about faith.

            Hebrews 11:6 (NASB) And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

          • David Cromie

            I believe in Osiris, along with ghosts, ghouls and gremlins. All I need is ‘faith’ and they all appear as if by magic!

          • afchief

            Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

          • David Cromie

            Why would anyone who knows the history of the so-called ‘bible’ (which dates from the 4th cent., and has been added to, revised, and edited over the centuries since, mainly by followers of the Roman church), believe in these syncretically cobbled together books of myths, legends, and folklore?

          • afchief

            You can believe what ever you want. But, judging by your picture, death is right around the corner. Are you willing to take the chance there is no God? There are NO second chances when you leave this earth. NONE!

            You will spend eternity wishing for this very moment when you had a chance to give your life to Jesus Christ.

            I guarantee it!!!

          • afchief

            Very Educational!!!!!!!

            17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

            by Kevin Martin

            1. Moon Dust

            2. Magnetic Field

            3. Fossil Record

            4. Embryonic Recapitulation

            5. Probability

            6. Second Law of Thermodynamics

            7. Vestigial Organs

            8. Fossil and Fossil Fuel Formation

            9. Punctuated Equilibria

            10. Homology/Molecular Biology

            11. Dating Methods

            12. Dinosaurs

            13. Sun’s Diameter

            14. Nile River’s Overflow

            15. Earth’s Rotation

            16. Written Record

            17. The Bible

            1. MOON DUST

            Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

            However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

            Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.

            2. MAGNETIC FIELD

            The earth’s magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth’s magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth’s core are responsible for the earth’s magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

            3. FOSSIL RECORD

            Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”

            Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one “connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps.”

            Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let’s take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

            Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching’s book, The Neck of the Giraffe – Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

            (The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland’s book, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching’s book.)

            1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile’s.

            In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

            One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

            2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

            However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

            3. It had teeth.

            Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

            4. It had a shallow breastbone.

            Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

            Recent examination of Archeopteryx’s feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today’s flying birds.

            5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird’s.

            This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

            6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

            This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

            This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

            This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, “It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived.”

            And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

            In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

            “…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?”

            Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.

            4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION

            Darwin said that embryological evidence was “second to none in importance.” The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory.

            The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed “gill slits” (left over from fish), “yolk sac” (left over from the reptile stage), and “tail” (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.

            The yolk sac does not store food because the mother’s body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the “yolk sac” is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells.

            The “tail” is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do.

            Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.

            5. PROBABILITY

            The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory’s loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge

            “applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth – all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years.” (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) “To get a single cell – the single smallest living cell known to mankind – which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!”

            According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

            Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

            As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.

            6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

            The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

            Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

            1. The system must be an open system.

            2. An adequate external energy force must be available.

            3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.

            4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.

            The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.

            7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS

            Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the “Bible Science Newsletter,” August 1989, p. 16.

            1. Just because we don’t yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.

            2. This view is plain false. In the 1800’s, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)

            3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.

            4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.

            5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.

            6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these “vestigial” organs, but we still have them.

            7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.

            8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not “old ones” dying out.

            9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.

            8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION

            Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah’s flood.

            Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner’s hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.

            9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA

            Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.

            Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.

            10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

            Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.

            But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.

            In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.

            Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C Differences

            Bacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates

            to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27%

            to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp. . . . . . .25%

            to silkmoth. . . . . . 65% to pigeon. . . . . .26%

            to tuna. . . . . . . . 65% to turtle. . . . . .25%

            to pigeon. . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30%

            to horse . . . . . . . 64%

            Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin Differences

            Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates

            to bullfrog. . . . . . 13% to human . . . . . .73%

            to turtle. . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo. . . . .76%

            to chicken . . . . . . 14% to chicken . . . . .78%

            to rabbit. . . . . . . 13% to frog. . . . . . .76%

            to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp. . . . . . .75%

            Dr. Denton states, “There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish.” The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!

            11. DATING METHODS

            Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.

            Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.

            Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

            1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,

            2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &

            3. if there has been some type of contamination since.

            In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.

            12. DINOSAURS

            Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.

            Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

            Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

            Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

            However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.

            “But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that’s impossible!” Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.

            There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or “Brontosaurus.”) Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.

            13. SUN’S DIAMETER

            The sun’s diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

            14. NILE RIVER’S OVERFLOW

            Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile’s flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

            15. EARTH’S ROTATION

            The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

            16. WRITTEN RECORD

            The 22nd edition of Robert Young’s concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

            17. THE BIBLE

            Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those whom we did not warn.

            SOURCE

            SOURCES

            Baker, Sylvia, Evolution: Bone of Contention (Phillipsburg,

            NJ: Evangelical Press, 1986) Second Edition, p. 25

            Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin’s Enigma, Fossils and Other

            Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 74

            Parker, Gary, Life Before Birth (El Cajon, CA: Master

            Books, 1987), pp. 41-44

            Kennedy, D. James, Why I Believe (Waco, TX: Word Books,

            1980), p. 56

            Chick, Jack T., Primal Man? (Chino, CA: Chick Publications,

            1976), p. 23

            Cook, Charles, “God’s Young Earth Signature,” Bible-Science

            Newsletter, August 1989, p. 5

            OTHER BOOKS ON CREATION/EVOLUTION

            Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (El Cajon: Master Books, 1987)

            Chittick, Donald E., The Controversy, Roots of the Creation-

            Evolution Conflict (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984)

            Morris, Henry, The God Who Is Real (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

            Book House, 1988)

            Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland,

            MI: Inquiry Press, 1976)

            Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985

            Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men (Toronto, Canada: TFE

            Publishing, 1984)

            Morris, Henry, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand

            Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984)

            Morris, Henry, The Genesis Record (Published by Creation

            Life Publishers, Santee, CA, for Baker Book House, Grand

            Rapids, MI, 1986) Eleventh Printing

            Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil

            Record (Santee, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1985)

            Ackerman, Paul D., It’s A Young World After All (Grand

            Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986)

          • Bob Johnson

            I’m convinced. Please notified the Nobel committee and collect your $1.5 million.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            All of these have been disproven. Dinosaurs were dead long before man appeared and there is nothing in scripture that states the earth is 6000 years old, this is a bunch of nonsense coming from YEC teachers who have no clue what they are talking about. Sure there are legends of dragons, but there is also legends of catfish that can swallow man under dams. This has been disproven. If dinosaurs existed within the past few thousand years, there would still be at least one representative of them in large numbers today, there is not. The fossil record could not be arranged the way it is if one big flood had done it. We would have mammoths mixed with dinosaurs and man mixed with dinosaurs and we don’t have this. This is nonsense and it has made Christian’s a laughingstock.

          • BarkingDawg

            “Data is not proof.”

            What?

          • afchief

            I didn’t stutter!!! We are talking about the “Theory of Evolution”. Data is evidence. Data is not proof. Data helps support a theory. Theories can not be proven true, they can only be proven false.

            Is that too hard for you to understand????

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Data is evidence. Data is not proof. Data helps support a theory.”

            And evidence isn’t proof? Try telling a court that.

          • John N

            Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution is the best known explanation for it – it explains al known observations, is supported by all the evidence, and has never been falsified. It is a scientific theory, which is the highest form of ‘thruth’ science know. Therefore, it will remain a scientific theory forever, or it will be replaced by a new one that is even better in explaining the facts.

            Where the dirt came from or how life actually originated has no relation to the theory of evolution. For the first question you have to ask geologists or astronomists. They know very well where dirt came from.

            As for your last question, I think every scientist would like to know how life originated. That is why they are working hard on their hypotheses. What they don’t do is go sit in a corner claiming it is too difficult, therefore goddidit.

          • afchief

            Again, evolution is a lie straight from the pits of hell!!!!

            http://deeptruths. com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html

          • John N

            Five minutes ago you call evolution a theory. Now suddenly you call it a lie – from the pits of hell.

            Sure you don’t need help?

          • afchief

            It is a theory based on lies. Satan is the father of lies.

            Again, evolution is straight from the pits of hell.

          • John N

            So you do belief fairy tales like satan and hell, but you refute scientific theories explaining the real world?

            How do you actually succeed in using a computer keyboard?

          • BarkingDawg

            The chief needs more help than you or I, can give him.

          • BarkingDawg

            YOU are one of Satan’s minions for doubting the complexity of God.

            Prove to me that Evolution is not part of God’s plan.

          • afchief

            Read!

            http://deeptruths
            com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html

            EVOLUTION— THE BIG LIE!

            http://www.lovethetruth. com/evolution/big_lie.htm

          • BarkingDawg

            How does a paramecium hunt?

          • afchief

            How does a paramecium begin? How does it evolve into another species.

          • BarkingDawg

            A paramecium evolves through the process of natural selection.

          • afchief

            Proof?

          • BarkingDawg

            Scientists have observed evolutionary processes at work in e-Colin bacterium.

            A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

            And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

          • afchief

            LOL! I want proof of the origin of life.

          • BarkingDawg

            Don’t your arms get tired lugging those goalposts around?

      • hamfish

        If you’re going to be really technical, every species is a transitional species. But their poor little brains might melt if you say that.

    • BarkingDawg

      Darwin’s discovery of megatherium fossils on a South American beach during his time aboard the Beagle was instrumental in the formulation of his theories.

  • Rev21

    Frivolous. Our country is facing serious issues right now. This is nonsense. No designated days for anything. Easy solution. Get back to work senator on the job the people elected you to do or resign. I hope the people of CT vote this guy out.

    • gizmo23

      Voting him out for 1 resolution? They would all have to be gone then

  • BarkingDawg

    Sounds like a good idea to me. More people in this country need to embrace science.

  • cgosling

    Fitzroy was radical Christian who believed non “caucasians” were inferior to whites. Darwin was a creationist prior to his voyage around the world and debated Fitzroy numerous times about race during the voyage. Darwin did not arrive at his theory of evolution until several years after the voyage. The evidence for evolution was overwhelming. Oh yes, there are millions of transitional fossils. Doubters can buy them by the pound (check on the internet) to show their children and they can be viewed in natural history museums.

  • james rallis

    Should be moron day.

  • Enrique Baldwin Del Castillo

    Just Last night I saw a monky with a woman with their sons, one was a perfect man and the other a monky, oh I’m sorry I had a bad dream. In thouthands of years nobody have seen anything like that , why ???

    • Cady555

      Of course, since the Theory of Evolution proposes nothing of the sort, no one should expect to see this.

      A better analogy is language. Italien, Spanish and French are clearly different languages today. Yet all derived from Latin. For a couple thousand years in what is now France, each person spoke the same language as his parents and his children. We can look at historical writing samples and classify them as Latin or old french or middle french or modern French. Modern French is not Latin, but there is no point on the 2000 year continuum where a parent spoke a different language from his children.

      Spanish and French have a common ancestor – Latin. There is a ton of linguistic evidence. No sane or intelligent person would refuse to believe that Spanish and French share a common origin. Even more, no rational person would demand proof in the form of “Fren-nish” a modern language with French nouns and Spanish verbs. Such a demand would reveal a glaring ignorance of linguistics.

    • Bob Johnson

      If these dreams continue, I would advise you seek medical help.

      • Bob Johnson

        Oh, by-the-way, was that a Franciscan monky or a Jesuit monky?

    • Cady555

      .

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    It’s about time that Darwin got his own day. It’s interesting though because six months back I was actually wondering why he didn’t have his own holiday.