‘Nobody Understands’: Chemist Debunks Evolutionary Viewpoint on Life’s Origins

James Tour (1009x1024)
Photo Credit: www.jmtour.com

An illustrious chemist who has previously shed light on critical shortcomings in scientists’ understanding of evolution has written a detailed essay explaining “the massive gaps in our understanding” of how life first originated.

Dr. James Tour is a professor of chemistry, computer science, and materials science and nanoengineering at Rice University. He has written over 590 research publications and over 100 patents, and he is the recipient of numerous scientific awards.

As previously reported, Tour has spoken and written extensively about current limitations in various scientific fields. Even the theory of evolution, which has been largely embraced by the secular scientific community, fails to account for the complexity of life, Tour says.

In his most recent paper, a 12,000-word essay titled “Animadversions of a Synthetic Chemist,” Tour tackles a question that has puzzled scientists for centuries: Where did life come from? The essay was published in the most recent edition of Inference: International Review of Science.

“Life requires carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins,” Tour wrote in his essay’s opening lines. “What is the chemistry behind their origin? Biologists seem to think that there are well-understood prebiotic molecular mechanisms for their synthesis.”

“They have been grossly misinformed,” he stated. “And no wonder: few biologists have ever synthesized a complex molecule ab initio. If they need a molecule, they purchase molecular synthesis kits, which are, of course, designed by synthetic chemists, and which feature simplistic protocols. Polysaccharides? Their origin? The synthetic chemists do not have a pathway. The biologists do not have a clue.”

Tour then walks the reader through the molecule-making process, drawing from his experience as a synthetic organic chemist. To create even simple molecular structures, careful design and laborious purification are required.

  • Connect with Christian News

The chemical-synthesizing process is enormously complex, requiring intelligent, meticulous oversight.

“Chance may favor the prepared mind, but good things rarely happen only by chance,” Tour reasoned. “How does nature do it? Are the biologists sure that they know the answer? Are they very sure?”

Later in his essay, Tour considers must-have elements of life, including carbohydrates, DNA, and RNA. He also references the work of Albert Eschenmoser—a respected synthetic chemist who was determined to create life’s ingredients in a lab but eventually decided to change direction and research other areas because his findings were unsatisfactory. Tour says this underscores the impossible task facing scientists who want to replicate life creation—abiogenesis—in a lab.

“Under prebiotic conditions the reaction in question is not likely to yield anything useful. With each added step, difficulties are compounded by improbabilities so overwhelming that no other field of science would depend upon such levels of faith,” he wrote. “Abiogenesis research would never be accepted in any other area of chemistry. The field is its own best enemy.”

Brilliant scientists, abundant funding, exhaustive scientific literature, and state-of-the-art lab equipment have combined forces to create “a dream team” of scientific research. Surely today’s scientists are capable of solving the abiogenesis question, Tour reasons. And yet, despite all this, current evolutionary ideas for the origin of life amount to nothing more than wishful thinking—“extrapolation on steroids.”

“Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed,” he continued. “Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory.”

“The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery,” he concluded.


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
  • TheBottomline4This

    Cue those shooting down Dr. James Tour claims…..

    • Jalapeno

      I like how you say that like it’s a BAD thing.

    • gogo0

      if they cant be substantiated, they will naturally be shot down. this is the standard scientific process in action

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Tour is correct on one score – scientists do not have a good explanation of abiogenesis, yet. This is a question that lies apart from biological evolution. The processes of evolution that led to the branching of the tree of life after life arose, however, are pretty well understood.

    • Coach

      Great, where did life come from?

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        As far as I know, no one knows.

        • Amos Moses

          God does ……… and has told us how ………… so wrong again ………..

        • Coach

          “The processes of evolution that led to the branching of the tree of life after life arose, however, are pretty well understood.”

          ” As far as I know, no one knows”

          Just admit, you like your sin and refuse to submit to God, the One with whom you must deal as it is appointed for man to die once, then the judgement.

          You can’t stand as your own defense attorney before God, who will judge you for your sinful actions and thoughts before the entire universe. Guilty as charged, flee to Christ if He would have mercy on you and save you from the wrath to come.

          • Jalapeno

            Did you know that evolution isn’t intended to explain how life first began?

            So..those are two DIFFERENT questions he responded to.

          • Coach

            What is your definition of evolution?

          • Jalapeno

            “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”

          • Coach

            Actually, evolution was not a term that was made up to fit the lie that Darwin came to the conclusion of, it was just used to fit his lie. Before your Darwinism religion came into being, the term evolution simply meant the unfolding of events or things, basically a progression.
            Darwin himself evolved from being mad at God for his daughter dying, rather than trust the God that he never truly put his faith in, he evolved (progressed) towards the idea of God not being the creator of all things.

          • Jalapeno

            It still has that meaning.

            IN THIS CONTEXT, it refers to a specific process.

          • Coach

            Oh, ok

      • gogo0

        there are trillions of worlds in our solar system alone, and our solar system is among trillions of others. given the sample size and age of the universe, life could certainly have come from random causes, even if we don’t know how.
        regardless, not knowing the answer is not an indictment against science or evolution, and even less an argument for any of the creator myths being true. it is simply a problem that is being investigated and studied.

        • Bob Johnson

          I think you mean galaxy rather than solar system.

          • gogo0

            yep, thanks

        • Coach

          The earth is but a speck in the universe. The stars in our galaxy outnumber the grains of sand in the world. The complexity of a single cell is greater than your greatest super computer, and their are more cells in the human body than dollars in the US national debt, but God is a myth. Amazing what people I’ll believe so they can continue practicing the sin they love.

          2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

          • gogo0

            being complex is not evidence of any omnipotent being. take a computer back to salem during the witch trials and you would be burned to death for practicing magic.

    • Amos Moses

      Ahhhhhh ………… no ………. it is pretty well lied about ………….. here is the thing ….. we ALL have the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE ……….. it is those that want to say God is not part of the equation ……….. that get it WRONG …………. so it is not what has been proven …… it is what those who discount God want to see ……….. and nothing else ………..

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    It doesn’t take scientists to conclude that evolutionism is wrong and that the Creator God exists. Atheistic scientists have been the brainless communists chanting, “There is no God” meaninglessly all along. The existence and the complexity of a single cell is one thing; the existence of the Holy Bible and the Book’s complexity is far more amazing. Why do the Earthlings on Planet Earth possess a writing like the Holy Bible in this vast universe? The Creator God exists and He spoke.

    • TheBottomline4This

      It’s the blind leading the blind.

    • james blue

      Evolution doesn’t discount a creator, it does however discount biblical accounts.

      • TheBottomline4This

        I have ran across PLENTY of people who have a belief in evolution and do discount there even being a Creator.

        • james blue

          And? That’s down to them.

      • Coach

        …and logical thought. Have to find something to justify sin right?

        • james blue

          Made no comment about how people live their lives. If however you are unable to tell right from wrong without being told by whatever book of faith your follow then it’s not religion you lack, it’s empathy.

          • Coach

            The US murders over 3,000 babies per day and people defend it more today than when there wasn’t technology showing the life in the womb. Empathy? No, you’re a murderer at heart and God will not hold you guiltless.

            6 Most men will proclaim each his own goodness,
            But who can find a faithful man?

            Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things,
            And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
            10 I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.

            You align with the same ideology of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and a government philosophy that has killed more people than isis, the idea that man is supreme ruler. God in his mercy restrains evil, if He let 10 people carry out the full desires of there heart without restraint, they’d destroy the world.
            Consider how many kids would be raped on playgrounds if the people with those desires had free range to do so. The worst thing is, evil begets more evil, which is why most people have sex with multiple people. Without the restraints of evil, public nudity and illicit sex would be everywhere. Consider places in the world where the laws are more liberal than ours. In some places prostitution is legal and the norm no matter the age and see that as you may, it’s wrong, but according to your ideology, there are no moral absolutes, no standard, and life has no meaning, so who’s to tell someone who can’t find a job not to steal from his neighbor, it’s only wrong if he gets caught. I mean we’re no different than animals, so survival of the fittest, kill or be killed.
            At the very core, you know that God is real, but confide in the fact that evil men like yourself have taken over universities and various career professions and claim the Bible is a book of lies and you insist on believing their demonic lies. I pray God will have mercy on you and pull you out of the deception you’re in.
            Tell me evolution, that’s not in any book is it? I mean you just naturally believe that stupidity right?

          • james blue

            You apparently like to make assumptions about what other people think. My comment history is open for public view. Please feel free to make a case.

            In the meantime you might wish to remember a certain commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor.

      • Amos Moses

        So calling God a liar …………. does not discount a Creator ……….. what a novel notion ………………….. and a lie ………..

        • james blue

          Make your case, I’m all ears

          • Amos Moses

            You already made your case ……

      • B1jetmech

        Evolution can’t be proven…even the fossil record(which was laid down during Noah’s flood) does not in any way support evolution. There are no transitional fossils to demonstrate evolution.

        • james blue

          Regardless of your beliefs, the theory of evolution does not discount the possibility of a creator. It does however discount the biblical version of events.

          • B1jetmech

            God’s word is fixed, it cannot be altered or manipulated by science experiments and theorys. If God’s word was to be studied more, we would learn more about what really happened in the past.

            Evolution has so many problems as a theory that it needs to be more pantheist in order to make sense…because no one who believes evolution cannot explain where life came from.

            I do know but evolutionists won’t except the answer.

          • james blue

            The theory of evolution doesn’t explain where life comes from. it explains the process of how life became many species.

            —-“because no one who believes evolution cannot explain where life came from” —-

            I rather suspect you wanted to say the opposite, however I repeat, the theory of evolution doesn’t explain how life began and it doesn’t discount the possibility of a creator.

          • B1jetmech

            The theory of evolution doesn’t explain where life comes from. it explains the process of how life became many species.

            I know that. But the million dollar question evolutionists can’t answer is where life came from.

            Obviously it’s too complex to happen by random acts and chance for evolution to be valid. This is why it’s left up to the best engineer, God, to handle these matters.

          • james blue

            They have the same amount of proof in regards to how life came into existence as people who think there is a God.

          • B1jetmech

            No they don’t.

            The fossil record alone doesn’t verify the evolution worldview.

          • james blue

            The fossil record is about evolution, but you said ” But the million dollar question evolutionists can’t answer is where life came from” and the answer to that is they have the same amount of proof in regards to how life came into existence as people who think there is a God. Evolution does not explain how life came into existence.

          • B1jetmech

            The fossil record is about evolution

            Evolutionist use the fossil record to connect the dots of their theory. Where as the fossil record was laid down during the global flood of Noah’s time.

            Evolution originally was limited to just biology but was spread to cosmology, chemical and geological.

            One would think since these major areas are explained by evolution, the desire to understand where life came from would also be explained.

          • james blue

            There is indeed a desire to explain how things came to be, but that’s a different subject. Just as math is a different subject from history.

          • B1jetmech

            Unlike you, most evolutionist desire an explanation as to where life came from.

          • james blue

            “Unlike me”? ????? What did I write that leads you to believe I don’t think evolutionists don’t desire an explanation as to where life came from? Was it when I specifically said there is a desire?

          • silver fox

            relax B1, james has a question mark where his dik should be…..he is the inquiry maven. hey james….go fk yourself

          • silver fox

            pssssssssssssssssssssss all over your socialist face…..go talk to the toilet. huh? huh? huh?..

          • B1jetmech

            You stated how things came to being through evolution, but no explanation where life came from because you cannot have one without the other.

            Evolutionist want an answer as to how life came into being, there has to be life in order to have living beings…spiritual and physical.

            So far, you are the only evolutionist that I met who states otherwise when it comes to “desire”.

          • james blue

            Again where did I say evolutionist or myself do not desire answers as to where life came from?

          • B1jetmech

            One cannot have a physical being without “life”…so where did life come from?

            Does or does not evolution give any ideals as to where life came from?

          • james blue

            Okay for the millionth time— The theory of evolution doesn’t explain how life came to be. The theory of evolution makes no attempt at explaining how life came to be. The theory of evolution deals solely with how species came to divert from one another AFTER life came to be. You are confusing the theory of evolution with the theory of origins. Now, the theory of evolution requires life to have begun, but it doesn’t require any particular explanation as to how it began. It could be a chemical reaction, it could be a creator or it could be something that magically happened without a creator.

          • B1jetmech

            The theory of evolution doesn’t explain how life came to be.

            If evolution covers:

            Cosmology
            Biology
            Geological
            Chemical

            Why wouldn’t it cover life?

            What kind of evolution are you preaching?

            You are confusing the theory of evolution with the theory of origins.

            The two are NOT mutual?

            Now, the theory of evolution requires life to have begun, but it doesn’t require any particular explanation as to how it began.

            Because evolutionist have none, I don’t know why you excuse it so easily.

            it could be a creator or it could be something that magically happened without a creator.

            But you do know it discredits the bible? How assuring.

          • james blue

            Are you being deliberately obtuse?

          • B1jetmech

            I don’t go around declaring the Bible is discredited by evolution.

            If you can give some examples as to how… then that would be interesting.

          • james blue

            It’s all up there, please quote where I said the bible was discredited by the theory of evolution.

            I’ll help you out by stating I’ve said no such thing. What I have said is that the theory of evolution does not discount a creator, it does however discount biblical accounts.

            That is a statement of fact about what the theory of evolution does. The Biblical view is that all species where created as is, The theory of Evolution, as you know, says species evolved over millions of years.

          • B1jetmech

            So when you say Evolution discounts biblical accounts that’s not discrediting the Bible in your opinion? You really play word games.

            Animals today are different from when they were first created by God .Not different through the means of evolution but through the loss of genetic information over time.

          • silver fox

            holy sht…..deep yo….”.indeed”, a tad archaic but, what the fk, you Teilk will get along.

          • silver fox

            heheh….this is rich….a stumble bum pretending to be a paleoanthropologist. where did you go to school james…little sister of the poor? good question, huh? huh? huh? huh? huh? huh? heheh.

        • Jalapeno

          There are a lot of ‘transnational fossils’, about as many as we would expect considering how rare fossil creation is.

          You’re right though, evolution cannot be proven, just like the theory of gravity and germ theory cannot. That’s not a reason not to believe it though, not if you think about WHY they can’t be shown to be correct.

          • B1jetmech

            There needs to be hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils for just one species in order for evolution to be validated.

            There is not.

            Germ theory was validated with the invention of the microscope.

            Gravity? Well God created that.

          • Jalapeno

            “There needs to be hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils for just one species in order for evolution to be validated”

            Says who? Fossils are rare. It’s entirely possible that the animals died and didn’t become fossils…just like the vast, vast majority of animals.

            “Germ theory was validated with the invention of the microscope.”

            Yes..to the same extent that evolution has been validated.

          • B1jetmech

            Says who?

            Anyone who believes animals change from one kind to another…that would be evolutionist.

            Fossils are rare.

            They sure are, there is even a fossilized jellyfish!

            Hat’s can even be fossilized within 50 years.

            It’s entirely possible that the animals died and didn’t become fossils…just like the vast, vast majority of animals.

            No it is not.

            All the fossils discovered today was the result of the global flood that happened during Noah’s time…well 99.9% of the fossils. In order for the fossilization process to happen, the animal needs an instant burial of mud and water. This instant catastrophy as mentioned bests preserves the animals skeletal structure.

            What caused the global flood? Mass super sonic tsunamis by catastrophic plate tectonics.

            Yes..to the same extent that evolution has been validated.

            Nope…sorry.

          • Jalapeno

            So.. Your entire misconception is based on the fact that you think that fossils are common?

            Here’s a question.

            Do you think it’s possible for fossils to be rare enough that we only get a few?

          • B1jetmech

            So.. Your entire misconception is based on the fact that you think that fossils are common?

            We have discovered more then enough fossils to tell us that they are a mass graveyard. What the issue here is not so much the fossils but the worldviews that interprets the evidence.

            Do you think it’s possible for fossils to be rare enough that we only get a few?

            A few yes compared to the population of the world back then.

            A Trex fossil was discovered with the red blood cells still in it…hmmmm.

          • Jalapeno

            The lack of fossils is only evidence if it cannot be explained by the theory of evolution.

          • B1jetmech

            Evolution will never get past as being a theory.

            We do not get any advancements of technology from the theory of evolution.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..it won’t get past a “theory” because that’s not how theories work.

            You know that it’s not the same as a hypothesis, right?

          • B1jetmech

            How long does one “sit” on a theory until they realize it’s time to move on?

          • Jalapeno

            That’s not what a theory is.

            Again..do you know that it’s not the same as a hypothesis?

          • B1jetmech

            I understand what a theory is because this theory is getting expensive from the long support of tax payer money.

          • Jalapeno

            Do you think that its’ the same as a hypothesis?

          • B1jetmech

            Why do you ask?

          • Jalapeno

            Because you seem to think that it is.

            Do you think that a scientific theory is the same thing as a hypothesis?

          • B1jetmech

            Okay, so theory and a hypothesis is different… now what?

            How does this help your case with the theory of evolution?

            I’m sure we can spend all evening arguing the differences of a theory and a hypothesis but why are you latching on to this particular subject?

          • Jalapeno

            “Evolution will never get past as being a theory.”

            The fact that you’re blatantly wrong about how theories work. It doesn’t get “past” a theory. A theory is effectively equivalent to being a scientific fact.

          • B1jetmech

            A theory is effectively equivalent to being a scientific fact.

            Not in the case of evolution because the more you study it, the more one realize it doesn’t work.

            The genetics alone would never support evolution because there isn’t enough genetic information to to become a more complex creature.

            It just doesn’t work.

          • Jalapeno

            “It just doesn’t work.

            It does if you understand it.

            Why do you ask when something gets past being a theory if you understand that it’s not just a hypothesis? If you understand that there is nothing “past” it?

          • B1jetmech

            It does if you understand it.

            Yes, I understand that genetics do not go above and beyond the information that is in them.

            Why do you ask when something gets past being a theory if you understand that it’s not just a hypothesis?

            Want to argue the difference between theory and fact now?

          • Jalapeno

            “Want to argue the difference between theory and fact now?”

            Are you acknowledging that things don’t just go beyond theory stage?

            “Yes, I understand that genetics do not go above and beyond the information that is in them.”

            I see. So you understand genetics better than the people who actually study evolutionary genetics.

          • B1jetmech

            Are you acknowledging that things don’t just go beyond theory stage?

            Yes.

            I see. So you understand genetics better than the people who actually study evolutionary genetics.

            Depends on the school. I bet most schools with genetics major don’t include evolutionary studies because it’s taught and learned without the “theory” of evolution.

            First and foremost, geneticist understand information and how it carrys out it’s role. Evolutionist can’t explain where that information and the language to read it came from.

          • Jalapeno

            “Yes.”

            So..why did you ask when it happened?

            “I bet most schools with genetics major don’t include evolutionary studies ”

            Yes..because it’s part of science. I’m talking specifically about people who study evolutionary genetics though.

            “Evolutionist can’t explain where that information and the language to read it came from.”

            It has been explained.

          • B1jetmech

            So..why did you ask when it happened?

            Ask? When evolution evolved from a being a theory?

            Yes..because it’s part of science. I’m talking specifically about people who study evolutionary genetics though.

            There is a difference in studying science that is testable and repeatable in a lab setting then there is theories like evolution that is not testable and repeatable in a lab setting. Observational vs historical science.

            WE can study genetics because it’s observable but evolution will be stuck as a theory because it’s not repeatable.

            It has been explained.

            Explaining something is different from how it really happened.

          • Jalapeno

            “How long does one “sit” on a theory until they realize it’s time to move on?”

            “Evolution will never get past as being a theory.”

            I thought you understood that a scientific theory is not just a hypothesis?

            “testable and repeatable in a lab setting”

            It’s testable and repeatable in exactly the ways that we would expect it to be.

          • B1jetmech

            I thought you understood that a scientific theory is not just a hypothesis?

            If evolution is so factual then why do we spend tax money to keep it on life support?

            It’s testable and repeatable in exactly the ways that we would expect it to be.

            It was never observable and how could it be testable?

          • Bob Johnson

            Your view of the scientific method seems to be grounded in 19th century chemistry. Might I suggest newer works on the philosophy of science starting with Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.

          • B1jetmech

            In any case, is evolution observable and repeatable?

            No, it is not.

          • Jalapeno

            “If evolution is so factual then why do we spend tax money to keep it on life support?”

            Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory?

            “It was never observable and how could it be testable?”

            We observe it in the ways that we would EXPECT to observe it. What observations do you think we can’t make that should be able to be made in order for evolution to be true?

            Do you think more fossils should exist? Do you think there should be a way to speed up evolution in a lab for science sake?

          • B1jetmech

            Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory?

            Are any of them related to be factual? Because evolution is not.

            We observe it in the ways that we would EXPECT to observe it. What observations do you think we can’t make that should be able to be made in order for evolution to be true?

            Well for one thing, to claim dinosaurs somehow evolved into birds is pretty hard to believe( I will never believe it) there should be supporting fossils for this theory but none show up. The archaeopteryx is the only one but in reality it was just a bird with teeth which isn’t unheard of.

            Do you think more fossils should exist?

            Well if were going to spend tens of millions of dollars on a one way ideology…there should be some fossils to back up your claims because anything more then that is just “faith” on your part.

            Do you think there should be a way to speed up evolution in a lab for science sake?

            Well, since evolution can only be taught in our public schools with no alternative view point I say show me the facts or quit taking my money to support your theory.

          • Jalapeno

            “Are any of them related to be factual? Because evolution is not.”

            Okay..so you just don’t know. Go figure.

            “there should be supporting fossils for this theory but none show up”

            So..you don’t think it’s possible that fossils are rare and we get about how many we should expect to have?

            “Well, since evolution can only be taught in our public schools with no alternative view point I say show me the facts or quit taking my money to support your theory.”

            Kinda missed the point.

            Think of it as a hypothetical if it makes you feel better.

            IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, what observations do you think we should be able to make that we cannot?

          • B1jetmech

            Okay..so you just don’t know. Go figure.

            I didn’t know I was taking a test.

            There are dozens of definitions of hypothesis and theory.

            However, you all need to keep the status of evolution as “theory” because it is subjected to updates when certain discoveries don’t make sense. If you declare it a “fact” then it can’t change and be updated.

            So..you don’t think it’s possible that fossils are rare and we get about how many we should expect to have?

            There are billions of fossils you know…95% of them being invertebrates. less then 1% of them being vertebrates…maybe you can answer your own question.

            Kinda missed the point.

            Think of it as a hypothetical if it makes you feel better.

            How about this, since our schools are forced to teach evolution and nothing else…I want to see concrete proof that evolution is real. I don’t mean “concrete” as in fossilization either.

            Of course I know the answer to that.

            IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE, what observations do you think we should be able to make that we cannot?

            I just explained to you about the lack of transitional fossils in the record.

          • Jalapeno

            “There are dozens of definitions of hypothesis and theory.”

            The words have actual meanings..Isn’t it a bit intellectually dishonest to try using them when you don’t know what they mean?

            “.I want to see concrete proof that evolution is real”

            What proof would you expect to exist if evolution was real?

            “maybe you can answer your own question”

            Not really. It’s about what YOU would expect.

            I could give a couple answers about what kind of un-realistic expectations you have, but that’s just pointless and dumb.

          • B1jetmech

            Isn’t it a bit intellectually dishonest to try using them when you don’t know what they mean?

            I have to admit, these word games you play are a little boring. I was hoping for some more facts coming out of you…but I guess I have to do without.

            What proof would you expect to exist if evolution was real?

            There is no such thing as proof for evolution because it never happened.

            Not really. It’s about what YOU

            I have my beliefs as to why I believe God created the heavens and the Earth, I want to hear yours.

          • Jalapeno

            “I have to admit, these word games you play are a little boring. I was hoping for some more facts coming out of you…but I guess I have to do without.”

            If you can’t even get to a point of VAGUE intellectual honesty…

            Why bother?

            “There is no such thing as proof for evolution because it never happened.”

            I said that it might help you to treat it as a hypothetical situation. Did you try that?

          • B1jetmech

            If you can’t even get to a point of VAGUE intellectual honesty…

            I want to hear FACTS. I want to understand the works of the mechanisms that drives your worldview. Limiting to definitions of words is just…boring. I want to hear how you came to believe the way you do.

            Tell me why evolution is the only method to our origins.

          • Jalapeno

            Are you unable to answer even basic questions?

          • B1jetmech

            Can’t you name facts as to why you believe the way your do?

          • Jalapeno

            Sure. Easily.

            What evidence would you expect to exist IF evolution was the actual explanation?

          • B1jetmech

            I’m asking you.

            Do you even know where to start?

            Did you always believe evolution?

            Were you raised as an atheist?

          • Jalapeno

            You said that there wasn’t enough evidence, I asked what evidence you would expect to exist.

            Apparently it’s not a question that you’re able to answer.

          • B1jetmech

            Do you know how converse?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “However, you all need to keep the status of evolution as “theory””

            Regardless of your stance on evolution, you’re completely misusing the word “theory” when it’s used in a scientific context. There’s a theory of gravity; do you think gravity is not proven?

          • B1jetmech

            Regardless of your stance on evolution, you’re completely misusing the word “theory” when it’s used in a scientific context.

            Hey, it’s nothing more then nomenclature.

            However, evolution is difficult to keep up with because it;s being revised all the time.

            I also believe it’s a matter of time that pantheism get’s introduced to evolution because of the problem of “where life began” remains a mystery to the evolutionists.

            Gravity is observable how it works…I don’t know but it’s engineered by God to hold our planets together.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Hey, it’s nothing more then nomenclature.”

            Nomenclature that people who say things like “evolution is just a theory” are getting totally wrong. The popular use of the word “theory” is completely different from what is meant by a “scientific theory”. Which would be “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

            “evolution is difficult to keep up with because it;s being revised all the time.”

            Yeah, that’s kind of the way science works, theories and things like that get revised when new information is found. Things about evolution may have been revised and changed when scientists figure out new things, but evolution is still evolution. The basic ideas are still the same.

            “I also believe it’s a matter of time that pantheism get’s introduced to
            evolution because of the problem of “where life began” remains a mystery
            to the evolutionists.”

            Why do you think pantheism is not compatible with believing in evolution? Your statement makes no sense anyway, because evolution is neither against nor for atheism or pantheism or theism or what-have-you.

          • B1jetmech

            Which would be “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

            Evolution has not been verified by any of those methods with in the tools of science.

            Has it been tested? No.
            Has it been observed? No.
            Has it been repeated in a lab setting? No.

            The only place evolution exists is in text books and museums.

            Things about evolution may have been revised and changed when scientists figure out new things, but evolution is still evolution.

            The excuse of “new discoveries” is used to breath new life into evolution because it is a failure of a theory.

            Here’s an example.

            Darwin had 4 postulates of evolution. One of them would be the “Pangenesis” postulate..which is…the characteristics of the parent can transfer them to the offspring. Like lifting weights and bulking up on muscle…the child would have those same characteristics.

            This is NOT the case and this “pangenesis ideal of Darwins held back our science of genetics 35-40 years.

            Why do you think pantheism is not compatible with believing in evolution?

            It does entertain the ideal of “Prometheus”, as in life came from “engineers”. But I know that is not the case. Because evolutionists have trouble understanding where life came from, as in the “soul”…the life force. They need an explanation to declare how it happened and what better way then to have the ideal of “aliens” being our creators.

            Actually, God created life.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Has it been observed? No”

            Wrong. It has been observed.


            ….This is NOT the case and this “pangenesis ideal of Darwins held back our science of genetics 35-40 years.”

            So he had the mechanism for heredity wrong. That doesn’t change the fact that traits get inherited. He was just wrong about how it happened. That doesn’t invalidate evolution or change it. Like I said before, that’s how science WORKS. A scientific theory isn’t a holy commandment set in stone that can never be changed.

            “Because evolutionists have trouble understanding where life came from, as in the “soul”…the life force.

            That doesn’t even make any sense. There are people that believe in evolution that are atheists. There are those who are Christians. There are Jews. Those of other religions. Anyway, that’s not even a question for evolution to answer, or SCIENCE for that matter. It’s a question for theologians, philosophers, and the like.

          • B1jetmech

            Wrong. It has been observed.

            When and Where???

            So he had the mechanism for heredity wrong.

            This is what happens when one tries to explain our origins without God. Since Darwin is wrong about Pangenesis what else is he wrong about?

            That doesn’t change the fact that traits get inherited

            There’s a difference with genetic heredity and physique that get’s passed along.

            Like I said before, that’s how science WORKS

            Having a world view without God and believing origins happen without Him will never be scientifically possible because it is NOT repeatable and observable in a lab setting.

            In fact, we get no technology from evolution because it goes against entropy.

            That doesn’t even make any sense.

            Okay, here…Evolution CAN”T explain how life (the spirit) came about. So I am not discussing the belief system of the individual.

            because evolutionist cannot explain where life came from because they don’t want to acknowledge a designer like…God.

            So instead, they will leave in place a theory that humans came from a higher intelligent life…like aliens. Hence, some evolutionists want to link the origin of life to some universal order that is pantheistic.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “When and Where???”

            evolution (dot) berkeley (dot) edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=30 for just a few examples. And the “Lenski experiment” as well, which wasn’t mentioned there.

            “Since Darwin is wrong about Pangenesis what else is he wrong about?”

            Does that he got one thing wrong mean he got everything else wrong? Heck, Isaac Newton believed in alchemy; does that mean he was wrong about the law of universal gravitation and calculus?

            “Having a world view without God and believing origins happen without Him
            will never be scientifically possible because it is NOT repeatable and
            observable in a lab setting.”

            Well, okay, fine. Good thing that evolutionists don’t actually try to do that. I keep repeating this….evolution doesn’t deal with origins! Evolution is what happens after. Also, is believing that a god was responsible for the origin of life “repeatable and observable in a lab setting”?

            “it goes against entropy”

            No, it doesn’t. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases over time. Key words: isolated system. You or I are not isolated systems. The Earth is not an isolated system.

            “because evolutionist cannot explain where life came from because they don’t want to acknowledge a designer like…God.”

            I’m not one of them myself, but there are those who believe in “theistic evolution”….basically the idea that God is responsible for evolution. In fact, it’s the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

            “Evolution CAN”T explain how life (the spirit) came about.”

            It doesn’t TRY to!

          • james blue

            But you cannot prove God exists,

          • B1jetmech

            Do you think if God revealed himself, people would straighten up and believe?

            Who are you kidding.

            Just look at the Israelites when freed from Egypt, they whined and complained despite being in the presence of God. God did GREAT miracles and they still complained and fell away to build golden calves.

            It’s useless to prove God exists and/ore make himself revealed.

          • james blue

            If God revealed himself, Atheists who don’t believe he exists because he cannot be shown will say “hey I was wrong, there he is”. Now whether they will follow him is debatable, but not that they would deny his existence if he actually showed himself.

          • B1jetmech

            The issue isn’t he exists…the issue is where you will spend eternity.

            Believing in the existent of God is not salvation.

            Believing in Christ grants you mediation to God and eternal life.

          • silver fox

            hey kids…..this is jrked off imbecile……good for a yuk or two.

    • Jalapeno

      “It doesn’t take scientists to conclude that evolutionism is wrong”

      Probably because the scientists are the ones saying it’s right…it’s the people who don’t understand it that claim otherwise.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You are wrong. People trust scientists’ honest data but not their fictional conclusions. Atheists have wrong premises to start with, and the reason they cling to evolutionism is so that they can continue the evil such as blasphemy, infanticide, live human experiments, and suicide. Atheism is death whereas Christianity is light and life. Scientists should just present data and not-preach their godless imaginations. We have pastors, parents, and moral teachers to discover God’s world, because a lot of scientists are amoral. Fellow humans have different vital roles. Scientists are humans and not to be trusted; only the Word of God is fully trust-worthy. You need to repent of your unbelief and trust in Jesus to get saved. (John ch.3)

        • Jalapeno

          “Atheists have wrong premises to start with

          Such as…?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You start scientific explorations excluding God. That ensures you to be false both at the foundation and conclusions. As a result, mankind have to endure your pathetic sci-fi preachings.

          • Jalapeno

            Starting at a NEUTRAL point leads to exactly the same place.

            Plus..why would you start a scientific exploration making assumptions that aren’t backed by evidence?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Atheists are not at all neutral. They hate God and His people and they desire utterly godless autonomy unconditionally AGAINST countless evidences for the Creator God. That’s why today’s scientists only end up polluting the planet and massacring the unwanted children. There hasn’t been an exception. Christians are fair and moral. At least all Christians seek the truth and fairness to all.

          • Jalapeno

            Okay, sure sure.

            Poes law is pretty relevant here, but..I know you wouldn’t admit to being a troll anyways.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Don’t call people trollls just because you don’t agree with them. I write things with seriousness. Read the Holy Bible, starting from the Gospels in the New Testament Bible, to get saved. I will pray for you. No matter what atheists’ sci-fi stories you prefer, you need Jesus for salvation. Atheists do not have a model to explain the universe or a single cell; the Word of God does. You secular Westerners need humiliation before the Creator God. Christians made your civilization great by knowing and applying the Word of God. Don’t regress.

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not because I disagree with you, it’s because you’re acting like a troll.

            It takes a special kind of ignorant to actually say things like ‘athiests hate god’ and ‘all Christians seek the truth’

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s true. The Western atheists single out Christianity and blaspheme and give only Christians the hardest time. Abuse against majority is a racism, too. Only 7% of Nazi members subdued the entire Germans. If you had any honesty in you, you’d scold your fellow atheists for abusing the Christians in the USA and Western Europe.

          • Jalapeno

            I’m an atheist.

            I do not hate any gods.

            So..your assumptions are a bit off.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You do. Your action here proves. Believing in God is the best thing for humans fulfilling the creation purpose. Atheism only encourages suicide. Leave Christians alone in peace, if you are an honest man. Read the Word of God; God is your Creator and Owner. Honor Him as you should.

          • Jalapeno

            Oh, this’ll be good.

            What action proves that I hate your god?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You come here and attack Christians. Read Psalm ch. 14.

          • Jalapeno

            I see.

            Seems like you take any disagreement as an attack.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Disbelief is a sin that leads to hell. Please repent of your disbelief and receive eternal life from Jesus by trusting in Him. You must live and not die. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. The Creator God loves you. Return to Him in repentance. (John ch.1)

          • Jalapeno

            Sure, sure. Whatever you say.

            How was I attacking Christians? By disagreeing?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You called me a troll. Please re-read your comments. Stating facts should not be treated as trolls. I do not wish you to pretend agree with me. I wish you to be serious about your life and read the Word of God with a sincere heart. Ask God to help you see His truth, genuinely.

          • Jalapeno

            I explained why I said you were either a troll or just a special kind of ignorant.

            It seems to me like you’re expecting to be immune from criticism, otherwise you accuse people of being biased against your whole religion.

            Here’s something to help put your mind at ease. I am criticizing YOU, not your religion.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Okay, that’s better. There are so many news that report that atheists blaspheme and take down crosses and historic Christian monuments throughout the USA. Please keep studying with honesty. Read the Holy Bible. Go to atheists’ sites and scold your fellow atheists of doing the evil.

          • Jalapeno

            Cute.

            I was criticizing you the whole time, you just like having a persecution complex and attributing every attack against you as some form of horrible idea.

            What a lazy way to deal with criticism.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. It’s typical of atheists and liberals to start personal attacks when they cannot refute the Christians regarding facts. It’s okay; far better than blaspheming. You guys should respect other people’s religions.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Atheists massacred my countrymen for being Christian. They are still doing the crimes. You guys are a totally spoiled species nurtured finely by the Christian Church for centuries.

          • Jalapeno

            Here’s another little bit of reality that you might struggle with.

            Most of the time..if someone is being murdered for their religion, it’s from another religious person.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            No, the worst villains of all history are atheists. You American young ones do not know much about the real world on Planet Earth, ALWAYS spoiled by the gentle Church.

          • Jalapeno

            Haha, yeah, whatever you say.

            Go ahead, keep hiding behind your beliefs. Someone might fall for it eventually.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Atheists = mockers. Read Psalm ch. 14. It’s all about you.

          • gogo0

            Grace, do you hate Zeus?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            There is only one God and the Holy Bible teaches about Him. Christians do not hate pagan gods because those don’t exist. You do not hate what does not exist. Atheists hate Christianity because Christianity is true. Satan and his demons pretend to be gods and deceive mankind with falsehood. You need to read the Holy Bible to have the truth.

          • gogo0

            among the un-provable subjective nonsense you accidentally said something that made sense: “You do not hate what does not exist”

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Western atheists hate the God of Christianity; therefore the one true living God exists.

          • gogo0

            no, the western atheists don’t hate the god of christianity because they don’t believe it exists.
            furthermore, I am sure you will continue to come to your own conclusions to perpetuate the feeling that you are being unfairly targeted, but atheism is the antithesis of religion, not specifically christianity. all religions that impose their wild beliefs on others are equal, though some (like christianity in the west and islam in the east) are far more pushy and annoying

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            When did bullies admit bullying the victims? Because you are on the bullying side, you don’t realize you are bullying the Christians. Stop acting like all the tyrants your forefathers have defeated last century. Christianity is true and good and vital to all mankind; that’s why it must be spread and taught everywhere to rescue life and bring liberty Atheism is bad and meaningless and oppressive; you guys need to leave Christians alone because you only have despair and death and immorality as your core value. Christianity has truth, salvation, and hope. You must repent of your evil unbelief to get saved. (John ch.3)

          • gogo0

            aside from the bible saying it’s the wrong path, what makes you think that atheism is bad, meaningless, oppressive, espousing despair, death, and immorality? many atheists and people that believe in many other religions worldwide living happy meaningful lives. of course there are some that lived troubled lives filled with sadness and hardship, but that can be said for many christians as well.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Every human being goes through hardships. Atheism massacres unwanted children or believers or both, promotes depraved immorality in secular ones’ case, and conducts live human experiments for the longer filthy life. Christianity brings salvation, liberty, hope, and the full life. Atheism = darkness. Christianity = light. (John ch. 1)

          • gogo0

            wow, you really make atheists out to be evil monsters, lol. cant say that i have ever killed a child (i assume you mean abortion, which many christians get and have gotten along with every other social group), or committed live human experiments (read up on torture devices used during christianity’s rule over europe for equivalent brutality).
            …but then, i am rather young so i still have time to fit your mold of the evil atheist. didnt realize i was doing it so wrong!
            christianity as ‘light’ and everything else is evil is a very difficult argument to accept when the name of christianity has been used to commit historic atrocities on par with any other religious group’s.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You must oppose abortion or you are on the Holocaust’s side. And they do things to unborn children while alive( you have different names for them, but life starts at conception). Christians oppose abortion and Europe’s good came out only from Christianity. Christianity has been the Western civilization’s sole conscience and good educator and the glorious greatness itself. Yes, you are too young to remember when your civilization was normal and respectable. Christianity rescued billions of people worldwide bringing truth, salvation, charity, medicine, education, music, and lawfulness. The Church leaders mistakes are minor comparing to the Church’s massive contributions. You have literacy and medical care only because of Christianity.

          • gogo0

            yes i am well aware that christians oppose abortion, yet many they get them anyway.
            christians also oppose homosexuality, yet many perform it anyway.
            christians also oppose pedophilia, yet priests and pastors are regularly caught molesting children.
            christians also oppose gluttony, yet the american bible belt is the most obese area of the united states.
            christians also oppose greed, yet many famous pastors live lavish lives built on the wallets of their congregations.

            i have literacy and medical care *only* because of christianity? thats pretty amazing, im looking forward to reading your source for it! how do you explain all the cultures and parts of the world that had nothing to do with christianity, or even no contact with it, yet managed to care for themselves, read, and write?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are wrong. It all happened before you were born and you are a generation of liberal brainwashing, so you have no idea. Christian conscience alone opposes abortion and leads the way globally. It’s been common white Christian missionaries rescued global children set for death. Christianity keeps people from committing sexual depravity because God prohibits immorality. Offenders repent and convert to Christianity and have a pure life. USA was blessed by the Lord for unequal godliness and piety. Christians prosper by hard working. Americans look all the same to foreigners; don’t discriminate against the Bible-belt. True Christians abhor rich false prophets. You must read books instead of watching TV. Christian monks invented written English language for reading Christian writings, and Protestant Reformers made sure every child gets education to read God’s Word, and the Church taught your mother not to abort a child. All modern pioneer scientists were Christian-minded; Christendom alone prospered because of the possession of the Holy Bible in a readable form. Your civilization has nothing valuable apart from Christianity.

          • gogo0

            thats all very interesting, but remains nothing but your imagination without any kind of proof. you can use google to see how wrong my very public and well-known assertions above are. you need to do more than ignore something to counter it.

            your make-believe is also poorly thought out, considering there was written language prior to christianity. all modern pioneer scientists were christian-minded? who did you cherry pick quotes from or deathbed-convert to populate your list? christian conscience “alone” opposes abortion? so that means the anti-abortion teachings of hinduism, islam, sikhism, and buddism are… what exactly? your assumptions are also lacking, as i was raised with strong fundamental christian brainwashing, in no way liberal.

            i think your main problem is that you fail to grasp that while christians have a book that is supposed to unify their values (yet still fails to, given the impressive number of christian sects), the only thing that defines atheists is that they dont believe in something imaginary. some are liberal, some are conservative, some are both, some are gay, some are straight, some oppose abortion, some support a woman’s right to choose. the only way you can accurately lump all atheists together is by calling them godless, but to you and many others, atheists must be: liberal (oh, what a dirty word!!), godless, immoral, genocidal, purveyors of darkness, and evil. its just another fantasy you spin to support your feeling that they are evil for not believing your fairy tale.

            and you missed the explanation of other pre-christian and christian-free societies having medical care, literacy as well, i am still curious about what your rationalization must be for that.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are living upon what your Christian forefathers have built well; you have no contribution but only the planet’s pollution. Time is running out; ungrateful freeloaders will lose the land. Happy is a man whose descendants are not today’s Anti-christian Westerners. You guys are a shame to all of your Christian forefathers. Learn to be thankful to God and to your hard-working Christian ancestors. Sodom does not inherit the land even if their ancestor is Noah.

          • gogo0

            keep telling yourself that, Grace, as the world continues to move around you

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Read the Word of God to be saved.

          • gogo0

            i’ll save myself from doing that a third time instead

          • Bob Johnson

            And to think my sister spends part of her time working at a Buddhist orphanage.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Many Buddhist-majority nations still need human rights and religious freedom. It’s downright tragic that while many Non-Western nations are still suffering from starvation and human rights abuses, the powerful former Christendom( the West) is turning into a Sodom out of having full-stomach and boredom. Your sister needs Christianity in order to truly save people and herself. Westerners who turn to Eastern pagan religions do that because Eastern religions do not clearly condemn humanity’s heinous evils but establish the filthy self as a god. Christianity alone has the unconditional compassion for all and also justice. Jesus Christ is what the Buddhists have been dreaming about as the Ideal all along.

          • Bob Johnson

            Read “The Rebel” by Albert Camus

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I read “The Stranger.” Truly insane. A typical of thug. The French got weird after massacring the Huguenots. You must read “”Heidi” and “Little Women.”

          • Bob Johnson

            Your view of Satan and his demons seems to come not from the Bible, but from Milton’s book “Paradise Lost”.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Read Revelation.

          • Bob Johnson

            The Book of Revelation is the vision of the end times, the apocalypse. Your Satan is more of a composite of Milton and Justin Martyr.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The Holy Bible is the truth that you must read. Your fiction writers are no authority on anything, but read “Pilgrim’s Progress” if you need to read any.

          • gogo0

            christians are the largest and most socially and politically powerful collection of religious groups in the west. are you actually surprised that they are the ones humanists need to spend the most time fighting?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christians gave the Western civilization truth and goodness and civility and education. Humanism was good only with the Judeo-Christian values. Godless humanism only destroys humanity as seen since last century.

          • gogo0

            if there was *any* evidence to believe in a god, science would account for it. but there isn’t, and no sane person is going to inject an unseen and thus-far unproven omnipotent being into any theory intended to be taken seriously

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Science and logics prove the Creator God and are consistent with the Biblical accounts. Atheists reject God because you desire to continue doing evil, going against the evidences. (Romans ch.1)

          • gogo0

            yep, you got me. I just love doing evil all the time. life must be so simple when you are good and everyone else is evil. simple like a child’s view of the world

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It is evil not to believe in God. Also, not-opposing abortion and sexual immorality is evil. There is no middle ground in moral issues. You need to repent of your unbelief in order to get saved. Read John ch. 3.

  • Joe

    FACTS About Evolution

    “Approximately 15 billion years ago, life began…”

    “No, it was more like 7 billion years ago…”

    “Uh, well, the earth probably began about…”

    “The strata may show…”

    “Well, we evolutionists don’t exactly agree about when, why or how the world began, but…
    Evolution is a fact and you are unscientific if you don’t believe it!”

    It is extremely interesting to me how educated fools have tricked the masses into believing in evolution. Evolution is not:
    repeatable,
    testable; or,
    observable.

    In other words, it
    doesn’t even qualify as real science. And I’m unscientific for
    believing what God has clearly told me about creation? Mmmm… You’ll
    never get me to believe a monkey is my uncle, a rat is my cousin, and
    that lice are my near kinsmen.

    “Through faith we understand that
    the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were
    not made of things which do appear.” —Hebrews 11:3

    • gogo0

      god and all the stories in the bible are not:
      repeatable,
      testable; or,
      observable.
      …yet you dedicate your entire life to it at the same time you use that as an argument against other things.
      science and medicine advance whether you believe it or not. you are fortunate that you are able to deny any human knowledge and understanding that displeases you and still reap the benefits from it.

      • B1jetmech

        god and all the stories in the bible are not:
        repeatable,
        testable; or,
        observable.

        There is no need to because creation already happened.

        Besides we lack the knowledge to “create” because we can only “convert”.

        Science and medicine have nothing to do with evolution.

        • gogo0

          everything needs to be proven except the thing you believe and cant prove. classic.
          life is a lot simpler when you impose self-reassuring double standards on everything you dislike. it’s a lie, but definitely a lot less to think about.

          • B1jetmech

            Well since the fossil record doesn’t correspond with evolution because it lacks the transitional fossils needed to prove your theory…I say, you don’t have anything to stand on.

            Since the theory of evolution is such a failure, it requires tax payer money to survive.

          • gogo0

            let me guess, you are in support of churches being tax-exempt? if so, youre really on a roll with the double standard arguments!
            how does the fossil record not support evolution? is it because preserved dinosaur fossils from 65 million years ago are rather rare and you would like to see more?

          • B1jetmech

            let me guess, you are in support of churches being tax-exempt? if so, youre really on a roll with the double standard arguments!

            What does this have to do with anything?

            Churches are tax exempt because they cannot endorse any politician…removed the tax exempt status and the churches can get involved politically. But that’s not why you came here.

            is it because preserved dinosaur fossils from 65 million years ago are rather rare and you would like to see more?

            [email protected] million years.

            Like I was telling someone else, red blood cells and tissue was discovered in a trex fossil just a a couple of decades ago.

            So how does red blood cells and tissue last for 65 million years???

            Guess the fossils are not as old as you say they are.

          • gogo0

            I mentioned it because you said evolution is kept alive by public funding (which makes no sense, evolution is accepted worldwide and does not live and breathe based on public funding any more than math does), while creationism is being pushed as public school curriculum by churches that live through not contributing to public funding through its members.
            the red blood cells and tissue were preserved in iron and thus did not decay as they normally would. that scientific discovery did as much to invalidate evolution and the fossil record as it did to support the notion of the christian, or any other, god existing

          • B1jetmech

            evolution is accepted worldwide and does not live and breathe based on public funding any more than math does

            I don’t care about what the world thinks.

            Only 19% of the US population believes evolution. The rest is mixed with Creation and theistic evolution.

            while creationism is being pushed as public school

            If evolution is so true then you have nothing to worry about it right? What are you afraid of? Creation doesn’t need my hard earn tax dollars to survive.

            Churches don’t make school curriculum and the members are tax paying Americans like me and you (if you work that is)

            the red blood cells and tissue were preserved in iron and thus did not decay as they normally would.

            I’m glad you googled the red blood cells discovey in the TRex fossil and found it in the live schince article( I assume)

            So the next problem is does iron in itself survive 65 million years? because cars do rust you know after a couple of hundred years there wouldn’t be much left let alone 65 million years.

            I don’t need science to prove the existence of God. God is way above that…faith only comes by hearing. So if you still don’t believe it’s because you chose not to.

          • gogo0

            I am afraid of kids growing up to be stupid because they were taught fairy tales as fact, making America less competitive globally and diminishing the power and prosperity of our country over the course of time.
            its fortunate you don’t need science to prove god exists, because there doesn’t seem to be any.

          • B1jetmech

            I am afraid of kids growing up to be stupid because they were taught fairy tales as fact

            That didn’t seem to be the case when we went to the moon in 1969. About all are most of the engineers and workers grew in American schools where the bible was read daily and everyone prayed. Not anymore. Now look at us…we barely have a a space program that launches little satellites and need to out source to the russians.

            making America less competitive globally and diminishing the power and prosperity of our country over the course of time.

            Sounds like you want to America to succeed and be the shiny city on the hill. I like that.

            How was America successful in the past? How did our grandfathers overcome Two Hot wars and One Cold? How did we prosper so much in the past through hard work?

            When the people put God first in the lives, He blesses the nation. When God is told He isn’t needed anymore He leaves and takes his protections and blessing with him.

            its fortunate you don’t need science to prove god exists, because there doesn’t seem to be any.

            It’s because God won’t allow himself to be revealed in the way you desire. “faith comes by hearing” That is how you get to God is confessing your sins(why?) because sin doesn’t exist in his presence hence, why you don’t sense him.

            Also, God urges us to be full of knowledge, to study, work hard and gain wisdom.(which is more then I can say for some Christians, ahem!)

            Besides, science can be manipulated, altered and used to deceive others, so yo have to be careful.

          • rednig

            Since ‘science’ took over the classroom, Americans went from reading at a 12th grade comprehension level to 5th grade. In fact, it’s getting common that kids graduate illiterate. Colleges are teaching fundamental reading, math, and note taking. Mind, this is since the KKK version of separation of church and state went into effect in the 30s under Grand Dragon Black (D). Oh, and if you haven’t noticed, a great many scientists are coming out stating yes, they believe in God. In fact, it’s about doubling each year. Creationist scientists now make up about 11% of researchers. Meanwhile, atheism is dying, as Nietzsche predicted, killed by atheists.

          • gogo0

            huh, baffling why science teachers are teaching english with science textbooks… but that would certainly explain the drop in english scores since god stopped being taught in school in favor of science. makes perfect sense.
            “creationist scientist” is a misnomer, there is no science in the magic of a god creating everything from nothing. however I am sure that there are many creationists that do good work in the broad field of science.
            everyone is an atheist when they are born, up until they are indoctrinated to believe in very specific fantastical things they would otherwise never think about. you can fantasize about it disappearing if that’s what makes you feel good, though.

          • John H. Foley

            You may want to update your knowledge. Mary Schweitzer, the paleontologist who discovered the soft tissue explains that iron nanoparticles form substance like formaldehyde. These substances can preserve soft tissue for extended periods in conditions that should have destroyed said tissues. They used this knowledge to test ostrich blood vessels in an iron rich solution over the period of two years at room temperature. The vessels were preserved quite well, as opposed to the controls in saline and water which decayed and disintegrated within a few weeks.

            Also it wasn’t red blood cells, it was collogen which is a structural protein found in muscles, tendons and bone. It is what Jell-o gelatin is made from. So it wasn’t cells that were preseved

          • B1jetmech

            Mary Schweitzer, the paleontologist who discovered the soft tissue explains that iron nanoparticles form substance like formaldehyde.

            That would be loose iron particles tying knots with cell membranes forming this preserving method.

            They used this knowledge to test ostrich blood vessels in an iron rich solution over the period of two years at room temperature.

            That would be a hemoglobin solution. the problem is, the preserved blood cells were in an environment much different then the fossil was. The fossil was under much pressure of rock and sediments where as the ostrich blood was in room temperature for 2 years. But could not hold up to 68 million years as Dr. Schweitzer claimed. Schweitzer only claims the preservation of blood cells in the hemoglobin solution preserves the non living tissue for 200 fold rate vs the saline water.

            Also it wasn’t red blood cells, it was collogen which is a structural protein found in muscles, tendons and bone.

            Well, it was soft tissue that was discovered and within that soft tissue was red blood cells. Very delicate to preservation. But they are NOT 68 million years old.

      • Joe

        Do you believe in the existence of aliens?

        • gogo0

          I believe there are good odds, but that’s it. humanity has yet to find any trace of intelligent life in the cosmos aside from that on earth

      • Coach

        If a person has the intelligence to make a rock, you trust your eternity to what they say, because what they say aligns with the love you have for self-gratification. You’ve done evil things that nobody else has seen and got away with them, so the idea of no Sovereign ruler of the universe, you get away and you can keep practicing the evil you love and say “hey, others are doing it”
        Origins is a historical matter and your denial of the truth is from 2 reasons. One is blindness
        37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:

        “Lord, who has believed our report?
        And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”[f]
        39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

        40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
        Lest they should see with their eyes,
        Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
        So that I should heal them.”
        You could be there watching Jesus perform miracles and still be in unbelief, unless God in His mercy, opened your eyes.
        Another, you don’t want to believe the truth, because you love your sin. John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

      • DonRL

        You missed the point>
        The point is, is that evolution is not a science as it is purported to be.
        It is it the result of rejection of God and then trying to imagine origins from a totally materialistic view point. This takes immense faith. So stop lying about evolution and admit that it is the philosophical doctrine of origins imagined by materialists; those who deny and therefore have only the material universe as a source.
        To say that there is no God is absurd since there can be no rational source for such a belief. Have you looked everywhere? NO! Do you know everything? NO
        Do you have absolute power? NO! All of these things are necessary if you are to say definitively and meaningfully that there is no God.
        God said that in the beginning He created. That is a rational beginning. Faith yes!. It is much easier to believe God than to believe those who have rejected God. The creation is sufficient evidence to all to know that God is that that He is the creator.
        So evolution, while masquerading as science, is not science but a belief system of the atheist and materialist. Having rejected God they have no alternative but the material universe for their doctrine of origins. Not a scientific conclustion at all.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Evolution is not a “rejection of God”. Rejection of a literal reading of the Biblical creation account maybe, but that’s not necessarily a rejection of a belief in a god. Or even God, since there are plenty of Christians that do believe in both God and evolution.

          “To say that there is no God is absurd since there can be no rational source for such a belief.”

          Well, I actually agree with that. However, one doesn’t have to have “absolute power” or “know everything” to find no reason to believe in a god, which is a different thing from saying one knows there is no god.

          You said evolution is a “philosophical doctrine of origins”?

          No. It’s. Not. It doesn’t have anything to DO with origins. Except, I guess, saying that all life has a “last universal ancestor.” Sure, people will try to figure out how or why that ancestor got here….but that at point, you’re not talking about evolution any more.

          • DonRL

            Obviously you do not understand evolution. It postulates that the universe had a material beginning. All that ever was, was material and it evolved that is how everything began. THis is how the doctrine of evolution says everything originated.
            That is a doctrine of origins.
            The evolution doctrine is in direct opposition to creation.
            In the beginning God created and followed up with creation of all that is.
            In opposition to God creating (a spiritual origin and beginning) is evolution which begins with the material with no God or intelligent design only random physical processes.
            These two are diametrically opposed to each other. They cannot be combined. One negates the other..
            The Bible states how the evolutionary philosophy came about in Romans 1:18+. This passage states that God was rejected and as a result mankind professed that they had the wisdom to decide for themselves how things originated and developed into this imaginary and vain philosophy. They replaced the creator (spiritual) with created things (material). Its right there in the Book.

          • John N

            >’Obviously you do not understand evolution. It postulates that the universe had a material beginning.’

            No it doesn’t. The theory of evolution only explains the evolution of life, nothing more. It does not even explains even the origin of life.

            Obviously YOU don’t understand evolution. Maybe you could read something about it before trying to discuss it.

            Of course the whole body of science has as a starting point that the material world is all there is. And so far it is working fine – much better than religion, in fact.

          • ckandersen

            But even the current level of understanding does not explain macro-evolution…the transition from simple organisms to more complex organisms, and the vast diversity of life. Instead, we have great studies on micro-evolution…how a colony of finches will become diverse to fill several niches in an ecology…and suddenly extrapolate that to explain the many species of animals and plants.

          • John N

            The distinction between what you call micro- and macro-evolution does not exist. The mechanism is exactly the same – changes in inheritable traits. It is like saying you are able to walk to your front door, even to the corner of the street, but you are not able to walk to town.

            If you claim ‘macro’-evolution is impossible, please describe the blocking mechanism that stops it from happening. A Nobel prize awaits you.

          • DonRL

            Evolution is a materialistic philosophy and not a science. It has borrowed scientific rhetoric to gain credibility. Science is the discovery and study of what is, what ever it may be and should not be limited by excluding evidences that point conclusions that you do not want, which is what is done when you begin with “the material world is all that there is”
            The concepts of this philosophy began long ago in pagan religions and philosophies. Modern evolutionary thinking is just an adaptation of those ancient pagan religion.
            The fact that evolution (don’t confuse this with science) begins with assuming that the material world is all that there is proof that it is not science but a philosophy based on a previously decided starting point. Excluding all other possibilities so the only one remaining is the one you want to use, “the material world is all that there is”. is not a scientific conclusion but a philosophical premise.
            You don’t even understand the basis of your philosophy.
            I agree that religion (man’s imagination and invention of a god of his own making and making up his own rules for a relationship with his imagined god. Don’t mistake this with what the Bible says and what God revealed therein. There is a vast difference between what God has revealed about Himself and how we can nave a relationship with Him contained in the Bible and what man has devised about God or some god of his own imagination.
            I also reject religion which has obscured and confused our knowledge of God and how wonderful and magnificent He really is. I reject all religion and adhere to God’s revelation, which works much better and more sure than any religion man can devise including humanism and its attendent origins doctrine of evolution.

          • John N

            >’Evolution is a materialistic philosophy and not a science.’

            So who put you in charge on deciding what is science and what is not?

            The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, as valid as all other scientific theories. In fact it is probably the most attacked scientific theory ever described, but still doing well. The fact that you don’t like it does not make any difference. Until it is being falsified it, it will remain the best possible explanation of the diversity of life on earth.

            >’Science is the discovery and study of what is …’

            To be correct, science is the discovery and study of what is in nature. Science does not concern itself with the supernatural. Science adheres to methodological materialism. Taking “the material world is all that there is” as starting point is one of the reasons science has so much succes in explaining nature, while religion has none.

            >’I agree that religion (man’s imagination and invention of a god of his own making and making up his own rules for a relationship with his imagined god …’

            And then you make an exception for your specific god. How funny you don’t seem to understand why this makes no sense to anybody else.

          • DonRL

            So who put you in charge?
            Those who reject God as you do are the ones who are putting themselves in charge. Having rejected God you are trying to make you self your own authority.
            I accept the authority of God.
            Just as there is false science like evolution and also true science which is real and has specific proofs through observation and experimentation rather than imaginative suppositions about the past which cannot be observed or experimented on, there are false religions made up by man just like evolution (one of which evolution is the origins doctrine) and there is a real and true God, the God of the Bible. How this does not make sense to you makes no sense to me. You are so stuck on your own materialistic philosophy and imaginative origins doctrine of evolution you will not see the truth because it would not allow you to be your own authority, you would have to submit to the authority of God.
            The Bible is the exception in the midst of the religions made up by man as they try to assert them selves as their own authority.

            It is strange that you would reject anything that is not material as not science. What about psychology? Science in studying the material world could conclude, from a scientific stand point, that all that was intelligently designed and created rather than that is evolved randomly, unguided and undesigned spontaneously, from nothing to everything. This is not scientifically tenable. There are no known scientific process that can bring something from nothing. To think and hope there may be to support this doctrine is religions in nature.
            If an archaeologist discovers a linear pile of rocks with an opening in it, must he conclude that some force of nature made this structure? Would he be unscientific if he concluded that this structure was designed? Would “science” prohibit him from concluding that it was made by some intelligent being or person with some purpose in mind?
            If the archaeologist only considered material origins and not the possibility of things being man made he would be being unscientific, wouldn’t he?
            If so the archaeologist may as well fold up his tent and go into some other line of work since science would limit his ability to truthfully, accurately and scientifically conclude exactly what the evidence is telling him.
            So it is with evolution by excluding God and intelligent design on the basis and allowing only material conclusions regarding the evidence, science (your so called science) is doing the same thing.

          • John N

            >’So who put you in charge? ‘

            Nobody did. Again, the theory of evolution is a very well defined scientific theory, both testable and falsifiable, supported by observations from nature and from experiments, and therefore falls into your definition of ‘real science’.

            You can for any personal reasons decide to not accept the theory just like any other theory, but that does not change the fact that it is science.

            By the way, the world is still waiting for any evidence for your creationism. Just refuting the theory of evolution does not mean creation is therefore correct – you still have to do the work. Formulate a valid hypothesis, do the testing, propose a theory, and let the scientific process take its course. Let’s see if it can compete with the theory of evolution.

            >’..there are false religions made up by man … ‘

            Indeed. And unless you can show us the difference between ‘false’ and ‘real’ religions, there is no need to think any of them is real. After all, the can’t be all correct, they certainly can be all false.

            >’How this does not make sense to you makes no sense to me. ‘

            To make sense to me, there should be evidence. Empirical, observable, open for anyone, evidence that can only be attributed to your version of a a supernatural deity. That’s all you need.

            >’.. you would have to submit to the authority of God.’

            I’m an atheist. Why would I even think of submiiting to a deity I even don’t belief in? Do you not want to submit to the invisible flying purple
            unicorn? Is that the reason you don’t accept the theory of evolution?

            >’The Bible is the exception in the midst of the religions made up by man as they try to assert them selves as their own authority.’

            I do not see the difference. The bible is exactly the same in that sense.

            >’What about psychology? ‘
            What about it? Do you doubt the brain exist? Do you doubt there is something like a mind? Do you doubt humans and oter animals show behaviour?

            >’This is not scientifically tenable. There are no known scientific process that can bring something from nothing.’

            Correct. Therefore, creation ex nihilo is impossible. Next please.

            >’If an archaeologist discovers a linear pile of rocks with an opening in it, must he conclude that some force of nature made this structure? Would he be unscientific if he concluded that this structure was designed?’

            Archaeologists are trained to detect human design. I repeat, human design. That’s their job. So who would I be to object? He could be wrong though, and he has to take that risk into consideration.

            A geologist, on the other side, has been trained to recognize the results of the physical forces on rocks, and they could very well conclude that the formation you describe is the result of natural forces – volcanism, erosion, …

            >’So it is with evolution by excluding God and intelligent design on the basis and allowing only material conclusions regarding the evidence, science (your so called science) is doing the same thing.

            Correct. Since there has been no evidence of any deity ever, we could as wel say they are not here. Mind the difference with your example – we do know human design exists, so we have to take it into account.

            By the way, thanks for linking intelligent design directly to god. That is something most creationsts try to avoid – after all, intelligent design is created just to avoid the link to religion so it could be taught in public schools.

          • DonRL

            Your act as though you are the authority. You say it is a well defined scientific theory, but it is a hodge podge of suppositions, imagination and wishful thinking with no real scientific foundation. Wishing it to be science does not make it so.
            The creation itself is adequate and sufficient evidence of God the creator and will hold all responsible for the testimony of creation when it is rejected. The Bible with it hundreds of prophecies which have proved to be 100% correct, the probability of which is beyond random or accident.

            Show me actual proof of evolution? Show me an experiment that proves evolution. Just saying that it is a well established scientific theory will not do. You did not say that is it is a well proven science.
            I challenge you to look at the prophecies of the Bible and and their fulfillment and calculate probably of them all happening exactly as predicted and then tell me that there is no intelligence behind them.

            To determine if a religion is false or true, Ask the question, Who gets the glory from that religion? All religions teach that man can get the blessings of god by some work, religious duty or ceremony, that is, he can attain salvation by his own effort and goodness. These are obviously made up by man to honor and glorify man.
            Christianity which was prophesied from the beginning and repeatedly over the years, teaches that man cannot attain salvation by himself. Man is imperfect and cannot attain perfection, so God in love provided for mankind. God Himself sent His Son to provide salvation for man, so that glorifies man. No man would invent a religion to glorify God. Men invent religions to glorify themsleves. This is just one other proof.

            Again the Bible itself and its histories, laws, morality and prophecies are beyond what anyone could do unless they are God.
            Creation my man ex nihilo but God created the laws of nature so He is above them and not controlled by them.

            You did not make you point about archaeologists. Science does recognize intelligent design it the point but only when man doe it. Intelligent design is obvious from the irreducible complexity of, for example, biological life for which evolution has no answer. The design of the creation is obvious only those who wish to deny it will do so. The obvious intelligent design displayed in nature makes it obvious that there is a creator. This is sufficient for all to see that there is a God. Only those without intelligence would deny it.

            When I went to public school creation was taught. The real history of creation is now being rejected for the false ideas of evolution. The truth of God has been rejected for the imaginations of man. This is not a case of religion opposed to science as you would suppose. It is a case of the truth of God being supplanted by the deceit of men who reject God as their authority as you have. Under guise of “separation of church and state” (which the Constitution does not say) the government has instituted a state religion, The constitution prohibits the government from establishing a state religion so they have redefined (tried to) what the constitution actually says with a deception so they can institute their own religion, which is humanism, which is what you have been espousing along with its origins doctrine of evolution all the while rejecting the true origin of creation. They have done exactly that which the constitution prohibits.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I do not understand evolution? Hmm….okay then. You tell me. Define evolution. (this might be interesting….)

          • DonRL

            see previous comment.
            If you do understand evolution then you should also under stand that it is not a science it is a materialistic religious philosophy which is a Godless philosophy in which man become his own authority. Its origins doctrine is contrary to the Bible and God’s creation of all that is.
            Your condescending tone is not at all intimidating but reveals your anti God bias. The Bible say “The fool (unintelligent) says in his heart that there is no God”

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re just wrong. It’s not a philosophy of any kind. All evolution is is the “change in a biological population’s inherited traits from generation to generation.” That’s it. One can believe in a god or not believe in one and still understand that.

          • DonRL

            Evolution is a philosophy because it is based on the premise that all there is is the material world so that all there is came about by random, unguided, unintelligent and unguided material processes.
            This is directly contrary to what God has revealed about Himself the His creation.
            One may believe in a god (not God) of his own making and try to reconcile his made up god philosophy with a non-science like evolution (another made up philosophy).
            This is much harder than accepting what God has revealed in the Bible, believing in Him and understanding the world as His creation. God’s revelation is complete, understandable, true and reliable.
            You are trying to minimize what evolution is so you can reduce objections to it. Humanism and its attendant origins doctrine of evolution is not compatible with God’s creation.
            Trying to reconcile God’s true of His creation with man’s made up philosophy of evolution is not possible without changing and reinterpreting God’s revelation. They are mutually exclusionary, uncompatible and irreconcilable.
            Evolution is constantly changing to try to fix its inconsistencies. The Bible has never changed and does not need to be changed or reinterpreted because it is perfect and complete as it is.
            Just take it for what it obviously says without messing, wrestling or interpreting it to suit what you want.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Just take the word “evolution” out of everything you’re saying, and substitute something like “a strong-atheist/materialist worldview.” That’s really what you’re talking about, and it doesn’t necessarily go hand-in-hand with evolution.

            “One may believe in a god (not God) of his own making”

            Well, obviously you’re of a different opinion, but I’m one of those who thinks all gods are man-made.

            “The Bible has never changed and does not need to be changed or reinterpreted”

            Oh? That’s completely beside any point I’ve been making, but anyway….why are there so many different versions, then? With different books included and such…not to mention multiple translations….

          • DonRL

            The fruit is from a poisonous tree. It is wasn’t for materialism their would be no doctrine of evolution.
            The tree is the idea of man that man is his own final authority, as you said man is the source of God. If man invented God then man is the final authority. That is what Adam and Eve’s sin was all about. God is the final authority. Satan had rebelled against God previously and wanted to be his own final authority. He tempted man to do the same and man rebelled against God following Satan. You have done the same. The result of this action by Adam and Eve was to bring destruction, sickness and death on the whole human race. Continuing in this rebellion results in the same. Just look around you.
            Those who like Cain invented his own religion, wanting to be their own authority, oppress and kill those who accept God as the final authority and seek to do His will rather than their will. So it is today.
            Man thinking himself being the final authority, has assumed he is the inventor of God.
            Without God there is the necessity of explaining where things and man came from, hence evolution. Having rejected God man sees only the material world and thinks his vision is omniscient. He is professing himself to be wise but has become a fool.
            Of course having a materialistic world view results in the doctrine of evolution or some materialistic origins doctrine, since there is no other option without God.
            Yes the Bible has not changed. The many versions so called are not different versions but only an updating or clarifying of the verbiage; they are translations updating the language to suite more current usage of words. These are not different versions but updated translations which convey the same meaning.
            Man being what he is, thinking he is his own authority, some have tried to change the verbiage and the meaning but these are not honest approached to translation or an honest attempt to clarify, but an attempt to deceive and promotes themselves as their own authority.
            Humanism is the out working of the idea that man is his own authority and evolution is the origins doctrine of humanism.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How many times do I have to say this: Evolution is NOT any kind of “origins doctrine”.

            Let me ask you this, though….I’m guessing, you’re one of those people who takes Genesis (and the rest of the Bible for that matter?) completely literally? And hence a ‘young-earth-creationist’, I assume, as well….

          • DonRL

            You may say it as much as you wish. ,Telling the lie over and over again does not make it true. Evolution is a doctrine of origins. You said to “it says that there was a beginning” so it is about origins. You reject God and therefore have nothing else but the material creation.
            When the Bible narrative is clearly literal, as Genesis is, we should accept it as literal. To do otherwise is to try to manipulate it into something that agrees with what I want it to be rather that what is is meant to be. This is a trait of man in his sinful condition; always trying to make himself the authority usurping the authority of God.
            It appears you are firmly in the camp the Cain who rejected God’s revelation of how to worship and invented his own way.
            By insisting on evolution as your origins doctrine instead of “in the beginning God created”, you are doing the same.
            The only reason for one to believe the earth is billions of years old is to obscure it origin in the mist of billion of years and try to give credibility to the origins doctrine of evolution which requires billions of years.
            Without insisting that evolution must be and thereby requiring billions years one is free to consider the evidence in the clear light of truth without the obscuring of false concepts like evolution.
            The only reason for a non literal reading of Genesis is because one has rejected God, has only the material universe to work with and imagines an origin from a material source, hence evolution and then requiring time to work so billions of years are postulated.
            This sequence is a result of the rejection of God and His authority, then trying to establish one’s self as the final authority.
            Evolution is the fruit of the poisonous tree of man’s rebellion against God.
            Saying that evolution is how all life came about (originated) and then saying evolutionary origins doctrine is not an origins doctrine absurd and contradictory and as such is meaningless and gains no traction on those who know and love the truth contained in the Bible God’s revelation.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “It appears you are firmly in the camp the Cain who rejected God’s revelation of how to worship and invented his own way.”

            Not really, I haven’t invented any way to worship, I don’t worship at all, in fact.

            “The only reason for one to believe the earth is billions of years old”

            ……is the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is.

            “The only reason for a non literal reading of Genesis is because one has
            rejected God, has only the material universe to work with and imagines
            an origin from a material source, hence evolution and then requiring
            time to work so billions of years are postulated.”

            Well, if one “rejects God” and only deals with the material universe….why would that person give a hoot what Genesis says one way or the other? The only reasons I’ve mentioned it is to say that there are (whether they’re right or wrong) Christians that believe it is not to be taken literally. If you’re telling me those sort of people have “rejected God”, I guess all I could say to that is, they’d most likely beg to differ with that. Are you criticizing science for only working with the material universe? That’s kind of what science IS. If you’re thinking about things beyond the material universe, that’s religion and/or philosophy, not science.

            “Saying that evolution is how all life came about (originated)”

            …is not what I’ve been saying at all. It’s what I’ve been trying to say evolution ISN’T. I mean, just look at the definition of the word, how it’s used in other contexts, not having anything to do with what we’re talking about. “the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form”…..like, one could talk about the evolution of, oh, I don’t know…..rock music, or abstract art, or whatever. Then you wouldn’t be talking about how it began, you’d be talking about how it changed over the years and became what it is today.

          • DonRL

            Yes you do worship. You worship the creation rather than the creator as Romans chapter 1 says.
            There is no overwhelming scientific evidence for billions of years. Billions are a necessity for those who believe in the religion of humanism with its origins doctrine of evolution. Billions of years are necessary for inert matter to change into biological life and develop the complexities we see in that life. (This is what evolution needs. I am not saying that it happened or is even possible. Statistically it is impossible for life to have developed though random processes, unguided and undesigned.)
            Evolution postulates that such inert matter changed over time and became biological life and that life continued to change. Note the word change; that is evolution. That is how life evolved; came into being by matter changing and became more complex by continuing to change.
            Without the creator life would have had to originate in this manner so evolution is change from non life to life and that life continuing to change. So evolution is about origins and how that which originated by evolution changes. Even though there is no evidence of this ever happening and no evolution (changing of one species into another) has ever been observed. There have been adaptive changes made withing species but never a change of species. In fact if evolution were true there would be no such thing as species but only a hodge podge of various biological forms (If evolution were real.)
            I am criticizing those who call evolution science, which it is not. It is the origins doctrine of humanism. It is a religious philosophy of those who reject God and try to make themselves God. People deny that there is a creator and then call themselves creators. This was what Adam did in response to Satan;s temptation. Satan told him If he disobeyed God he would become like God. Same as who you and others like you are doing today.
            Those who claim to be Christians and accept evolution are deceived into thinking that evolution is real science and do not realize that it is a lie and a deception. Whether they are or are not real Christians they must answer before God and their own conscience. The fact is that they have departed from the clear teaching of the Bible. You know that God creating all that is is without evolution is what the Bible really says don’t you.
            When you know God your did not put Him in His rightful place in your heart and mind (the place of authority and as creator). Having rejected God you made yourself your authority invented your own worship of the creation (Evolution puts the creation (the material world) in the place of God as the creator and man as the creator authority.)
            Gradual development of things like music etc. take design, though, planning, etc and so prove the necessity for these things being made and not evolving through random unguided natural processes. OOPS!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “There is no overwhelming scientific evidence for billions of years”

            Yes, there is. Tons of it. You most likely just choose to ignore it, or explain it away with “God did it” or something like that.

            “Evolution postulates that such inert matter changed over time and became biological life”

            I don’t know how many times I need to say this, but NO IT DOESN’T! Yes, there are ideas about how such a thing could have happened. But THAT’S NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!! If you’re going to criticize something, know what it IS, at least.

            “There have been adaptive changes made withing species but never a change of species.”

            So, then, what exactly is it that prevents speciation?

            “In fact if evolution were true there would be no such thing as species but only a hodge podge of various biological forms”

            The latest estimates say there are 8.7 million different species of life on the planet, not even counting bacteria and such. Sounds like you could call that a “hodgepodge of biological forms” right there.

          • Joe

            If you reject the word of God as pertaining to the creation account, you reject God and all His word.

            John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing
            made that was made.

            It is really disingenuous and misleading when a evolutionist references the word of God (erroneously) to bolster his case. Why would you anyway, you don’t believe God or his accounts yet you use it to defend your position. Sorry, but that is preposterous.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Wait a minute, what? I’m not “referencing the word of God to bolster my case”, not at all. Like you said, I don’t believe in any god, so it wouldn’t make any sense for me to do that. The only thing I said was that there are a good number of Christians, whether you would consider them “true Christians” or not, that do believe in both God and evolution, and of course, that there are other gods people believe in, for that matter. I was trying to make the point that evolution is not necessarily a rejection of belief in a god. That’s the only “case” I was making.

      • Joe

        You continue to deny God’s free gift of grace, and subsequently still enjoy some sense of peace and freedom….for now. From this point forward until rapture or you die, that will come to an end. Then you will have to pay the penalty for your unforgiven sins So whose the fortunate one?

        • gogo0

          I’d say we are both very fortunate. me for no longer wasting my life on imaginary friends, and you for reaping the results of a scientific method that you choose to believe only when it benefits you. guess we’re all winners

          • Joe

            I am confused, how has the results of scientific methods benefited me? So the misguided scientist is somehow to receive credit for God’s creation. Concluding logically, are you saying that you worship the creation and not the creator? 1Ti 6:20 — O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Let me please add that I am not trying to be condescending or judgemental. I sense you are a very fair and cordial person.

      • petroskhan

        Actually, it was observed. Christ’s actions were observed, and recorded, by multiple witnesses. What you refer to as “the bible” is not a single book, but a collection of many books, by several different authors, a fact overlooked by those, like you, seeking to deny its veracity and reliability.

        In fact, the New Testament alone was written by at least 8 different people. So one single “book” of the New Testament is backed up by 7 other books, by different authors, all of them contemporaries, and all of them reporting the same events, corroborating each others stories regarding the life, works and death of Christ.

        So, we do have witnesses to His life, who were there, and they all agree upon the events of His life…in short, it was observed, and we have numerous eyewitness accounts of that.

        • gogo0

          few people ignore that the bible is a collection of books written by different people, namely because it is an undisputed fact that doesn’t matter. the book of mormon is also a self-affirming compilation of writing from numerous people, but that hardly makes it true.
          nearly all religious texts are records of eyewitness accounts, and that doesn’t make their supernatural claims any less fanciful.

          • B1jetmech

            What the Bible has that other so called religious texts do NOT have is a coded system.

            There are messages within the message in the bible. You and I cannot write such a complex system.

            It is supernaturally authored, because man lacks the intelligence to incorporate hidden messages.

          • gogo0

            this is the exact same argument muslims use to “prove” their quran is true. it isn’t unique to any one religion, and it isn’t proof of anything.

          • B1jetmech

            I can tell you there is no coded messages in the Koran, Quoran,,ect.

            So how does coded messages just appear within scripture then?

          • gogo0

            that’s hardly a surprise, muslims will also tell you there are no coded messages in the bible. look, both religions are back at square one trying to prove with hidden messages that only their book is supernatural in origin.
            even if there are hidden messages, if people are able to find them, then they have the capability to create them. hidden messages in text don’t “just appear”, they are written.

          • B1jetmech

            It’s hardly a surprise and you never read up on it?

            So when it comes to physical evidence you just excuse it as (some other religion has the same thing) so it’s all the same?

            Go watch youtube on bible codes preferably Chuck Missler who is very scientific person.

            if people are able to find them, then they have the capability to create them

            So if we only scratched the surface why stop? God obviously reveals his Word and the further we study the more we will know.

            hidden messages in text don’t “just appear”, they are written.

            That’s not how discoveries come to be.

          • gogo0

            it is hardly a surprise that you would say the quran has no hidden messages somehow indicating its authenticity as a book of supernatural origin, because they would say the same thing about the bible and any other book claiming that. it is proof of nothing and your statement “I can tell you the quran does not have hidden messages” is the same biased and self-assuring non-argument that muslims trot out.

            hidden messages in the bible are physical evidence of clever and elegant writing, not of any supernatural origin. I am not dismissing them, its neat if they are there and that’s the end of it.
            if people are able to find and comprehend these hidden messages and elegant form, then they are capable of creating them. again, it is not evidence of the supernatural, only evidence of someone with literary skill.

            “that’s not how discoveries come to be”
            you called these “hidden messages”, it doesn’t matter if a god or a person wrote them, if someone finds the hidden message, then it is discovered. I don’t understand what you mean with your “discoveries” statement

          • petroskhan

            “it is an undisputed fact that doesn’t matter.”
            Considering that there are roughly 2.2 billion Christians in the world, it’s not “undisputed”, is it?

            As for the Book of Mormon, it was written by one man, Joseph Smith, who was a convicted con man, and a know fraudster of his day. Hardly a man to trust to found a religion. Also, the Book is rife with errors, factual impossibilities, and plagiarizes the Bible for a considerable portion of its content – it even copies the errors of the King James translation.

            “nearly all religious texts are eyewitness accounts…”
            No, actually, they’re not.

            “that doesn’t make their supernatural claims any less fanciful.”
            What you’re doing is a common logical fallacy, of drawing your conclusion in the absence of evidence – or, putting the cart before the horse. You exclude the supernatural from your reasoning, excluding one (or more) possible outcomes from the available evidence, and then discounting the evidence that leads to the excluded outcome. You are therefore prejudging the situation, and any conclusion based upon such flawed reasoning is unreliable.

            That, coupled with your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject, disqualifies you from a discussion of this topic.

          • gogo0

            just an fyi, but ‘undisputed’ means ‘not disputed’…

            if people are going to make fallacies (a subject wise theists stay far, far away from to avoid being overtly hypocritical) based on zero evidence, better their conclusions be within the realm of reality than pure fantasy.
            regardless, it is not a fallacy to determine that X does not exist when faced with no evidence at all that X exists. if it were, you not believing in unicorns and Zeus would also be fallacious.

          • petroskhan

            “if people are going to make fallacies (a subject wise theists stay far, far away from to avoid being overtly hypocritical) based on zero evidence, better their conclusions be within the realm of reality than pure fantasy.”

            Agreed. So, we can both agree that evolution is pure bs, right? I mean…let’s list some of the minor issues once again…

            1 – Life came from lifelessness.
            2 – Life became increasingly more complex.
            3 – New genetic information came from, literally, nowhere.
            4 – Genders developed simultaneously (one being useless without the other).

            So, going with your advice, and applying Occam’s Razor to the issue, evolution has to be discounted. The “evidence” is clearly in support of the Bible and its version.

            “it is not a fallacy to determine that X does not exist when faced with no evidence at all that X exists.”

            Umm…actually, it is. Short version: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Going with your assumption, if you’ve never seen a pink shirt with orange lions on it, said shirt doesn’t exist anywhere in the universe. Your claim is based upon the assumption you have all the evidence in existence from which you draw your conclusion. Until you can prove that you do indeed possess all evidence in the universe, you’re committing a logical fallacy, as explained.

            As for unicorns and Zeus – I am open to both. It is entirely feasible that some other animal was mistaken for a unicorn, and the fanciful tale passed down. It is equally possible that at one point they did exist, and are now extinct. As for Zeus, who knows? Myth based upon a legendary hero, along the lines of Arthur? A genetically superior human, or strain of humans, now extinct? I’m open to explanations; just provide evidence, is all I ask.

          • gogo0

            okay, so we are both on the same page then. no evidence of something indicates… nothing. so why don’t you believe that the unicorn walks on two legs and is actually the savior of mankind? it is a fully-credible argument, and likely true, because there is no evidence against it not being true.

            it once again boils down to faith in the bible being supernatural, because it says it is. no reason to believe that its not true! and also no reason to believe that it is. if you want to pretend god-magic producing man out of dust, women from his rib, and that the human race’s foundation was built on deity-sanctified incest is a more-credible explanation than life occurring by chance and developing in a universe that is immeasurably large and diverse over the course of billions of years, then so be it.

            if you have a credible solution to the question of how life began, offer it. in the meanwhile, science is able to admit that it doesn’t know how life began, religion cant admit anything except that they have given up because their special books have fantastical stories that makes zero sense to anyone but ardent followers.

          • petroskhan

            “no evidence of something indicates…nothing.”
            Great. I can actually agree with that. Problem is, there is evidence that the Bible is correct, that the words of the New Testament are factual, eyewitness accounts. Whether or not you choose to believe the evidence is a choice you have to make for yourself. I would suggest, though, that you actually look for (and at) the evidence before you simply discount it out of hand, purely because you’ve pre-determined that supernatural explanations are invalid.

            “if you have a credible solution to the question of how life began, offer it.”
            I have, and I have. You have decided, with bias, that such explanations are to be dismissed before you even examine the evidence. You’re of course free to do so, but you immediately lose any claim to be capable of judging the matter logically.

            “religion can’t admit anything except that they have given up because their special books have fantastical stories that makes zero sense to anyone but ardent followers.”

            Two questions pop to mind when you make statements like that:

            1 – What religious people are you talking to? Relgious people have “given up”? Given up on what? And again, from whom do you get this laughable misinformation?

            2 – You state that science can’t answer the question, and you’re fine with that, and then you bash religion for not giving you an answer that agrees with your non-religious preconceptions? Not a shining example of logical thinking, are you?

            You have a serious problem with your lines of thinking, and it’s one I’ve encountered before. You see, you know nothing about religion. That’s clear from the wording of your posts. You know about what religious people think, what the Bible says, etc….and you are perfectly comfortable discounting religion from your world-view, and making up all sorts of laughable nonsense regarding what religion has to say, and what it means.

            And furthermore, you present the exact same shortcomings you are projecting onto the Bible as commendable attributes of science – while directly stating that science doesn’t answer any of the questions that are, in fact, answered by the Bible.

            So, in short, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and are applying a double standard, in addition to rigging the discussion, hamstringing the argument (and your own logic) before the discussion has even begun.

            Good luck with that.

          • gogo0

            the religious people I am referring to are any that believe in entirely faith-based supernatural hypotheses such as those presented in special books like the bible, torah, and quran, among others. “giving up” refers to giving up the search for answers regarding the origins of life, because you already know how it happened: god snapped his fingers and created everything, then made man out of dirt and woman out of a rib.
            of course that is a VERY convincing story that makes perfect sense. cant imagine why anyone wouldn’t believe that.
            I said science doesn’t know how life came about, not that science cant answer the question. those are two very different things, and it was odd to base the dismissal of my argument on your poor comprehension. that’s the second time you have misunderstood plain English in one of my posts (first was the word ‘undisputed’).
            the bible is filled with amazing stories of supernatural happenings, stuff that hasn’t happened since and hasn’t been recreated except through cognitive dissonance (weeping statues, stigmata, short-lived ‘healings’, etc). muslims insist that the words of the quran are passed down from muhammed to his initial followers, and through the generations verbatim, and so it is true and verified through first-hand account. this is the same bad argument that you use, and it proves nothing except that some people two thousand years ago agreed on some things, and that anyone in any religion can state their extraordinary claims are true because their source says that itself is true.
            how seriously do you take the claims of buddhists, taoists, muslims, mormons, scientologists, etc…? they are all as credible as christianity because they are all based on faith in supernatural stories and ideas, and so they are discounted as nonsense because there is no reason to believe they are anything but.

          • petroskhan

            “cant imagine why anyone wouldn’t believe that.”

            Nor can I. Especially in light of the reliability of the Bible, as compared to that of the pseudo-science you are supporting.

            “that’s the second time you hav e misunderstood plain English in one of my posts (first was the word ‘undisputed’).”

            Laughable in the extreme. You initially made a claim that something was undisputed – I showed clearly that it IS disputed. Show me the error, and I’ll admit I was wrong. And now, you have stated that science has no answer for something; not having an answer to a question means that you can not answer it. And if you feel that that statement is incorrect, I invite you to try your version of the defintion during a test in any classroom. “I don’t have the answer NOW, but I will someday, so I shouldn’t have my responses marked as incorrect.” Yeah…nice try, but no dice. Wrong again.

            “muslims insist that the words of the quran are passed down from muhammed to his initial followers, and through the generations verbatim, and so it is true and verified through first-hand account.”

            Not really. Read a bit more on the origins of the Quran.

            “this is the same bad argument that you use, and it proves nothing except that some people two thousand years ago agreed on some things”

            Some people…yeah, they agreed. And given the volume of the copies we have of what they wrote, and not one single contemporary record anywhere of any dispute relating to the events, along with the plethora of evidence supporting the fact that Christ did, in fact, exist…well, you do the math.

            “how seriously do you take the claims of buddhists, taoists, muslims, mormons, scientologists, ”

            I’ll tell you how seriously I take them:

            Buddha, on his deathbed, told his followers to NOT allow a religion to form around him, that he had done nothing that others could not do.

            Taoism isn’t really a religion, it’s more of a life-philosophy than an actual religion. Many Taoists are actually believers of other religions.

            Muslims are nothing but a blight. Their book was written by a proven liar, murderer and child-molesting thug who contradicted himself throughout his life (and alleged teachings).

            Mormons believe in a book written by a convicted con man, who copied huge swaths from the Bible to write his alleged “holy” book, which he claimed to have “translated” by putting his face in a hat.

            Scientology is a “religion” created by a writer of science fiction; it’s not lost on discerning minds that his religion and his science fiction writings have a great deal in common. Also, his religion is based on beliefs in events that predate the universe…by several orders of magnitude.

            “they are all as credible as christianity ”

            As shown above, that statement is hardly true, and quite laughable.

            “they are discounted as nonsense because there is no reason to believe they are anything but.”

            A true statement for all of the religions aside from Christianity, which has enormous validation from history and archaeology, and is internally consistent and logical. But that would only be apparent to someone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than relying on faulty and cliche talking points from atheist websites in a vain attempt to seem “cool” and intellectual.

          • rednig

            Smith’s nick-name is Smith the witch, because he was a Mason of the highest order, and that’s what the LDS is based on.

            The Bible is also verified by the fact that widely dispersed peoples have pretty much the same story about creation and the need for a savior. for instance, the people of the Punta (Bolivia) have stories of a flood that covered the earth. They live in a high desert about 10,000 foot above sea level. You find the same stories in most cultures, and they are proved to pre-date colonization by Europeans.

        • rednig

          Moreover, it’s now believed the Book of Genesis is far older than Moses. He copied it from ancient texts handed down from at least Abraham’s time. Abraham came out of a culture that was based on math and the science of it’s day. He was well-educated and would have had copies of things from earlier times.

      • rednig

        And thank God for all those Christians who developed science in the Middle Ages. Entire monasteries were devoted to learning, to study, to testing. Prior to that, all we had was alchemy. Thank God for King James, who believed God and opened churches as centers of learning for all children of all classes, or you’d be picking rocks from your master’s fields somewhere in outer slobovia. It’s sciece that denies knowledge. Max Planck said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.” Ask Jack Horner about it. He was mocked and laughed at by scientists for his theories. Schweitzer, as well, was fired from her job as researcher in Mont. U. My God is a God of knowledge and understanding, not greed and power brokers. How many nations denied there is a God, and claimed science was their god, and crashed because science fell so far behind the rest of the world? USSR, Cuba, Mexico, much of Europe. And now the US.

        • gogo0

          no one said that christians haven’t contributed to science, they have, though they certainly weren’t the only ones. hell, even muslims have contributed greatly to science. tooting your horn is fun and all, but youre not countering an argument anyone on this board has made.
          japan, korea, and singapore are examples of countries that have long histories and little to no connection with christianity, and have enjoyed great technological and societal success to this day. but let me guess, they are about to fail because they rejected jesus, right?

          • rednig

            I take it you don’t get out much? Thousands of atheists have fallen for the urban legend you cannot be a Christian and be well-educated, especially in science. You said so yourself–creation isn’t science. This is
            illogical given science has always been a Christian mainstay, because the Bible commands we learn.

            If you look at polling data from the 70s to today, you’ll
            find atheistic views are dying out in the centers of science. Is there any science that atheists founded? Nope. All were founded by believing Christians or -Jews. Possible exception is psychology, but that’s still Bible-based.

            Singapore is not a nation and was a fishing village when brits took it over. Japan has had over a thousand years of relationships with Christians, beginning long before Nestorian Christians tried to invade (Kublai Kahn). Pretty much all of their tech and most of their religious beliefs came to them with Buddhist missionaries. Christians followed the Silk routes from the Middle East into Asia. They followed the trail of Jews forced to build cities
            for Nebuchadnezzar to protect those silk routes. The original capital of Myanmar, for example, is Yahweh. Ka tribesmen in SE Asia could quote long passages of their religion to foreigners and did so as a teaching tool. It was scripture from pre-Babylonian era. Peking had one synagogue alone that had over 20,000 men and boys in it, and far more women and girls. That was only one in a massive city. Korea had churches long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. And, wow, but is Christianity booming in Asia today! Marco Polo opened Asia up to more or less direct trade with Europe. Genghis Kahn’s people took much back home with them. Need more?

            And Africa, oh my. Lembi are now recognized as Tribe of
            Levi. Bantu always claimed to be from Ethiopia, Land of Jews (Tribe of Judah)
            and of Dan. India had thousands of Jews, most of whom lived in three raj, Goa
            being one of them (where they filmed part of the 2nd Bourne movie).

          • gogo0

            and the asian countries we have spoken of turning from christianity has resulted in… unprecedented and continuing prosperity.
            africa has overwhelmingly resulted in… muslim theocracies, widespread HIV/AIDS, dictatorships, underdevelopment, incredible poverty, and militias committing genocide in the name of: christianity. thanks for bringing africa into the conversation, theyve got a great resume to pull from.

            yeah you got me, i dont get out much. i’ve only visited all but one of the countries and continents mentioned (singapore, whose residents would take offense to your baseless assertion that they are not a sovereign nation).

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Singapore is not a nation”

            It’s been an independent nation since 1965, actually.

          • rednig

            yep. already answered that.

      • rednig

        Um, what about the Bible that isn’t testable? We know the Bible states a lot of things that weren’t till recently, and were verified in science. What do you have that isn’t?

        • gogo0

          change water into wine, walk on water, split a ‘sea’ open for people to cross, multiply fish at a moment’s notice, have mana rain from the sky, revive from the dead, float into the clouds, cure leprosy with a word or touch, instantly turn a person into salt, instantly change a common language into many different ones, sex-free pregnancy, the list goes on. please show me what ypu can do, any of those would make ypu a very rich man and a very strong case for the existence of n omnipotent being and the bible’s authenticity

          • rednig

            You really need to try science. Hey, it works! And I don’t say that just because Christians are and always were in the forefront of research. And why is this impossible? Languages grow and have you ever heard English spoken by a Jamaican compared to a Cockney compared to someone from S. Africa? Ah, my father died twice and came back. A lot of people do and it’s still called a miracle. Science has shown seas often split open, tsunamis and so on. Add a strong wind and what did they have in the Yam Suf? Water piled up and they walked across. Science is still against you. what can I do? Prayed for my stepfather and he got well when the doctors thought he was soon to be dead. Prayed for sunshine, we got it. Miracles are commonplace. Prayed for rain, we got it. Any ore? Oh, yeah, and the pastor calls my car a miracle because the mechanics are shocked it not just runs, but runs well. I lay hands on it and pray. What have you done but to promote the religion of Hitler, atheism. Oh, and Christianity took all languages and made them into one.

          • gogo0

            pray for rain is your example? really? how many people die or suffer from drought? how many people prayed for their family only to see them succumb to cancer and other diseases? calling god calling off death via drought or disease is calling his allowance of it a miracle as well. i digress, i dont want to venturing into the paradoxial double standard ‘gods plan’ territory.

            rain is clearly not the standard for a miracle i am talking about, and you are being silly to equate it ad the rest of your apologist miracle-lites to someone reviving and floating into the clouds after being dead for three days, multiplying two fish to feed five thousand, and enough bread falling from the sky in the desert to feed a tribe.

            and very nice, bringing hitler into this. you really dont have anything useful to say if all you have left are tired insults

          • rednig

            I don’t know how many people you’ve killed in droughts and floods. I do know Adam was put in charge and sold out to Satan. Guess what. You goofed mightily on this. He’s the father of liars and the truth is relative crowd. You know, the goofy, creepy people who have to crawl up in God’s lap to slap him in the face. No one trusts modern atheists. Total weirdness and psychologists are right to be wary of them.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Prayed for rain, we got it.”

            Every time? There was NO time you ever prayed for rain and DIDN’T get it? Is your name Rob McKenna? (sorry, Douglas Adams reference…lol)

            I don’t believe in any god, but I’m sure, if I kept praying for rain, I’d eventually get it….

          • rednig

            If you don’t believe, I have no problem with that. It’s the modern atheists who are the nut jobs. The truth is relative crowd a la Marx. Why do you? Hey, ask the Hopi about praying for rain. They have to go thru a pretty elaborate ceremony, but they get a shower. It drives the tourists to the mesa. I just ask and in a few days, it rains. I asked for a dry spell, we got it. I want thunderstorms in a day or two, we’ll get them. Be careful what you pray for 🙂

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Sorry, still not buying it….

            “It’s the modern atheists who are the nut jobs. The truth is relative crowd a la Marx.”

            Not sure what that has to do with anything, but anyway, I’m a ‘modern atheist’, I guess. I mean, I’m pretty modern, and I’m an atheist….I don’t believe that truth is relative, and I’m certainly no Marxist. “Modern atheist” as opposed to what exactly, anyway? Antique atheist? Old-school atheist? (It sounds like a magazine I should subscribe to….”hey the latest issue of Modern Atheist came!”)

          • rednig

            Nope, I cannot believe you to be a modern atheist. You believe there is such a thing as normal, rational truth. Are you shrieking curses or trying to reason? do you try to own the conversation or are you able to act as an adult even when angry? Study Marx and Hitler and see how they reacted when someone disagreed. Look at Ted Bundy, a modern atheist. Modern atheist is the polite term. Militant atheist is more common. I used to be a militant atheist.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      I’m just trying to figure out where you get the idea that evolution has anything to do with how or when life began or when “the earth probably began”, as you put it.

      • Joe

        The term evolution, or to evolve, means that for something to evolve it must first have an existing base form in which to further evolve from. Hence, did life as we know it today began by the spoken word of God or if not please tell me how this existing form came to be? In other words how can something evolve if it first did not have some sort of initial beginning. How did life began to then further evolve? Is that not reasonable?

        • TheKingOfRhye

          Well, yeah, of course life had to have some sort of beginning, I don’t think anyone is trying to deny that. It could have began any number of ways, and evolution would still be the same. My point is, that doesn’t have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is what happens AFTER.

          • Joe

            With all due respect, you can not have your cake and eat it too. In other words with no cake there is nothing to eat. This brings us back to the million dollar question, how did life begin? I believe God. It boils down to faith for me. I know faith is foolishness to some but to me it is the power of God unto salvation for all that believe. Sorry to get spiritual with you but spiritually is how I view the physical. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

          • james blue

            But the theory of evolution does not discount there being a creator.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It doesn’t really say anything about it one way or the other.

          • petroskhan

            Yeah, actually, to a Bible-believing Christian, it does say something…it says a lot.

            First off, evolution needs a foundation, despite the attempts of its supporters to avoid that topic. You can’t have a house without a foundation, and that foundation is life. Evolution supporters are backpedaling, trying to avoid the subject, because as science discovers more and more, it becomes clear that life is too complex to have occurred on its own – which is fatal to their anti-God stance.

            Additionally, evolution requires vast spans of time, where life-forms, including those that supposedly lead to man, were living, dying, mutating, and so forth. However, the Bible is quite clear:

            Romans 5:12
            “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men…”

            And if you still insist on tossing out the whole issue of how life began, there still exist a great number of fatal flaws in evolution. Where did the increase of information come from? How would traits develop slowly, when at the beginning they bestow no benefit to the creature, such as wings? How would genders develop, when it takes two to make either one useful? And so forth…

            Occam’s Razor: A list of mathematically insignificant improbabilities so long it boggles the mind, or the simple explanation that God did just as the Bible claims? I’m going with God.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Yeah, actually, to a Bible-believing Christian, it does say something…it says a lot.”

            True enough I guess, yeah, the idea of humans having evolved from other species certainly would contradict a literal reading of Genesis. But, one can believe in a god, or creator, without believing in that. There are other religions, and even Christians that have no problem with that. (let me guess, though, they’re not true Christians, right?)

            “evolution needs a foundation”

            Why? All evolution says about the origin of life is that there was one. That life started from some common ancestor and evolved from there. Why does it need any more “foundation” than that? If some god put that common ancestor there, would evolution make any less sense?

          • Ed VanHalen

            The foundation of Evolution is destroyed by Entropy. Life is not becoming, it’s becoming EXTINCT.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            An increase in entropy is only required in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, because it receives input energy from the sun. The total system, including the earth and the sun, increases entropy at a huge rate, much, much greater than needed to offset the decrease in entropy that occurs with life.

          • Ed VanHalen

            Yet we still observe it everyday. We observe extinction. We do NOT observe New Kinds. We do NOT observe Dogs becoming Whales. We do NOT observe Horses becoming Giraffes. We are LOSING information. NOT gaining.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            What you’ve written has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Yes we do. The Itialian wall lizard is a good example of a species transforming to another in order to adapt to its environment. When introduced to Pod Mrcaru they were insectivores. After a few decades their guts changed to eat vegetation, the skull structure changed, bite force, and several other things. So you, we are observing evolution in this day and age.

          • Ed VanHalen

            But that’s just it. It’s still a Lizard. We are observing adaptation. It didn’t turn into a whale, which is what Darwin’s theory is all about. We cannot say that this lizard came from the Single celled creature of the tree of Evolution.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Number one it is clear that you don’t understand evolution. Evolution never says that something will turn into something else in just a few generations like for example a lizard to a snake. This process takes hundreds of thousands and millions of years to accomplish. Lungless salamanders are a good example of evolution as reproductive isolation was driven by genetic divergence as opposed to regional adaptation. Many salamanders were cross breds. However, within the horseshoe shaped range of these twenty different types of salamanders, some of them were no longer to reproduce with the former, and thus had become an entirely different species. There is also documented cases of a particular species of salamander when it stayed in its native range it was an egg layer. However, when it climbed into higher elevations, that species began to give live birth. This was discovered fairly recently. This feat had been theorized decades prior as a possible way that early amphibians gradually transformed into mammals, going from egg laying to live birth could very well be the beginning of a transition point for these creatures.

          • Ed VanHalen

            No, what is clear is that I do understand Evolution, and how Evolutionists keep moving the target in order to make their unfounded dream fit. Evolution says that it all came from a single cell, it all started from one living organism, the “Single Tree of life”. Yet, they haven’t been able to nail that down by a long shot, because we know it’s an orchard, and the cross over never happened, and will never ever happen. Entropy rules the roost, and we don’t see anything gaining information. We see everything losing information. That’s not Evolution. PERIOD.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Evolution explains the process of life after it is settled, it does not refute nor support a creator, it just says that things change over time. As science progresses, we discover new things that may altar our original viewpoint on how things originated. As I have stated before, certain salamanders obtained more genetic information through natural selection thus disproving your argument that we don’t observe anything gaining information. That law of entropy only refers to closed systems, not open systems like the Sun and Earth.

          • Ed VanHalen

            I understand it just fine. When the arrow misses, evolutionists simple draw a new target around their arrow. Just keep changing the meaning, and notice how it’s >>>>still never ever been observed<<<<. Loss of information is not gain of information. What you are now calling Evolution, I've been calling Entropy for years.
            So it is you quite frankly who does not understand evolution.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Entropy does not go against evolution. Nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics. The Sun provides energy to the Earth and has been doing so for millions of years, which in turn would allow for life to evolve upon the Earth. The second law and evolution have no qualms with each other whatsoever.

          • Ed VanHalen

            Yea yea, all of those Lotto wins that equal to 10(39930) of probability. Here’s you’re Pulitzer moment. How did the information get into the Chemistry? How did the programming get into the machine, and become completely tailored to THAT organism? The DNA structure of the Human Heart….order out of disorder my foot. I’m sorry, that you actually believe that BS you’re handing out. All day long we observe intelligent design on a massive scale. We prove it every day when we open our factory doors, or a computer program. We don’t see jack for Evolution. The Population of the earth even bears witness against evolution. Still, there are those that give it the faith that a Muslim gives Muhammad. Blindly and without question.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            I never said there wasn’t an intelligent designer, I said he used evolution as a process. I’m sorry, but someone who can use a process to create order from disorder is a designer that is far more complex than we can currently imagine. Evolution is used in microbiology and certain medical fields in order to predict how certain bacteria will mutate so that we can create medicines and vaccinations to counter it beforehand. We see plenty of evidences for evolution in both the fossile record and genetics.

          • Ed VanHalen

            I don’t see it as order from disorder. An intelligent designer is Order. Order from Chaos is like saying a tornado can go through a junk yard and create a Boeing 747. We know the Universe is fine tuned to 10(120). I hardly call that chaos. Genetics also disagrees with evolution. We are always seeing loss of information. Never a gain.
            Tadpole to Toad – Self Destruct DNA
            Biologists have found that certain living cells come with a built-in self-destruct mechanism.
            For example, as a tadpole turns into a toad, it no longer needs its tail. When the special gene gives the order, the tail cells begin to die. In other words, some living cells contain a gene that signal the death of the cell at an appointed time. Why would evolution develop genes that order their own death? By definition, such a gene would not aid survival.!!!

            Pseudogenes, and “JunkDNA”. This was an interpretation that very much of DNA as much as 95% of the DNA didn’t have any purpose. Of course now we know that everything in DNA has a function. Much of it has a regulatory function. MANY scientists today will ADMIT that this has interfered with the progression of Science. Now they have finally come to the conclusion that JUNK DNA no longer exists.
            His findings on Bacteria alone debunk any kind of “Chance” probability and shows it is from Intelligent design. He shows where Bacteria have irreversible traits that would not allow it to have a previous life, form or function without the traits they possess now.

            The use of molecular phylogenetics to reconstruct a genetic phylogeny from multiple alignments of DNA segments that are homologous, yet also diverse, is done with the goal of inferring macro-evolutionary history. In these types of studies, incongruities of the genetic comparisons are a very common problem. Major incongruence between gene trees is the main challenge faced by phylogeneticists in attempting to document macro-evolution. This occurs with similar genes between taxa. The type of gene or DNA sequence used also produces different results. So not only is there incongruence observed across taxa but also across gene types and/or DNA elements.
            These disparities are referred to as incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), which is a ubiquitous issue in the field of modern molecular systematics. The widespread evolutionary discrediting phenomenon of ILS has been reported across the spectrum of life and cannot be simply explained in evolutionary terms as merely the remnants of ancestral polymorphisms. This is especially true when ILS occurs in mosaic patterns that defy common ancestry in a particular lineage and cannot be explained through sexual transfer.
            Not only do homologous gene sequences produce ILS disparities in phylogenies, but so does the miRNA gene sequences that regulate virtually all forms of gene expression in the cell. When used in phylogenetic trees, miRNAs produce phylogenies that commonly contradict the inferred evolutionary trees as well as those developed with protein coding gene sequences. In fact, miRNAs often appear suddenly in taxa with no evolutionary precursors which particularly clouds interpretations of macro-evolution given that miRNAs are integrated into the cells’ genetic network of regulation and appear to tolerate very little mutation.
            Another key type of ‘rogue’ evolutionary data is provided by the ubiquitous presence of taxonomically restricted gene sequences (TRGs). These appear suddenly in taxon and have no sequence homology to genes in other organisms. In all sequenced genomes to date TRGs comprise approximately 10–20% or more of the genes identified. Their sudden appearance, functional complexity, and integration in the complex network of the genome have no evolutionary explanation.
            While commonalities across the spectrum of life can be observed in many gene sequences, this is a common theme inherent to engineered systems whereby similar mechanisms along with their control sequences show similar design. However, *life is a mosaic of patterns as revealed in the many new genome sequences being produced and is not supportive of universal common ancestry, but rather the distinct creation of separate kinds of life as depicted in the Genesis account of origins*. These separate kinds then diversified horizontally to produce what has been termed a *‘Creationist Orchard’* in contrast to the typical depiction of the standard tree of life.
            Creationists maintain that the original ‘created kinds’ have diversified (horizontally) over time and through such genetic bottlenecks as the global flood. Thus, the mosaic of life observed in DNA sequence fits well with this model. In 2006, Todd Wood published a comprehensive summary of the status of this concept within the creationist community.
            Perhaps DNA sequence data related to defining taxon (miRNAs and TRGs) *that discredits evolution*, alternatively could also be used on behalf of defining the genetic boundaries of created kinds.

            Evolution does not support
            Spontaneous Generation
            Law of Information Systems
            Specified Complexity
            Irreducible Complexity
            Statistical Mathematics
            Natural Selection
            Fossil Record (All of the missing “In Betweens”)
            Beneficial Mutation
            Genetic Complexity
            Information Theory

            The Loss of information, it’s a fact. Can’t be refuted.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            As I stated before, we have seen a gain in information in certain species of salamanders. Evolution does indeed allow for beneficial mutations, we see this all the time. The fossil record shows a progression from simple life forms in the lower levels to more complex ones the higher you go. Darwin predicted natural selection in his book. I personally don’t have time to go over everything here, but there have been observations of gained information, and your statement HAS BEEN REFUTED countless times.

          • Ed VanHalen

            Sorry my friend, but there have been more salamander extinctions than Carter has pills, and just because you say it doesn’t make it so. I’d have to say we have us some pretty good fabrication about us now.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Notice how I never said that there wasn’t a large number of salamanders going extinct. What I said was that certain types have added information to their genetic code. I would recommend going to a college or university and take some biology courses to see how it works. Science concludes that we are in the sixth mass extinction event due to human activity, so yes, salamanders are going extinct to pollution. This however disprove evolution, it simply says that things are going extinct at a rate faster than they can adapt; such has happened in times past known as mass extinction events.

          • petroskhan

            “But, one can believe in a god, or creator, without believing in that.”

            Sure, one could believe in Odin, Ra or some other “god” while believing in evolution, I suppose. But not the God of the Bible. One doesn’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible one believes in either. It’s a package deal – you either believe the entirety, or you don’t. As for the “true Christian” comment, you’re correct. One cannot be a Christian without accepting the teaching of Christ – hence the name. And Christ Himself stated that sin entered the world through one man, and death through that sin.

            Evolution, on the other hand, posits a vast gulf of time, wherein animals mutated, gave rise to other species…and died.

            And it is odd to me that when Urey & Miller claimed to have discovered how life began, evolution supporters didn’t shy away from the subject of the origin of life; it was folded neatly into their “theory”. But, with recent advances in science, and the realization that science can NOT explain how life began, the subject is now avoided by evolutionists like the plague itself. It’s suddenly not important to evolution supporters, but only because they have no answer.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, I meant the comment about “not true Christians” kind of sarcastically, because it seems like any time I mention that are Christians that believe different things, that always follows.

            “And it is odd to me that when Urey & Miller claimed to have
            discovered how life began, evolution supporters didn’t shy away from the
            subject of the origin of life”

            So? “Evolution supporters” can also have ideas on the origin of life….they’re just not talking about evolution any more at that point. I mean, look at those words we’re using here. “Evolution” and “origin”….isn’t it obvious they’re two different things?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “One doesn’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible one
            believes in either. It’s a package deal – you either believe the
            entirety, or you don’t.”

            So, if you’re a Christian, you have to believe the entire Bible…and literally? (even the parts that contradict the other parts?)

          • petroskhan

            If you’re a Christian, then you take the Bible as the inspired Word of God. What it states as fact, is fact. However…

            There are many passages, taken out of context, which are being told as stories, poetry, songs, etc. There are parables, lessons, and other passages, not stated as fact, but as instructional. Read within their context, these are clear. Also, there are figures of speech used in a few places which are no longer used, along the lines of saying, in modern times, “I have butterflies in my stomach.” No one really thinks this is literal, and it carries a meaning which would doubtless mystify future (or past) generations.

            That said, I am unaware of any parts of the Bible that contradict each other.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Christ did not make that statement, Paul did. That above statement is referring to human death and not animal death. Also note that it does not say sin and death were created, it says that sin entered into the world.

          • petroskhan

            You are correct, Paul did make that statement.

            As for the “human death, and not animal death”, well, the verse states: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” I guess you could say, in defense of evolution, that only men were affected, but then it begs the question, since men were supposed to have evolved from animals…well…you can see where that’s going.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            In Genesis 1 God says “let us make man in our image” he doesn’t just say “let us make man” In Genesis 1:26 God is very clear that he was going to make man in his image. Prior humanoids were not made in his image and thus were not subject to death as Adama and Eve were when they sinned. When God says “you shall surely die” he is referring to spiritual death as Adam and Eve didn’t drop dead when they ate. When God made man in his image is when the dividing line came into being. Jeremiah 1:5 states ” Before I formed you I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. We know Jeremiah was born of woman. He went through the whole process of sperm egg, and development, yet God says I formed you and set you apart. This shows that God uses both natural and supernatural processes to fulfill his purposes. In like manner, he used evolution as a way to form human beings and call them to his purpose on his timeframe.

          • petroskhan

            And the same book (Genesis) states that animals were created and presented to Adam. Furthermore, if prior hominids were not subject to death, then how did they evolve? Successive generations became more advanced, and the immortal ancestors got left further and further behind? And where would these non-human, immortal creatures be now? If the death only affected humans, and the pre-human ancestors weren’t human, or affected by Adam and Eve’s sin, what happened to them?

            And being spiritual, it is entirely possible, and in fact likely, that when God said “let us make man in our image”, he was referring to spiritual “image”. With no physical body, I can’t see what other “image” might have been referenced.

            And of course God knew Jeremiah before he was born…He knows everything, before it happens. He knows what you’re going to eat for lunch next year. Nothing “natural” about it…He’s supernatural. What He wills to happen, happens.

            Evolution is a crock, and an insupportable load of nonsense.

          • james blue

            “First off, evolution needs a foundation”

            It does—there is life. That’s all it needs, It doesn’t need an explanation as to how that life got there.

          • petroskhan

            On the contrary, it does need to explain it, for the simple reason that those supporting evolution discount creation. Leaving God out of it, you must, then, propose a viable alternative.

          • james blue

            Evolution does not discount a creator.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            How about the alternative of “we don’t know how exactly it got there, but we can sure study what happened after it did?” There are, after all, a lot of people that have exactly that position.

          • petroskhan

            I agree with that 110% By all means, let’s study what is going on. But throwing one possible explanation before the evidence is clear (or understood) seems counter-productive to me.

          • John N

            >’But throwing one possible explanation before the evidence is clear (or understood) seems counter-productive to me.’

            So you’ve got an example where a god is an explanation for anything? Keeping that alternative open has shown to be very counter-productive – like teaching us how to fly planes into buidings.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            “Let the earth bring forth” is God granting permission to the Earth to bring forth, thus using its natural ability to bring forth as the environment changes. When a person is conceived there are natural process that take place, its not all supernatural as you claim. Thus if evolution is a total crock as you claim, the burden of proof lies on you to discredit it, which you will not be able to do because of the overwhelming evidence. PS God does use natural processes to do supernatural things, spit in the guys eyes, make clay out of spit, and tell the man to go wash, show that God works in both natural and supernatural ways.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Uh….was that meant for someone else, perhaps? Because I’m definitely not going around claiming evolution is a “total crock” or that anything is “all supernatural”….I’m usually claiming the exact opposite. I don’t believe in any god, but what you’re saying sounds like a pretty reasonable position to take, for someone who does.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Yeah, that comment was meant for someone else, sorry about that.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Why are we here? Because we’re here, roll the bones” (Rush)

            😀

          • John N

            >’First off, evolution needs a foundation, despite the attempts of its supporters to avoid that topic.’

            They don’t. The foundation of evolution is clearly for all to see: heritable advantagous mutations.

            Mutations exist. Some of them are advantagous. Therefore, evolution.

            >’Additionally, evolution requires vast spans of time, where life-forms, including those that supposedly lead to man, were living, dying, mutating, and so forth’

            No, it doesn’t. Bacteria only need a few hours to multiplicate. Every new generation, mutations occur. In a few years, new metabolic pathways occur.

            >’Romans 5:12
            “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men…”

            You are quoting a book of myths in a scientific discussion? How funny.

            >’Where did the increase of information come from? How would traits develop slowly, when at the beginning they bestow no benefit to the creature, such as wings? How would genders develop, when it takes two to make either one useful? And so forth…’

            Oh nice, the Gish Galop on the internet. I’ll continue the same style:

            Mutations. Change of function. No it doesn’t – more than two will suffice. Is that all you’ve got?

            >’Occam’s Razor: A list of mathematically insignificant improbabilities so long it boggles the mind, or the simple explanation that God did just as the Bible claims? I’m going with God.’

            Let’s rephrase: A sequence of small events, each with a low probability, occuring billions of times in parallel during billions of years; OR a one-shot very complex organism (at the same time omnipotent omniscient omnipresent and omnibenevolent?) that is able to exist outside this universe, create everything from nothing, outcompete all other gods, destroy the enemies of his chosen people (unless they have iron chariots, of course), answers all prayers and at the same time meddle with my personel sex life?

            Wherever you go, no rational being will follow you.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Death spread to all men, not all life.

          • petroskhan

            At what point did men evolve from animals to men? At what point would the death from sin have affected them?

            If human life is supposed to have evolved from lower animals, which would, according to your argument, be living and dying, that would mean that some type of pre-human would have to be living, evolving and dying…

            So, when and how did the sin, death, and advancement to human status all manage to coincide?

          • Tony

            God Created the Big Bang.. the end. I am NOT a Scientologist…

          • james blue

            Didn’t suggest you were and TBH even if you were one I wouldn’t know what they believe.

          • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

            God said He made Man in HIS IMAGE. Clearly that refutes evolution, you liar.

          • james blue

            To what about my statement does that respond?

          • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

            God created Man in His image – not bacteria, not ape etc that eventually “evolved” into Man! Really, stop posting until you get a brain.

          • james blue

            Again I have to ask to what about my statement does that respond? It was a very specific statement containing only 12 words.

            Speaking of posting without a brain, perhaps you should learn what the subject of evolution actually teaches before you try to suggest what it teaches. You don’t have to agree with something, but you should know what that something actually is before you attempt to say what it is.

          • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

            Catch a clue b4 u spue.

          • Ed VanHalen

            // It could have began any number of ways//
            This statement is actually as false as it can get. In order for our existence to have happened, a very SET ORDER had to occur. Please try and elaborate on these, “Any Number of ways” if you would.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m just saying one could believe that life started in different ways, and evolution would still work, would still make sense.

          • Ed VanHalen

            But that’s just it. Evolution makes no sense. Not in a world of Entropy.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I had someone make just about the same argument to me the other day, and I was able to figure out why it was wrong in about 2 minutes.

            The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which I’m guessing you’re alluding to) says that entropy will increase over time in an isolated system. You or I, or a species, or the planet Earth, for that matter, are NOT isolated systems, however.

          • Aleth

            The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just as valid for open systems as it is for closed systems, says John Ross, Harvard University:

            “…There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law
            applies equally well to open systems.”

            [John Ross, letter in Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 58 (July 7, 1980), p. 40.]

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Can you explain that further? It sounds contradictory on the face of it. Is it saying entropy NEVER decreases in ANY open system?

          • Aleth

            It means that locally the entropy may decrease, but globally it always increases. Obviouly instances are known where locally it decreases, but in the end and in the whole system it always increases.This law knows of no exception. Einstein called it the first of all laws. He said: If your theory is contradicted by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I give you no hope; it only can collapse in the deepest humiliation. Biologists and evolutionists in general know nothing on the subject. If they knew something, they would avoid what Einstein predicted.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Globally it always increases”? No, that’s what I was saying earlier, the Earth is not an isolated system. The only real “isolated system”, actually, is the universe.

          • Aleth

            Do not dispute in vain. Even to the naked eye everything in this world deteriorates, and there is no exception in the long term. The verdict is definitive and there will be no exception for you. Don’t try to teach the teachers!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Look at what you said. “locally the entropy may decrease, but globally it always increases.” That’s basically what I’ve been saying, except that I’d say it’s ‘universally’ and not ‘globally.’ Evolution on our planet is the ‘local’ part here.

          • Aleth

            In every place where the entropy decreases, it is due to :
            – an energy source,
            – a mechanism to transform the energy so that it becomes useful (the sun alone is not enough),
            – and an agent or an information to pilot the process.
            This implies an intelligence. The evolution is totally unable to provide these agents. But the natural laws, and specifically the 2nd law, agree completely with the Bible.
            Everything on the earth, and the earth itself, deteriorates continually. Don’t you see that??
            Now, it is not the place here to give you a chemistry course! Read again what I already have written.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “- an energy source,”

            Yeah, got that, a pretty big one…..

            “a mechanism to transform the energy so that it becomes useful”

            That would be natural processes like photosynthesis and the like….

            “- and an agent or an information to pilot the process.
            This implies an intelligence”

            That’s the part I ain’t buying. I guess I need more than an ‘implication’.

            “The evolution is totally unable to provide these agents.”

            It’s not really what evolution is trying to do, to say if there’s an intelligence behind anything or not.

          • Aleth

            Not at all. The photosynthesis works only on LIVING things, that is creatures equipped with a PLAN or PROGRAMME (genetic). And the living creatures are equipped with a sophisticated machinery which makes the proteins necessary for life AND which is built with proteins, which is an insoluble problem for evolution.
            Your questions and comments are elementary and you need to seriously study these matters from the start. It is not the place here. I do not have time just to chat or answer to arguments already dealt with elsewhere. As it is not possible to provide Internet addresses, you have to search for yourself.

          • John N

            >’The photosynthesis works only on LIVING things, that is creatures equipped with a PLAN or PROGRAMME (genetic). ‘

            Any evidence for that? If not, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

            >’ And the living creatures are equipped with a sophisticated machinery which makes the proteins necessary for life AND which is built with proteins, which is an insoluble problem for evolution. ‘

            Are you claiming proteines can not be assembled without proteins? Please provide the evidence. Because, what …

          • Aleth

            Please go to the AiG, ICR and CMI sites and you will find all the information you need.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            An open system does indeed eventually burn out, like the Earth Sun. This will take billions of years however. The open system, which the sun and the earth are a part of allow for evolution to take place.

          • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

            God’s #FLATearth says we ARE isolated in the water and out of the water. #firmament

    • Tony

      I believe the GOD created the Big Bang… I am not a Scientologist but it make Sense. I am not saying we are monkeys But we do have a Tail bone too. The bible is right and Darwin what not completely wrong. Living things do evolve. People do adapt to new times. To say God created the Heavens and the Earth OK, that to me says Big bang.

  • Amos Moses

    Scientist says he found definitive proof that God exists.

    One of the most respected scientists of today says he has found evidence of the action of a force “that governs everything.”

    The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku claims to have developed a theory that might point to the existence of God. The information has created a great stir in the scientific community because Kaku is considered one of the most important scientists of our times, one of the creators and developers of the revolutionary String Theory which is highly respected throughout the world.

    To to come to his conclusions, the physicist made ​​use of what he calls “primitive semi – radius tachyons “.

    Tachyons are theoretical particles capable to “unstick ” the Universe matter or vacuum space between matter particles, leaving everything free from the influences of the surrounding universe.

    After conducting the tests, Kaku came to the conclusion that we live in a “Matrix”.

    “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, he affirmed. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

    “To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

    • Madmouse

      So basically he repackaged apologetics that were already out there and made his own “theory”. He’s more showman than scientist, but at least he got the intelligent design part right. Christians have known this for millenia.

    • gogo0

      i know you are just latching on because it supports your belief that there is an all-powerful being out there, and it is laughable, but crackpot theories turning out to be legitimate is one way that science advances. if there is any merit to this, there will be a peer-reviewed proof and eventually a consensus leading humanity to its best understanding of life yet, and a basis for further research to build upon.
      I’m sure you just believe it outright because it supports your immutable position, and will immediately discard it the moment it no longer mentions a god.

      • Amos Moses

        The “peer reviewed proof” will be when you bend your knee before Christ ……….. but it will be too late for you at that point ………

        • gogo0

          its never too late for any god to make itself known to me. if it never does, that’s its failing, not mine

          • B1jetmech

            Dude, if God appeared before you, the light shining from him alone wold disintegrate you.

            It’s best to believe through faith by repenting of your sins and excepting Christ as your savior. Because, that’s the only way…

          • gogo0

            I didn’t say “appear before me”, I said “make itself known to me”. regardless, I am told that most gods are omnipotent, so it could appear before me without disintegrating me if it chose to do so.
            I believed through faith and repented my sins and accepted christ as my savior for 25 years before I realized there was no reason to believe any of that had any basis in reality. so many gods to choose from, odds are very poor in choosing the correct one anyway.

          • B1jetmech

            I believed through faith and repented my sins and accepted christ as my savior for 25 years before I realized there was no reason to believe any of that had any basis in reality

            I really think you are still searching but you won’t find answer over the net here. your best bet is visit a local church because you need interaction. God designed us that way.

            so many gods to choose from, odds are very poor in choosing the correct one anyway.

            There are only two religions in the world…God’s word and man’s ideals.

            All the gods mentioned are from man’s ideals starting about 4,200 years ago in Genesis 11.

            God does reveal himself through all this worldly clutter.

          • Amos Moses

            He did that …………… 2000 years ago …………. or do you not pay attention …… does not matter to you in any event …………… and your knee will still bend ……..

          • gogo0

            sorry, I wasn’t around 2000 years ago to observe it.

          • Amos Moses

            So what ………….

          • Amos Moses

            Roman Empire …….. guess you were not around for that either to “observe it ……….. so it not true …… Got it ………..

            It is anachronistic arrogance and chronological snobbery. Where we happen to think that we is the smartest generation to ever be since the foundation of the everything and there aint been nobody who has ever been smarter than us.

            Got it ………

          • Joe

            Not to be sarcastic but have you ever observed your mind? I’ll take the liberty to answer that. No you or I have not observed our minds. Does that mean they do not exist. The claim that something needs to be observed to be proven it exists is ridiculous. The wind,gravity and on and on.

          • gogo0

            its alright, i was being sarcastic myself. amos’s big argument against evolution is that he cant observe it. of course being unobservable doesnt make the bible untrue, just another indefensible double standard he and others cling to in the absence of rational arguments

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” — Darwinist Richard Lewontin, Harvard University

    ”Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can ever emulate? Evolution is the cause!” — Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin

    • John N

      >’Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. …’

      And your point is? Did you actually read what you copied here or do you just suppose it says what you think it says?

      At least you could show the honesty to finish Lewontin’s quote:
      ‘The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.’

      >’Evolution by natural selection, for instance, …. — Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin’
      You quote a physicist on the theory of evolution? Why not a truck driver? Or a creationist?

      • ckandersen

        And to accept the current theory of evolution is to worship a different, but no less “omnipotent” diety.

        • John N

          Which is?

          And how does accepting a scientific theory suits the definition of a religion exactly?

          Is this valid for any scientific theory or only for those you personally don’t like?

  • Coach

    Darwinism- false religion started by Charles Darwin, implies man as being supreme, justifies the murder of the weak.
    Mormonism- false religion started by Joseph Smith, teaches that men can become gods, calls dark skin a curse for following Satan.
    Islam- false religion started by Mohammed, teaches that man can earn his way to heaven and guarantee entry by dying for islam, allows followers to murder Christians.
    Prosperity gospel- Started by televangelists who twisted scripture to fit their lusts, will encourage starving people to give their last dime to pay for leaders lavish lifestyle.
    Catholicism- proof that truth+ a lie= a more dangerous lie. Has killed more Christians than any other religion.
    Entertainment- what fills most so-called youth ministry, who’s ministers will stand before God and give account for replacing the truth with entertainment, followed by a prayer you could repeat at the end.
    Satan has many lies and deceptions, the only protection is being in the truth. You must be born again. Jesus Christ died for sinners who would repent of their sins and believe on Him.
    God doesn’t save because He needs people, but out of His great love and mercy that He shows to we, who deserve nothing but His eternal wrath.

  • axelbeingcivil

    Inorganic synthesis of lipid precursors, purines, pyrimidines, ribonucleotides, amino acids, etc., all under prebiotic conditions, all successfully performed in labs around the world. This article is bunk.

    The question of “We have so many resources and bright people, why haven’t we done it yet?” can be applied to any field or problem you care to name. Curing cancer? Fusion power? Understanding the human brain?

    Huge amounts of money and expertise in all of these. Still not done yet. As it turns out, these are complex problems we’re only just now being able to access. It will take time to answer concretely but, day by day, we are only finding yet more evidence that it is possible.

  • Crusader777

    Takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than the simple faith of believing in God. Evolution is impossible but with my God all things are possible. Atheists are such a sad bunch with nothing to look forward to but a few short years in a short life filled with troubles. Too there surprise it will last an eternity in Hell.
    The odds for God existing are far less than evolution being possible just do the math! LOL

    • John N

      >’Takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than the simple faith of believing in God’

      So you are saying here ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ are actually bad things. That’s understood.

      >’Too there surprise it will last an eternity in Hell. ‘
      Right. If you have no rational arguments, switch to death threaths. That will certainly convince any atheist of your logic.

      >’The odds for God existing are far less than evolution being possible just do the math! LOL’
      Now you are making the claim, why don’t’ you just do the math? Can’t be to difficult, can it? SInce there are supposed to be around 4000 gods?

      • Crusader777

        One God is called “The Creator” as evidenced in the American Constitution and the Bible. No one has any problem identifying who I am referencing.
        Evolution is is just a bunch of very weak and circular theories protected by godless individuals who don’t want to be accountable to their Creator.
        Recent archeological evidences have found dinosaur flesh and blood still in bones proving beyond any reasonable doubt they could not be millions of years old, but much more recent like around Noah’s flood.
        Other major discoveries have proven the Bible is 100% accurate on it’s version of human history and the only texts in the world that are 2/3 prophesy with hundreds that have come to pass exactly to the day and hour written thousands of years before. Often prophets would write about the same events hundreds of years apart and without any chance of knowing about the other revelations and yet they align 100% and come to pass perfectly. Like it or not history is HIS Story about our Creation, Fall from Grace, Redemption and one day reconciliation to our maker.

        • John N

          Only one god? Fine. So start doing the math.

          Maybe I can help you a bit with the calculations for the odds of evolution. Evolution is the change in inheritable traits over generations. It has been observed both in the lab and in real life. Therefore the odds of evolution occuring is exactly 1.

          So, how is your deity doing? Did you do the math? And do you have the supporting evidence?

          • Crusader777

            Micro Evolution is observed. Never once has a “kind” been observed changing.
            The entire universe and all of nature is in perfect balance and life is something very special as we see millions of lifeless planets in the universe.
            It is absolutely 100% impossible for evolution to account for the complexity even in single cell animals much less a human being with a conscious, knowing the difference between good and evil.

            The truth is easy to see if you want too, if you want to justify animal lusts and deny a just and holy Creator, please do so…at your own peril.

          • John N

            >’Micro Evolution is observed. Never once has a “kind” been observed changing’

            That’s right. ‘Kind’ is a biblical term without any relevance in the real world.- even creationists can’t agree on what it actually means. Therefore your ‘micro-evolution’ is a useless concept.

            Evolution, being the change in inheritable traits, has been observed. Repeatedly. Both in the lab and in real life.Just denying it does not make it goa away, you know.

            >’The entire universe and all of nature is in perfect balance and life is something very special as we see millions of lifeless planets in the universe. ‘

            Oh, do we? I was rather sure we only found a few hundreds of planets in the universe, and we do not know if they contain life. Maybe your bible told you this? Care to show the chapter and verse?

            >’It is absolutely 100% impossible for evolution to account for the complexity even in single cell animals much less a human being with a conscious, knowing the difference between good and evil.’

            Yeah right, another unsupported claim. When are you going to do the math? If not, this is is known as an argument from incredulity- you don’t understand it, therefore it is impossible. Well, join dr. Tour, who does not understand it either.

            And ending with more death threats – such an example of real christian love.

        • SashaC

          Please share the discoveries that have proven the bible to be 100% accurate regarding human history. This should be good…

          • B1jetmech

            Let’s start with the global flood.

            Was there a global flood during Noah’s time 4,400 years ago?

  • rednig

    Is evolution a science? It’s not testable, not provable, and depends on the blind faith of true believers. For centuries, atheists have claimed a very ancient age for the earth. They aged the earth by how old the fossils were by the age of the rocks, and aged the rocks they came form by how old the fossils were. See! 🙂 When we did discover machines that could tell the age of the rocks and fossils, they were recalibrate to show what the atheists claimed. You see, they claimed the rocks were only a few thousand years old. When Christian geologists took lava from a new flow from St. Helens (it was new, meaning 11 years old) and sent it to Penn State for testing, they claimed it was about 600,000 years old. The same had been done with lava from Hawaii, from an eruption they knew was about 200 years old. That was dated as even older. when the machines do not show what the scientists think they should, the machines are always wrong, not the evolutionist.

    • John N

      >’Is evolution a science?’

      No, it is not. It is a natural process defined as a change in the heritable traits of populations over generations.The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it has been observed, tested and never falsified. Smart people usualy try to understand the subject before criticizing it.

      >’..and depends on the blind faith of true believers’

      So you do agree blind faith is a bad thing. That’s understood.

      >’For centuries, atheists have claimed a very ancient age for the earth. They aged the earth by how old the fossils were by the age of the rocks, and aged the rocks they came form by how old the fossils were. ‘

      No, the didn’t. SCIENTISTS claim a very ancient age for the earth. Some of them might be atheists, but a lot of them are religious people. By the way, the geological column you are talking about has been described by christians. Trying to prove the biblical flood.I don’t need to tell you they failed.

      We did not ‘discover machines’ to tell us the age of the earth. We use methods based on radiaoctive decay. Like any scientific method, these can be deliberately abused to create faulty results, and that is what your so-called ‘christian scientists’ did. This kind of attitude is also known as scientific fraud.

      • rednig

        Interesting. You believe you were alive 100 million years
        ago? That’s testable. Just claiming rocks are a certain age, then being snooty
        about it is pseudoscience. Were it not for the billions that go into evolution,
        evo’d be out on a limb being laughed at. Yep, and it is more and more. Even scientists
        with no connection to a religion are disgusted by all the money blown on
        basically a waste. You cannot eat it. It doesn’t help anyone but politicians
        and petty dictators, and of course, fossil collectors. It never healed a sick
        child. Never did anything but help politicians. More, it cannot be proven. Every
        so often all the media hype about trans is forgotten the transitional forms
        quietly dumped. I follow this because it’s a topic of discussion at several
        households in the family, the biologists. For that matter, the forensic
        scientist laughs at evo.

        Why bring the flood into this? You just failed something
        here.

        Yes, that was exactly how they used to age rocks, by the age
        of the fossils, and the fossils by the age of the rocks. No tech to prove
        otherwise, so…But a lot of money was made on it.

        Radioactive decay is corrupted by what? Wind and water, not
        just age. A geologist sent a sample of lava into a lab. They told him it tested
        at 600,000 years old. He wrote back to try again, he took it from a lava flow
        on Mt. St. Helens that occurred 11 years prior. The same was done elsewhere,
        same results, claiming relatively new rock was hundreds of thousands of years
        old. Zircon, as well, has multiple problems.

        Don’t you note that more and more top level scientists are
        coming out against evo? To see why, read what was written about it. It’s not a
        science, but guessing game. It’s not based on reality but wishful thinking. As
        for testable, speciation/micro is observable and studied and creationists are
        the first to point out that it is a science. Macro evo is not. When Schweitzer
        outed them on hemoglobin in fossils, she was fired from Mont. U. The price of
        fossils crashed and billions were lost. That’s what makes evo go ‘round, money,
        and the science of how to scam it. Thanks, but I’ll stick with scientists interested in science, not just a new sports car.

        • John N

          >’Interesting. You believe you were alive 100 million years
          ago? That’s testable’

          Where did I say that? Why do you try putting words in my mouth?

          >’Were it not for the billions that go into evolution,
          evo’d be out on a limb being laughed at.’
          There are not ‘billions that go into evolution’. There are billions that go into religion, so far without any result, except for religious leaders getting very rich.

          >’Radioactive decay is corrupted by what? Wind and water, not
          just age.’
          Oh, my Darwin. Can it get more foolish?

          Please look up ‘Radioactive decay’ in Wikipedia and come back showing me where wind and water have any influence on radiactive decay.

          >’A geologist sent a sample of lava into a lab. ‘

          Incorrect. ‘Creationist scientists’ like Steve Austin send samples of lava into a lab, not using the precautions required to take such a sample, lying about the circumstances and requesting it to be dated with a technique unsuitable for such a sample. And then pretended to be surprised the results where faulty.

          >’ Zircon, as well, has multiple problems.’

          Which are? Care to explain them and why they support creation?

          >’You cannot eat it. It doesn’t help anyone but politicians
          and petty dictators, and of course, fossil collectors. It never healed a sick
          child’

          You would be surprised how many childs and how many hungry people are depending on science to be healed and fed. And scientists would be nowhere without the theory of evolution to support the.

          By the way, how many people are healed and fed by your god?

          >’Don’t you note that more and more top level scientists are
          coming out against evo? ‘

          No, I don’t. But of course you do have the evidence to support this, haven’t you? Just like you did the math on the existence for your god? And like you did the math proving evolution is impossible? Because you would not be lying about anything like this, would you?

          >’… speciation/micro is observable and studied and creationists are
          the first to point out that it is a science. Macro evo is not.’

          Well, you just contradicted yourself. Creationists do call speciation ‘macro-evolution’. It clearly shows you and other creationsts do not know what they are talking about.

          >’When Schweitzer
          outed them on hemoglobin in fossils, she was fired from Mont. U. The price of
          fossils crashed and billions were lost.’

          Again, any evidence Mary Schweitzer was actually fired? Even at NCSU they are not aware of that. Any evidence fossil prices crashed? Any evidence you’re not making this stuff up while you go?

          • rednig

            You’re the one claiming to be 100 million years old by
            claiming evo is science. Hardly testable without observation. That, according
            to bios.

            Look up
            Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are they radioactive deserts? Are they even
            radioactive, or has wind and water flushed the radioactive isotopes from the
            soil and rock? Japan is volcanic, and volcanoes produce quite a bit of
            radioactive material. Yet, I see no uranium mines there. Only in deserts will
            you find them, where little water penetrates the rocks.

            Yes, you
            are getting more foolish. Darwin, the bigot.

            Go to CRI
            and look up zircon, please. You like to send others out to do your work for you
            🙂

            Yes, many a
            child is hungry and many peoples dead thanks to evolution. How many were
            slaughtered in the 19th century by evolutionists? How many millions
            have suffered and died thanks to evolutionists? 110 million in only 89 years. Many,
            many more if one looks beyond that. Yes, Christians started science as we know
            it. Yes, evolutionists suck up a vast amount of wealth thereby keeping people
            hungry and poor. Thank God for real scientists, who do not blindly follow
            evolution. Note the numbers are against you in science.

            Macro-evo
            is certainly not proved. Speciation is. A Chihuahua is cousin to a great dane,
            but both are still canines as were their lupus ancestors. You may continue to
            claim t-rex hatched from a butterfly egg, but people are laughing at you. In fact,
            many high school bio teachers refuse to give more than basics. It’s not
            provable, and therefore not science. More, creationism is being taught in
            Russia alongside evo. More, much of the world is interested in creationism and
            turning against evo. More, the philosophers are now turning against evo. Look up
            Bertram Russell, who led the way. Were it not for philosophers in colleges, evo
            would not have made it. Were it not for the KKK, you’d not be a power today. Nazism
            is on your side, as well. And the philosophers are now against evo because it’s
            illogical and based on greed, not science.

            No, speciation in Creationism is turning
            wolves into Chihuahuas, bison into betang. Not butterflies hatching from t-rex
            eggs. You purposely misuse of the language means you’ve lost the argument. It’s
            called lying, a deception. It’s based on greed. That, or you’re far less
            intelligent than I had thought.

            At NSU,
            where numerous cousins have attended, word is, Schweitzer was told to work with
            other evos or else. Word is, from college proffs in the family, she was fired
            from Mont. U for outing the greedy evos. Her uncle, the governor, also warned
            her. You see, you know the periphery, not the facts. We note things constantly
            because that’s survival. We have had no choice over the centuries but to watch
            people like you and warn others.

            By profession,
            manuscript researcher and editor. At this time, semi retired and studying
            psychology.

          • John N

            Im the one claiming I’m100 million years old? Please show me the place where I did so.

            So you think radioactive decay only happens in uranium? Maybe you still need to read some more. Actually, we do know a lot of isotopes that decay with different half-lifes. What does not impact half-lifes though, is rain and wind. Basic physics.

            Go to CRI? Why? If I want to learn about science, I’ll read scientific literature, not visit a religious site. You claim there is some problem with zircon, it is up to you to tell us what the problem is.

            >’Yes, many a
            child is hungry and many peoples dead thanks to evolution. How many were
            slaughtered in the 19th century by evolutionists? How many millions
            have suffered and died thanks to evolutionists? 110 million in only 89 years’

            In the 19th and even in the 20th century, most wars were started by religious people, a lot of them by christians. There was never a war started by ‘evolutionists’. Even if it was, it does not change the fact that evolution happens.

            >’Thank God for real scientists, who do not blindly follow
            evolution. Note the numbers are against you in science.’

            Yes, I noted the numbers. And they are clearly in favor of real science, like the theory of evolution. Never in the history of science, a scientific theory was accepted that required the existence of a deity. Never. Does that not worry you?

            >’Macro-evo
            is certainly not proved. Speciation is.’

            Again, you contradict yourself. According to most creationists, speciation IS macro-evolution

            >’If it were it not for the KKK, you’d not be a power today. Nazism
            is on your side, as well. ‘

            Both the KKK and the nazi’s were/are actually christians. Try again.

            >’And the philosophers are now against evo because it’s
            illogical and based on greed, not science.’

            Again, unsopprted claims. Whan are you actually going to do the math?

            >’No, speciation in Creationism is turning
            wolves into Chihuahuas, bison into betang. Not butterflies hatching from t-rex
            eggs.’

            Butterflies hatching from t-rex eggs? I already noticed you do not understand evolution. Thanks for reminding me again.

            >’At NSU,
            where numerous cousins have attended, word is, Schweitzer was told to work with
            other evos or else. Word is, from college proffs in the family, she was fired
            from Mont. U for outing the greedy evos.’

            Actually, according to NCSU’s website, Mary Schweitzer is still working there. Your ‘college proffs’ (sic) must have been lying to you.

      • rednig

        No, you decided on the ancient age of the earth by the age of the follsils, thehn the age of the rocks by the age of the fossils. You still haven’t proved anything and your tech is way off because you have to lie about it. Blind faith of true believers in evo.

        The man who ‘discovered’ the age of the earth was a ditch digger who wrote a paper. Did he ever attend a college to study geology? Hmm.

        Evo is untestable. You cannot claim that because a wolf was changed into a Chihuahua that evo is real. Wrong subject, infant. Changes indicate a loss of DNA, not a growth of it.

        • John N

          >’No, you decided on the ancient age of the earth by the age of the follsils, thehn the age of the rocks by the age of the fossils. ‘

          Radiometric dating has been invented in 1907, so you are only 100 years behind. Or you are using creationist as your source of information, to the same result. Anyway, try to catch up – in the real world it is 2016 now.

          >’The man who ‘discovered’ the age of the earth was a ditch digger who wrote a paper.’

          So, are you going to give us his name? Or is this just one more of your silly claims you can’t back up? Like the math to prove your god exists, or the math to prove evolution is impossible? We are still waiting for you to present it, you know.

          >’Evo is untestable. You cannot claim that because a wolf was changed into a Chihuahua that evo is real.

          The evolution from wolf to chihuahua is a nice example of artificial selection and therefore for evolution. Unless you can show that the changes from wolf to chihuahua are not heritable, but I won’t wait for it. You have promised us so much evidence already ….

    • Edward MacGuire

      Evolution is science and the proof is that the predictions based on evolutionary theory have proven to be true. The basic requirement of a theory is that it must be falsifiable and evolution certainly has that characteristic.
      Just 2 examples,
      1) chimp chromosome 12 and 13 matching the gene order of human chromosome 2 as predicted
      2) the finding of Tiktaalik in the rock layers predicted by evolutionary theory i.e. predicted date for tetrapod evolution to land environments.
      I could give examples all day without finishing but it’s already been done many times.

      The St. Helens was debunked years ago. The ‘Christian geologists’ either by accident or design, sent what is known as an inclusion to be dated. The inclusion was from a previous eruption. The mistake was made by the ‘Christian geologists’ not the dating technique. I’m unaware of the Hawaii issue but sure it was the same kind of problem.

      Radiometric dating, especially carbon dating, does have limitations and precautions must be taken. For carbon dating, plants that take their co2 from the atmosphere give the most accurate results and the shells of shellfish the worst for well understood reasons. Note I said for well understood reasons. Any technique for any measurement has limitations, just try measuring the diameter of a bacterium with a meter-stick or the length of a submarine with a micrometer. Most dating methods are accurate only for a range of timescales, for carbon dating the limit is about 50k years

      Normally to date material, multiple samples are tested using multiple methods to improve accuracy. For example a study of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland used five different radiometric dating methods to examine twelve samples and achieved agreement to within 30 million years ( Dalrymple, G. B. (1991) Stanford Univ.) . 30 million years seems a lot until you know that the age of the rock is 3.5 billion years. I’ll leave you to do the junior high math to determine the accuracy of the dating.

      • rednig

        And there’s something like 13 billion bits of information
        that make us human, and chimps animals. Add a few million more in difference
        and we now have mice. Take away 50% and you have lettuce. Are we rodents, as
        well, or part of the salad bar?

        Tiktaalik was disavowed by evolutionists as not provable.

        In 2006, Dr
        Jonathan Sarfati considered the evidence and pointed out that Tiktaalik’s
        fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its
        weight on land. He likened the Tiktaalik claims to the hopes
        evolutionists held for the fin of the then supposedly extinct coelacanth.

        In 2010, a discovery in Poland shook the claims about Tiktaalik’s
        place in the evolutionary timeframe. It was of tetrapod footprints dated (using
        evolutionary assumptions) at 397 million years, 18 million years older than Tiktaalik.
        Dr Tas Walker wrote: “If
        four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be
        the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be”.

        A favorable media report about the latest Shubin paper
        admits that “scientists have yet to find a Tiktaalik hind fin bone, or any
        remains that might shed light on the origins of toes,” without realizing how
        vital those elements are if the story is true.

        Shubin’s response is revealing: “The hind fin of Tiktaalik
        is tantalisingly incomplete.”

        St. Helens debunked a great deal of things. One of which is
        how coal forms. We can now make coal in a lab. Ditto crude oil, all from research
        done by creationist scientists. For that matter, it’s relatively easy to make
        fossils, as well. And still impossible for soft tissues to survive long in as porous
        a rock as limestone and sandstone. Ain’t been proved, amigo. Each test has thus
        far failed to keep even fresh blood going long, let alone something from an
        animal exposed to the elements.

        There was no issue in Hawaii or St. Helens. This sort of ‘testing’
        goes on quite often and each time evo fails. But, if you want an good laugh,
        note how much from creationists is now top billing in science. The big bang
        theory, for one. Genetics, another.

        I believe it was Jack Horner who said each site reeks like
        an open graveyard. That’s because of decaying flesh and blood. Break open a fossilized
        clam and gag at the stench, even those buried for supposedly millions of years.

        Agreed on the dating problem, which is why we cannot yet
        state intelligently how old things are. To make wild claims is anti-science and
        many evolutionists themselves agree it’s pseudoscience. You cannot prove the
        evolutionary time-line, let alone who comes from what millions of years ago. Too
        many liars and cheats out to make a million, which is what the Scopes Monkey
        Trial was about, claiming a pig’s tooth was from a hominid. Thanks, I’ll stick with science, not the KKK.

  • Aleth

    John N
    I was not able to find your whole commentary. I only got this:
    >’The photosynthesis works only on LIVING things, that is creatures equipped with a PLAN or PROGRAMME (genetic). ‘
    Any evidence for that? If not, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    >And the living creatures are equipped with a sophisticated machinery
    which makes the proteins necessary for life AND which is built
    with proteins, which is an insoluble problem for evolution. ‘
    Are you claiming proteines can not be assembled without proteins? Please provide the evidence. Because, what …

    My answer:
    That photosynthesis only works with living things is so obvious that I wonder where you are speaking from. There is NO activity, metabolism, photosynthesis,.. in dead things!!! The sun warms a dead piece of wood, with no work done, but it transforms the water and CO2 into carbohydrates in a living tree branch. Elementary! What is needed is energy (the sun), a process (photosynthesis) and a CODE inscribed in the genome of the tree. Nothing is done without these 3 elements.
    Aminoacids are TOTALLY unable to assemble to form viable protéins indispensable for life -except in living organisms. To form only ONE protein with 200 aminoacids (=the minimum) at random would require the entire earth full of the known aminoacids and a time excessively superior to the billions of years given by evolution. And it cannot happen outside of a living organism. Now, the DNA machinery is made of proteins. But only the DNA is able to create the proteins necessary for life. A comparison: the instructions for makind the FIRST DVD reader is only also on a DVD. You find that in elementary textbooks.

    It seems you are completely ignorant of this elementary information. As I previously said, go to the Internet sites of AnswersinGenesis, Creation Ministries International (Creationdotcom), the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) and others. The answers are waiting there for you.

  • Edward MacGuire

    He’s correct about us not fully understanding the chemistry of life, and he is probably wrong in thinking that chemistry is so complex that a creator is required. At various times in history god(s) have been required to explain storms, earthquakes, the orbit of the planets about the earth, the seasons and pretty much everything period. My personal favorite is the Viking belief that the wolf god was eating the sun (during an eclipse) and that their banging on their shields was responsible for driving the god away and restoring the sun. In fact the natural explanations for things has been much simpler than the explanations dreamed up by primitives postulating gods. Once you understand gravity, inertia and forces for instance, planetary orbits are straightforward. Once you understand electric fields and the mechanics of sound waves thunder and lightning have no mystery. It will be the same with the understanding of life. After all, there is evidence that simple life existed on earth within a few million years of liquid water existing here so the process must not have been too complex or it would have taken much longer. Science has no position on the existence of god(s) but if it did not approach a problem as if miracles did not occur we would never learn anything. “God did it” is not an explanation from science.

  • TheNaturalist

    For the Christians out there, you understand that this article offers no support what so ever for your specific religion? If naturalism is an incorrect explanation for the complexity found on Earth and a supernatural being is required, that supernatural being could be anything. Naturalism being wrong is a necessary condition for Christianity to be true, but in no way a sufficient condition.