‘The Darwinian View is False’: Ph.D. Biologist Dismantles Evolution in New Book

Photo Credit: YouTube
Photo Credit: YouTube

An accomplished molecular biologist with more than two decades of research experience has come out with a new book in which he describes crippling weaknesses in the theory of evolution and argues instead that life must have been invented by God.

Dr. Douglas Axe is a credentialed scientist who earned a Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology and held a number of research positions at the University of Cambridge. The author of numerous scientific papers, Axe currently serves as director of Biologic Institute—a non-profit organization committed to researching biology and the origin of life.

Axe says he first became interested in evolution while working on his Ph.D. in California, so at Cambridge he extensively studied DNA and proteins.

“[My strategy was] to look at the constraints on gene sequences and protein sequences and see if the constraints were loose enough that evolution could work or if they were too tight so that evolution couldn’t work,” Axe said in a recent interview with the Discovery Institute.

While conducting his research at Cambridge, Axe began to doubt the validity of Darwin’s ideas.

“I was consistently starting to find that [the constraints on gene and protein sequences] were too tight—that the target that had to be hit for something to work as an enzyme was too small for accidental changes, accidental mutations,” he said.

Axe decided that Darwin’s natural selection observations were valid and scientifically sound. However, based on his research, he concluded that evolutionary processes are unable to create new species and life forms.

  • Connect with Christian News

“That’s where Darwin went wrong,” Axe stated. “He assumed that inventions could [take place] a little bit at a time.”

“It’s easy to fall for the idea that on a scale of eons and on a scale of billions and trillions of organisms, things can happen that are very, very counterintuitive,” he explained. “Well, it turns out, if you do the math, billions of years is not nearly long enough and trillions and trillions of organisms is not nearly enough for the sort of magic to happen that would have to happen for inventions to happen by accident. It’s just not enough.”

To further explain his findings, Axe, who now describes himself as “a Darwin-doubter,” has written a book that describes the pitfalls of evolutionary thinking. The book, “Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life is Designed,” was published this summer.

He hopes the book will dismantle the idea that doubting evolution equals ignorance.

“The orthodox position in the academies is that Darwinism is true and everyone who denies it is putting their head in the sand,” he said in an interview with “The Mountain Times.” “It’s not easy to dislodge that, but my plan is to get a huge number of people who are very bright and very capable of articulating their point of view, who get this.”

Contrary to what many think, Axe says, science clearly points to a Creator.

“The technical science shows that design is true, that design is the true understanding of life, and that the accidental view—the Darwinian view—is false,” Axe stated in a Discovery Institute presentation. “Our intuitions say the same thing, and I think it’s remarkable that the two agree so well.”


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
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Yes, God created all life; Jesus is the Life. “All things were made through Him(Jesus), and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” (John ch.1)

    • TreeParty

      Because the bible is really dependable as a source of scientific fact…

      • CB

        “Because the bible is really dependable as a source of scientific fact…”

        Ermagerd, you forgot your snark tag!

        Seriously, Little Spark here is just gonna think you’re agreeing with her…

        • cunudiun

          You too.

      • cunudiun

        Begone heathen.

      • Amos Moses

        The bible is not a science book…… it is a truth book ……. a science book is not a truth book …..

        • TreeParty

          You wouldn’t know truth if it slapped you in the face. No, the bible is most certainly not a science book. If you think the Noah’s Ark story is “truth”, you are delusional.

          • Amos Moses

            And your evidence ………. problem is you do not understand the story of Noah ………… but lets here your flawed reasoning in any event ………..

          • TreeParty

            Oh, I understand the story, and if you claim to believe that story, but cannot believe that you and the nearest chimpanzee have a common ancestor, then, again, you are delusional.

          • Amos Moses

            so again ……… what are your data points to disprove the story of Noah ….. Noah has both a theological and scientific thread ….. i do not expect you to state any of the theological bits …… but your statement has both implications ….. so what are your data points and evidence …… insults are not evidence …….. and if you really do not have any ….. just be honest and say so ………….

          • Kasey

            it was better in original Gilgamesh saga.
            Also I think all the flourishing cultures that existed. Continuously through the whole era might dispute a worldwide flood.

          • Amos Moses

            No ….. Gilgamesh was not the original ……….. and it was not a local flood ….

  • axelbeingcivil

    The head of a research institute that does no research publishes a book rather than a paper, repeating the same tired ideas about complexity. Not tremendously surprising.

    • Amos Moses

      Because your DNA willed itself into existence ………… by …. what was that again …. and i got this science book at the library that wrote itself also …… i wonder how all the pretty pictures got there ……………

      • axelbeingcivil

        Amos, do we really need to have this discussion again? Where a difference is pointed out between self-replicators and non-self-replicators?

        • Amos Moses

          So how did your DNA self-will its self-replication …………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            My DNA presently self-replicates just fine, no will involved.

          • Amos Moses

            and that began when ……… not at your birth ….. but how did the inanimate become animate …… was it self-willed —–or magic ………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            Maybe refine your question? There’s no process or feature of a living organism on the cellular level that can’t be translocated and made to occur outside the cell. What is it that you feel defines the distinction between animate and inanimate?

          • Amos Moses

            well if it all began with an explosion ……… (from nothing according to Dawkins) ……. we can go to the video of him saying it if needed ………. then there was no animate ……. so we need to know how this inanimate became animate after the explosion …….. animate would “self-replicating” ………. as you describe it ………

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’d recommend reading up on the RNA World hypothesis.

          • Amos Moses

            i recommend realizing a Creator, an intelligence, did it all …….. and all these machinations is just an attempt to deny it, to lie to yourself so that you may have no responsibility for your actions ……….. books do not write themselves …… and neither did your DNA, your RNA …. or anything else ………… you guys all want to say “if not then God” is wrong …… but all you have is “if not then magic” ……………. ROTFL …… oh, and you cant explain it …. so it is me who has to “read” …… go read your bible …………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            Didn’t even take a look at it, eh?

          • Amos Moses

            Back at cha sport ……..

          • axelbeingcivil

            Why not read up on it? You asked a question, why not read up on the answer so we can have an actual disussion?

          • Amos Moses

            looked it up ….. very interesting …….. but there is no explanation of how RNA came to be and became animate ………. not that i saw ……… oxygen hydrogen and nitrogen and other chemicals are dead ….. there is no animation ………. so all we are left with is “magic” ….. or it was all assembled by an intelligence ….. God …….. 757 do not will their assembly or come into being due to an explosion ………… books do not write themselves …. and DNA and RNA, the books, the code of life ……… do not just assemble without something directing it ……

          • axelbeingcivil

            Well, first, let me say thank you for looking it up. That’s a show of interest and respect I’ve wanted from you for a long time and it means a lot to me. Thank you for doing so.

            To answer your post, I’d point out that our bodies are chiefly composed of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. We are composed entirely of chemicals. As such, to suggest that chemicals are dead, when they’re what we and all life are composed of, misses an important truth: That there is no easy dividing line between “alive” and “not alive” on the cellular level.

            If you want information on how RNA can be abiotically synthesized, read “Abiotic synthesis of RNA in water: a common goal of prebiotic chemistry and bottom-up synthetic biology”. It’s a meta-article that covers a lot of experiments showing how abiotic conditions could produce RNA nucleotides. For how RNA chains can spontaneously assemble, check out “Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water”, which covers the experimental observation of such. Both are proper peer-reviewed papers. I’d link them directly, but this site doesn’t like that.

            Complex molecules aren’t like 747s; the parts to make a book or an airplane aren’t just floating about and able to react with one another, or spontaneously formed, or subject to selective pressures.

          • Amos Moses

            “That there is no easy dividing line between “alive” and “not alive” on the cellular level”

            So just another lie ….. carbon is not alive …… and neither are any other elements …….. they do not combine and then ….. “hey, i am alive” ………..

            “Complex molecules aren’t like 747s;”

            Precisely ……. life is infinitely more complex …….. if 757s (or 747s) are not doing it that way ….. neither are complex DNA, RNA and their support structures ………….. and this idea that if you just wait long enough it will “cook itself together” ………. stupid …….. time is the enemy of complexity, not an aid to it …………..a 757 has a far better chance of materializing in the interim …….

          • axelbeingcivil

            Amos, you are made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and a handful of other elements. Every living organism is. All organic molecules are composed of those things and you, in turn, of them. Where do you draw a dividing line between chemistry and biology?

            As for 747s, you miss the point. 747 parts don’t just randomly assemble and float about as organic molecules do. I just gave you the names of two papers that show experimental results of such a thing happening, in direct contravention of your claims. If you refuse to believe such a thing can happen, feel free, but you’re in direct contravention of observable experiment.

          • Amos Moses

            “As for 747s, you miss the point. 747 parts don’t just randomly assemble and float about as organic molecules do.”

            No ….. you dont get the point ……….. organic molecules do not do that ……… the same standard applies to the 747 as applies to DNA, RNA and their constituent components …. the organic molecule is made up of the same elements as the 747 …… the 747 does not randomly assemble from those elements any more than the DNA …… inanimate elements are not randomly assembled into DNA ………… any more than the 747 …… and DNA is FAR more complex ……

          • axelbeingcivil

            http://www (dot) jbc (dot) org/content/284/48/3320 (dot) short

            http://www (dot) sciencedirect (dot) com/science/article/pii/S0923250809000710

            You were saying?

          • axelbeingcivil

            It won’t let me share links, so look up:

            Generation of Long RNA Chains in Water, by Constanzo, Pino, Cicirello, and Di Mauro.

            From formamide to RNA: The roles of formamide and water in the evolution of chemical information, by Saladino, Crestini, Cicirello, Pino, Costanzo, and Di Mauro.

            There is evidence, right there, that you are flat-out wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re a nominal biologist so stop being condescending with posters here. You’re not as smart as you think you are.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Did any of my posts get through? There may have been some trouble.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I hope they ban you again. This overly polite persona you’ve adopted is very insincere, and you’re wasting bandwidth.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’ve never been banned here, and nothing about my attitude is insincere.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            *yawn*

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Antisemitism should get you banned everywhere: ” I sincerely doubt a Jew got their religion from the Bible.” -axelbeingcivil

            You are a bigot.

          • axelbeingcivil

            … That’s not anti-Semitism. Jews derive their religious beliefs from the Torah. Unless, I suppose, you’re talking about ethnic Jews?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Torah is the Bible.

          • axelbeingcivil

            No, it isn’t. The Torah is a collection of beliefs, including the first five books of the Tanakh but also includes the Oral Torah; a set of Rabbinical laws passed down alongside it, embodied in the Talmud and Midrash. The Tanakh itself also extends into further volumes, some of which are included in the Bible, some of which are not.

            The two religions have many things in common, but Christians exclude a great many Jewish beliefs and vice versa, while each emphasizing very differently the things they share in common.

            In short, no, the Torah is not the Bible, the Bible is not the Torah. Each has pieces of the other, but neither is one akin to the other.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No it isn’t. You know nothing about Torah, nor about the Bible. Stop acting like a know-it-all and stick to nominal, introductory biology. You at least have a chance there.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Look, if you’re going to just say “No it isn’t” back at me without any atempt at argument and follow it up with insults, I’m just not going to respond.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What’s there to respond to when you come up with something so ludicrous and ridiculous? Torah is recorded in the first 5 books of the Bible. Jesus Christ quoted extensively from it in the Old Covenant. So did His disciples. The Ten Commandments? That’s from Torah. Jesus Christ said He upheld Torah and did not come to destroy it but to fulfill it. Perhaps you are confusing Torah with Talmud? Who knows? You often seem confused.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I covered all of this already in my previous post, including the relevance of the Talmud and Midrash. If you don’t want to actually read my posts before you respond, I’m not going to feel like posting much.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No you didn’t. You rambled on incoherently and offensively. You may have gone back and edited, but your original post was full of error, untruth, and antisemitism and bigotry. You got called out. You owe an apology to Jews and Christians.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Go back and look for yourself to see if I changed anything.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re awfully condescending for someone who reveals his/her ignorance so often.

          • ButILikeCaves

            “or magic” says the man who depends on a Magical Being for his explanation…

    • Amos Moses

      “Dr. Douglas Axe is a credentialed scientist who earned a Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology and held a number of research positions at the University of Cambridge. ”

      Yeah …… no research going on there ………… they just gave him a PhD ….. because ……

      • axelbeingcivil

        The man’s not published a paper in twelve years, Amos. Not one as a part of an ID research group, and not one about ID. Not anything peer reviewed.

        The “institute” he works for doesn’t even have working labs; they photoshopped a stock photo.

        • Amos Moses

          So he has not published ……….. so what ….. are they going to repossess his PhD …… still has a PhD …. and he still has the rights and privileges of that attainment …… and peer reviewed means nothing ……….. again ………. SO WHAT ………..

          in the “academic world” it is publish or die ……. he aint dead yet ………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            So a scientist who doesn’t publish in more than a decade can not be said to be doing any publishing. Which is what I said and you objected to.

          • Win Mister Trump WIN WIN WIN!!

            The liberal activists who control science publishing will not publish anything that does not conform to their darwinist/warmist/heliocentrist agenda.

          • TreeParty

            Citation required. You can’t just make stuff up and expect to be believed…

          • axelbeingcivil

            I really cannot tell if you are a Poe or not.

          • Win Mister Trump WIN WIN WIN!!

            If that means a person who loves the Lord, America and Mister Trump, then yes I am!!!

          • Amos Moses

            and just because he has not published to your satisfaction does not lessen his insight …….

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’d say that someone’s inability to produce papers demonstrating their claims certainly weakens whatever insight they might claim to have. I’d also say these claims having been debunked a dozen times now weakens them as well.

          • Jim Tully

            I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?

    • JohninRedding

      Tired ideas about complexity? And I suppose you have an explanation to address the complexity issue? And don’t say it just happened and the evidence is because we are all here. That is not scientific!!

      • axelbeingcivil

        Yes, I do. Claims of complexity rely entirely on the notion that evolution is a game of chance; that the “final product” we see today requires extreme precision. In reality, neither of these claims are true.

        Mutation is a case of random chance. Evolution is not. Instead, randomly varying self-replicators are non-randomly selected by their environment based on reproductive success. This allows for rises in complexity.

        It’s not necessary for all mutations to be beneficial or to even lack deleterious effects for evolution to occur. Individuals may bear harmful genes, but mutation itself is relatively rare and, again, usually neutral. As such, most individuals in a population will reproduce just fine. Weaker ones breed less or not at all and are weeded out. When beneficial mutations come along, they usually spread through the population.

        A good example for seeing this in action is actually a human contrivance; the evolved antenna. This program shows how random mutation and selection pressures can develop new information. Since most people touting the complexity argument say such a thing is impossible, this is rather neat.

        Second, genes and proteins are often stated to require exceptional levels of precision to function properly but this is simply not the case. Codon redundancy and amino acid similarity mean that a great deal of variation is possible. Indeed, in the case of proteins, so long as specific motifs are intact, the overall structures can vary quite extensively while maintaining function.

        Want me to go on?

  • Almostcertain2

    More junk science from the Discovery Institute…complexity = creationism = supernature = god(s)? = Biblical god = Adam & Eve + (talking snake) = true… Tha was easy case closed…Right?

    • JB_Calgary

      Let me understand… Billions of years” ago, “nothing” exploded, for no reason at all (defying scientific law in the process). Out of this “explosion of nothing, that was caused by nothing, came everything”. It rained on the rocks and life appeared from non-life, (again defying scientific law in the process).

      From this wild speculation came invertebrate fish, which “evolved” into vertebrate fish, which “evolved” into amphibians, which “evolved” into reptiles. Some reptiles “evolved” into mammals and some mammals “evolved” into Humans. Meanwhile, some reptiles, dinosaurs, “evolved” into birds.

      That is the summary of my religious world-view and seeing as we are really just descended from pond-scum, from a random, cosmic accident – Not purposeful design by an intelligent Creator,- There is nothing wrong with butchering unborn children, Rape, Murder, Peadophilla, Theft, Nazi Holocausts, Cambodian Killing Fields, etc. It’s just “survival of the fittest”.

      We came from nowhere and we’re going nowhere.

      • Almostcertain2

        That is the problem…you don’t understand. Get enrolled in a community college or college level science class and get with the 21st century.

        • Tangent002

          It’s like JB didn’t go to school at all.

          • Almostcertain2

            Or the ideology he bought into ate his homework.

          • Amos Moses

            Please explain how you willed yourself into existence …………..

          • Almostcertain2

            Amos, either you lost your box of Corn Flakes or you have some serious issues…

          • Amos Moses

            So you have no knowledge with which to explain a belief in “evolution” ………. i used to believe in evolution ……. but then i evolved ….. and now i think it is stupid ………

          • Almostcertain2

            So you think Evolution is …What you said? “stupid”? Well good on you Amos! What does it matter what I know or don’t know about science??? You seem to have ALL the answers…right? You may go on your merry way Amos…and good luck with that.

            BTW it seems that you have not found your Corn Flakes just yet…keep looking. And good luck with that too.

          • Almostcertain2

            Your “arguments” show a deep lack of knowledge on what science is and how it works. Need to fix that.

          • Amos Moses

            So insults again and no “education” ………. ad hominem is not a valid debate technique ………. Fail ………..

          • Almostcertain2

            See Amos, you have very thin skin, it is not an insult is a fact. I bet that you are a great person etc. just need to buckle down in science. That simple.

          • Amos Moses

            You bring no science ……… you bring insult ….

        • Amos Moses

          and your understanding is …………. lets see what you can regurgitate from your “class” …………..

          • Almostcertain2

            This is not a carnival Amos, education is an individual responsibility.

          • Amos Moses

            All you are doing is spreading fallacies ………. not education ……….. so again ….. what can you regurgitate from your “instructors” ………….

          • Almostcertain2

            Let me see…To tell folks to get an education is a “fallacy”…Amos sure you can do better. Or can you? Individual responsibility is according to Amos a “fallacy”…. Amos your argument is so weak that it’s not even wrong . Keep looking for your Corn Flakes box.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            *yawn* You’re boring. If you’re going to troll, do a better job. If you’re trying to sound smart, you’re failing miserably.

          • Almostcertain2

            So to get educated is fallacious , being responsible for your ignorance is fallacious….tsk tsk . No wonder the education level in sciences is in the pits.

          • Reason2012

            Ad hominem is all “almostcertain2” can offer. She shows what the typical mindset of fish to mankind evolutionists is and how anti-science their belief system they cling to is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That must be why she’s “ALMOSTcertain”. 🙂

          • Almostcertain2

            To tell folks that education is a must is not fallacious, to tell folks that they are responsible for their own education is not fallacious – it may be boring to you, or you may catalog it as “trollish”..is your choice

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’ve never said education is not a must. I’m sure I have more of it than you do. 🙂 In fact, I know I do. Like I said, you’re a very boring troll, and your avatar confirms that.

          • Almostcertain2

            Oh how about it? another fun story..how precious.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Naw, you’re too boring to talk to and your avatar is non-descriptive. You should add fangs or something.

          • Almostcertain2

            Education is your responsibility , not mine and your arguments shows a lack thereof .

          • Amos Moses

            So this is not about “education” and you lied …………. and you have shown yourself to be a liar ……… thnx …… all we needed to know …….

          • Almostcertain2

            So quick to judge, Amos, Amos… there is no fallacy science education is a must for all. Is there a course in MIT or CALTECH refering to the “creation” of the universe by a “creator”? Is it in their curriculum? I bet is not, Do you have an inkling as to why?

          • Amos Moses

            Science yes ……… but not psuedo-science which is just gnosticism ………… and you bet i judge it ……….. that is our job ……..

            “refering to the “creation” of the universe by a “creator”? Is it in their curriculum? I bet is not, Do you have an inkling as to why?”

            Yes i do …….. because they reject Christ and christianity …… they reject part of the evidence ……… and their conclusions about the evidence is skewed because of it …… they have left science and chosen gnosticism ………….. it is just another belief system …..

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Says the person in a glass house who’s throwing uneducated stones…. 🙂

            There are Creationist professors at MIT and Caltech. 🙂

          • Almostcertain2

            Absolutely! from diverse faiths indeed. And that is ubiquitous thought the land.
            Yet my point remains …no creationist or “Woo magic” at CALTECH ,MIT, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, FIU, UT, NYU et al…

            Do you know why is that so?????

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Again, you are wrong. There are plenty of Creationists who teach at MIT, Caltech, Harvard, etc. You are an extremely ignorant person!

          • Almostcertain2

            Saying that I’m ignorant, will not change any of those institutions curriculum regarding science…Where in MIT do creationist staff teaches the supernatural????? Find me one science course in CALTECH that is doing so…. I’ll help you will find none. You may move on TROLL.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You said there were no Creationists teaching at MIT, Caltech, etc., and I told you that there were. You can find books they’ve written on the topic on Amazon. 🙂 You should buy them. It might help you in your ignorance.

          • Almostcertain2

            There are folks of faith in teaching positions everywhere. I took classes with many.

            What you will NOT find in MIT or CALTECH etc, is Biblical creationism taught as part of the science curriculum.

            I hope that that is clear.

            And once again do you know why?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t know what is or isn’t taught there because you never went there. 🙂 You’re also not colleagues with those who teach there. 🙂

          • Almostcertain2

            Sure you can shut me down and censor me etc. And that is fine . I can take it. But my point remains. There is a huge gap in those arguments as far es science goes… Is nothing personal or calling folks ignorant or dumb…no,no. Just ill informed.

          • Amos Moses

            i have no power or authority to shut anyone down ………….. stay, go, speak, dont speak …… i do not care one wit ……. and you are not talking about science ……… all you are doing is trading insults ……. got something to shake the world …….. then say it …… but insults are not going to get you there ………….

        • Reason2012

          Please point out one thing he got wrong (just one) that proves he “does not understand” and back up your claim with what he should have said that was correct instead.

          • TreeParty

            Certainly it is wrong to claim that “there is nothing wrong with butchering unborn children, Rape, Murder, etc.etc..” And it is wrong to claim that the science of evolution takes a moral position on any of these things any more than astronomy, or geology, or chemistry, take moral positions on any of these things. (The part about the “evolved into…” he mostly got right, though it did appear that he was being facetious..)

          • Reason2012

            Certainly it is wrong to claim that “there is nothing wrong with butchering unborn children, Rape, Murder, etc.etc..”

            And yet our laws make it just fine to butcher unborn children.

            And it is wrong to claim that the science of evolution takes a moral position on any of these things any more than astronomy, or geology, or chemistry, take moral positions on any of these things.

            And yet evolution has led people to claim white people were further evolved (and hence superior) to people of other races.
            And also, in the name of “I don’t REALLY believe in God” and/or “we’re just worthless animals” (both offshoots of fish to mankind evolution), we continue to butcher our unborn children. Anyone who believes we will honestly be facing God wouldn’t dare do so.

          • Almostcertain2

            Is is call pedagogy … It is not my responsibility to educate him in academic & theoretical matters… there is plenty of good schools to attend to, He needs to go to a science class, learn and then opine … this guy is parroting creationist bullet points he bought from his fundamentalist ideology that simple. It makes him sound ignorant, you can’t have an intelligent conversation regarding science with this fellow until he is educated. He could be as smart as Einstein for all I know yet he has bupkiss , when it comes to modern science and how it works.

            I went to college worked hard and got my degree,. Now I’m a professional in the medical field working for the military.

            AND if YOU can see it either you should enroll with him too. There is nothing more frustrating than ignorance in action with a sense of righteousness and an arrogant attitude to boot.

            Go to school, your country needs you as educated as possible…do your patriotic duty.

          • Reason2012

            I didn’t say give more ad hominem, which is all you’ve offered in spades.

            Again, point out one specific thing he got wrong (just ONE) that proves he “does not understand” and back up your claim with what he should have said that was correct instead.

            Seems you cannot.

          • Almostcertain2

            There is one reason astronomers do not “debate” with astrologers : The ignorance of the astrologer. These arguments posted couldn’t find the way out of a paper-bag… I would encourage them to go to their local university biology department and have a chat with one of the professors in situ.
            And by Pistol Pete if they are right is sure a Nobel Prize…
            Thanks for reading.

      • Tangent002

        Better go collect your Nobel Prize!

    • Amos Moses

      BTW …………. lots of talking snakes right here ……………….. i could name names ……..

      • Almostcertain2

        Are those snakes the species that “walked” in the garden?

        • Amos Moses

          Same father ………….. and his children do likewise ………

          • Almostcertain2

            And of course you were “there” and that is how you know such deep mysteries…right? What about talking donkeys? Are they also from the same father? Did they had chats with talking snakes?

          • Reason2012

            Human beings read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more, and:

            Our ancestors in the past were supposedly apes, so that means they are claiming populations of apes could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

            Our ancestors were supposedly reptiles before that, so that means they are claiming populations of reptiles could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

            Our ancestors were supposedly amphibians/frogs before that, so that means they are claiming populations of amphibians/frogs could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

            Our ancestors were supposedly fish before that, so that means they are claiming populations of fish could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

            You believe far worse than that which you condemn.

          • Almostcertain2

            Don’t get me wrong anyone can believe as they wish to do so; such is our freedom. That said to form an opinion , a perspective regarding science without understanding it and only consuming what comes pre-canned from a pulpit or a creationist website is foolish. How do I know? It is simple all the “arguments” presented – regarding science – are put together with the same fallacies of pseudoscience and follow the same format and attitude.
            Science does not have ALL the answers nor evolution (as a theory) is the “truth”.
            I’m not going to “preach” evolution nor engage in arguing if evolution is the best explanation or the bible.
            One simple look at the way creationists express themselves shows the huge gaps in what they think they know…It is useless to argue against a mind that is made up in these matters, for they are not seeking understanding nor knowledge rather to preach the gospel.

            That attitude I condemn . Science education is a good . Not the Discovery Institute or othes but the science taught at Arizona State, UT, MIT etc.
            Anyways what evolution has to do with the deities?

          • Reason2012

            So in other words you cannot refute the fact you believe that over generations, eventually
            – populations of fish could learn to read / write / speak countless languages,
            – populations of snakes and other reptiles could learn to read / write / speak countless languages
            – populations of amphibians / frogs could learn to read / write / speak countless languages.
            – populations of mammals could learn to read / write / speak countless languages

            Yes, science is great – the issue is the fish to man mythology is anti-science and attacking belief in God is all those who believe in it can do to defend it, along with non-stop ad hominem.

            You’re free to believe in fish to mankind evolutionism – but to call it science is where you are now completely wrong.

          • Almostcertain2

            hmmm. … You still don’t get it, And you still assuming stuff + selling creationist babble.
            IF you are honest and really interested in having a conversation i would suggest epistemology. No rights , no wrongs let us see where that path leads to..Or whether having a lucid conversation is possible.

          • Reason2012

            So in other words you cannot refute a thing I said and can only ever fall back on ad hominem. You prove my point. I hardly expected anything more than that – just wanted others to see how empty your claims really are.

          • Almostcertain2

            So you assume… I’m not interested in debunking pseudoscience. That job is already taken by places like CALTECH, MIT and Others. If that works for you … it’s fine, it is your right.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I know plenty of Young Earth Creationist scientists who came from Caltech, MIT, Harvard, etc. 🙂

            I’ll bet you never went to college let alone a university. I saw you trying to discuss Kant earlier. You have no clue what he wrote. 🙂

          • Almostcertain2

            Still missing the point… and by doing so your “argument” becomes more and more a shinny example of my previous posts… Thanks for helping me make my point.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nice attempt to deflect the fact that you are WRONG – again. You’re unbelievably ignorant! You pretend to know what Kant was all about, you pretend you know science. I’m now convinced you don’t even have your GED!

          • Almostcertain2

            OK guest I see you are interested in trolling…Ok got cha!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Telling the truth isn’t trolling. Here you are with absolutely no education trying to act haughty, but it’s an act of false bravado. Your ignorance is appalling and obvious. It makes one pity you.

          • Almostcertain2

            There, there guest…I understand how difficult must be to have any arguments regarding science education vs the pseudoscience spouted by religious fundies. Surely your arguments ran out of substance and now all that you have left is to vent your frustration on me..go on…I truly understand you…I get your anguish, your anger and dissonance , it must be painful.

            Calling me ignorant would not wash the fact of what I posted prior. There is pseudoscience in their arguments and their lack of education prevents them from seeing that plus religion as an authority prevents them to question their own dogmas.

            If venting against me helps you go on , yet remember the reality of the lack of education as posted by me, the use of pseudoscience still remains a fact.

            Check this out your next post will be similar, for you have nothing left.

            You are right is pitiful.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I see you, once again, haven’t offered any science. That’s because you never studied it. You just want to hurl unfounded insults at great scientists because you hate their God. There is such darkness in the eyes of the avatar you posted. I hope it isn’t you.

          • Almostcertain2

            Yeah, yeah, the forum heard all that. The same ‘ole shifting the subject . You showed the forum that you are able to do that : Bravo! Now…

            Now try an focus for us please and use that great acumen… Again is science education important (yes or no)? Is it an individual responsibility (yes or no)? And Why?

            I bet believers are great folks just not informed as far as science is concerned… the fix is not impossible.

            Wouldn’t you agree?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you keep repeating yourself, going around in circles. This is a non-discussion because I’ve given you actual material from actual scientists, and all you, a non-educated, non-scientist, can do is hurl insults because that’s all you’re here to do. Face it: you hate God, you hate Christians because you hate our God, and so you spew hate. I don’t know why you’re tolerated here, but you are. Perhaps someone will put you on their prayer list. One can only hope.

          • Almostcertain2

            Move on GUEST!!! Dude? LOL!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re so out of touch that you don’t know “dude” is interchangeable for men, women, or trannies. I’m sure you fit into one of those categories.

          • Almostcertain2

            Guest, your “arguments” are giving good Christians a bad name, what a pity.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nice try, but I always speak the truth. So did the disciples, even when it wasn’t pleasant. In the long run, truth is kindest, even when it seems harshest.

          • Almostcertain2

            Good as part of the truth you must recognize that science education is a must. And such is an individual responsibility.

            My point remains: arguments built in religious overtones + pseudoscience are fallacious. that simple.

            You “always” speak the truth as far as you can tell.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I have a science education. You don’t. So which one of us values it more? 🙂

          • Almostcertain2

            OK, good. So you do value Science education, since – as you claim – you are educated. Do you not?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Um, “you are educated. Do you not?” ????? 🙂 Yep, you are NOT educated.

          • Almostcertain2

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Empty like you.

          • Almostcertain2

            Guest you Do understand what move on means.. do you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do you understand what “You have no authority over me” means? Obviously you’re as ignorant over that as you are about science.

          • Almostcertain2

            bye!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I hope you were talking to yourself. And your alts.

          • Almostcertain2

            Strange, as I recall it from my days in college creationism was nowhere to be found as an explanation for the natural world, nor structurally , nor functionally, Was that how you learned it?
            All gods are a cultural response to reality but not real. Man-made concoctions a la carte. Eliminate the culture that created Quetzalcoatl and that god is nowhere in the historic radar. Same holds valid for the rest of the laundry list of gods + goddess…

            Flying chariots, Water to wine , Resurrections, virgin births, sin, hell, heavens, floods, talking animals, Sun & moon altering their orbits to full stop etc… are all fables. there is the possibility of a god(s) to exist, but to be that god would not need a culture, a language, faith, subjective experiences, apologetics ..it would be as simple as to point to the moon.

          • Amos Moses

            We have the eyewitness account of the one who was there and knows …………. since all you really want to do is trade insults ……. you seem to be a talking donkey …….. perhaps you could enlighten us ….. we already know who your father is ………. if your avatar is accurate …. very pretty …… but the inside of the cup ……… WOW ………. nasty ………..

          • Almostcertain2

            So Funny!

          • Amos Moses

            Does not take any great intellect to hurl insults ………. so if you want to make a well reasoned argument ….. try doing it ……. but so far you have failed …..

    • bowie1

      I see no mention of the Discovery Institute.

      • Tangent002

        Discovery Institute funds the Biologic Institute. DI also did the interview of Dr. Axe.

      • TreeParty

        Look harder. It’s there. Of course…oh well, why bother….

      • Almostcertain2

        Ah! Dear Watson but it is as obvious as the monitor you are fixating your eyes upon. The good Dr, Axe is in the payroll of DI – making some nice coin I may add – and has authored other pubs with the help of DI.
        Cross-reference the facts and you will see it in such a plain way as I have. This is DI in action. Is elementary.

    • airstart

      It’s strange to hear the term “junk science” from one who believes nothing exploded, without a cause and became everything, abiogenesis, Macro-evolution (molecules to microbiologists) and probably man caused global warming.

      • Almostcertain2

        LMAO! You assume way too much.

    • jacuzzi37

      Wrong. You simply can’t get life from non-life or intelligence from non-intelligence. Magic does not exist.

      • Almostcertain2

        Your argument is a for of preaching the gospel. Good for you.
        The Bible is not a science textbook (at least at the college I attended). Not anywhere in places like Princeton, Yale, UT, Berkeley etc. is creationism taught as part of the natural sciences curriculum. WHY?
        All gods are useless to explain the universe we live in. Nor functionally , nor structurally. All gods are a cultural expression not objective reality, just take a gander at anthropology & religions worldwide.

        That said you may believe as you wish, in fact I defend your right to do so.

        And if you think you have a better explanation for nature it would be nothing short of wonderful for you to publish your findings in a peer reviewed science journal. I would love to see your dataset.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          You attended college? Could have fooled me.

          The greatest discoveries were made based upon Bible verses. That’s a fact. And it’s something you learn from books written by the scientists themselves.

          You probably went to typing school or something. 🙂

          • Almostcertain2

            Oh!!! Wait, wait…
            “The greatest discoveries were made based upon Bible verses. That’s a fact…” Please tell the whole forum in what science curriculum in a major college are those greatest discoveries being taught – as Bible based -…. I must have missed that semester…strange …
            Sure that many a scientist is a believer -I’ve met many – from all religions, and many more that were not religious… That is just fine.

            Your argument lacks specificity.. What are those “greatest discoveries based upon Bible verses” that you so proudly write about? Sure they should be included in any science curriculum…right?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Harvard. 🙂 Any university that studies the works of Maury (he based his work on Psalms), Newton (he based his work on Isaiah), Pupin (he based his work on Genesis and Psalms), etc. etc.

          • Almostcertain2

            History is full of folks of diverse faiths that have contributed (and still are) to science no- one can deny such. Also history shows that non-believers have contributed (and still are) to science as well, yeah.
            To quote you once more ..your claim that the “greatest discoveries” are directly related to the bible and taught in the classroom as such is baseless. No-one is doing that.

            Wasn’t Newton a numerologist and also a believer in astrology???? Also a man of christian faith, he was also in search of the Philosopher’s Stone (alchemy); And as part of his Chronology Newton was in search of the ancient wisdom of the Solomon Temple; Newton thought that god had selected him for this purpose.

            Newton was also a genius, and if you read his Principia you will see only natural causation and their relations in an elegant math form. But not a single variable for the supernatural or the divine. Do you know why???

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are wrong on all counts. You’ve been copying from atheist sites again. 🙂

            Newton declared himself a born again Christian who based his science upon a portion of Isaiah. He says that in his books, and it is taught in secular universities. The same goes for Maury, Faraday, Pasteur, etc.

            Again, you once again prove you have no education. 🙂

          • Almostcertain2

            So funny…

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, you’re more sad than funny. I feel sorry for you every time I look at that avie. You have no peace.

          • Almostcertain2

            Guest,
            Your claim: ” The greatest discoveries were made based upon Bible verses.”

            OK, here is a short list of “great ” advancements by science. You may or not agree that are such but I think that they are quite important. Please do tell the forum how the bible verses structurally and functionally made these things possible. Here is a list in no particular order.

            Item Bible verse = ?
            1. Printing Press (1430’s) – ?
            2. Electricity (late 19th century) ?
            3. Penicillin (1928) ?
            4. Semi Conductor Electronics ?
            5. Optical lenses (13th century) ?
            6. Paper (2nd century) ?
            7. Internal combustion Engine ?
            8. Vaccination (1796) ?
            9.Internet (1960) ?
            10. Steam Engine (1712) ?
            11. Nitrogen fixation (1918) ?
            12. Sanitation systems (19th cent) ?
            13. Refrigeration (1850) ?
            14. Gunpowder (10th cent) ?
            15. Airplane (1903) ?
            16. The PC (1970’s) ?
            17. Compass (12th Cent) ?
            18. The Automobile (19th cent) ?
            19. Industrial Steel making (1850) ?
            20. Nuclear Fission (1939) ?
            21. Sextant (1757) ?
            22. The telephone ( 1876) ?
            23. The Telegraph (1837) ?
            24. The mechanized clock ( 15th cent) ?
            25. The Radio (1906) ?
            26. The Moldboard plow ( 18th cent) ?
            27. Archimedes’ screw ( 3 rd cent BC) ?
            28. Pasteurization (1863) ?
            29. Steam Turbine (1884) ?
            30. Heliocentric (since 3rd cent BC) ?
            31. Extinct human ancestry ( (19th Cent) ?
            32. Mithocondrial Eve (20th cent) ?
            33. CMBR (20th cent) ?
            34. Evolution of species in the fossil record and DNA sequences . ?
            35. Continental drift (16th cent) ?
            36. Radioactivity (19th cent) ?
            37. The electron (19th cent) ?
            38. Chromatography (20th cent) ?
            39. Quantum theory (20th cent) ?
            40. Electromagnetic waves (19th cent) ?

            Of course this is but a short list. I’m sure that you have on hand the Bible verses that are literally and directly responsible for these discoveries and advancements. Show the whole forum how these direct relation is factual. Thank you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re kidding, right? LOL You should look this stuff up before posting it. Let’s go one at a time.

            Printing press – Johannes Gutenberg. You ever heard of the Gutenberg Bible? 🙂

          • Almostcertain2

            Sure, Show the forum the bible verse(s) directly responsible for mechanism of the printing press. You are not avoiding the question, right?
            Please tell the forum the verses responsible.. Can you? Thanks.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I don’t avoid any questions. Here you go: Isaiah 52:7, and Romans 10:15.

            To save you time, anesthetic was inspired by a Bible verse, too – the story of Adam being put to sleep so God could “operate” and remove a rib.

          • Almostcertain2

            OK! Please show the forum where in the Bible you will find the chemical preparation of anesthetics and their proper use .
            Not just “god put Adam to sleep” …

            The goes for your other bible verses; Where are the specifics?
            Show the forum all that divine knowledge, Can you be specific?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The scientist who invented it put it this way: when he saw that God could put man to sleep, he started praying and asked God to show him just how he could put man to sleep, too, so that he could operate. That’s when he said he was shown how to do it. You should study science. It’s all there.

          • Almostcertain2

            “when he saw” Who saw what? It is written text not a video.. then the scientist prayed and god showed how… LMAO !!!!!!!!!
            See this person forum a gem , a person that claims to have science education writes such arguments…Guest I’m done with you.

            Thank you for proving my point. Now move on.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            *yawn* You’re done with me because I exposed you. You are uneducated. You have no science background. You talk big but produce little. You have darkness in your eyes and don’t troll very well. You posed the same insipid posts last time you were here. I can’t remember the handle you used – it was equally insipid.

          • Almostcertain2

            Move on Guest …and let the forum decide.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t tell me what I do or don’t do. I hope they ban you again.

          • Almostcertain2

            Oh feelings hurt??? It’s that your best argument now ??
            See readers? Here is GUEST at his best !! Does not know when is enough .. . Let the Forum Judge your arguments and behavior. Awesome Christian example!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s impossible for someone like you to hurt my feelings. I hope they ban you – again.

          • uninvitedguest

            sure it was…lol!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Further proof you never studied science. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            of course i havent. you know so much about me its scary!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Your ignorance is telling.

          • uninvitedguest

            absolutely

          • uninvitedguest

            you bet. dumb as a stump. lol

  • james blue

    Evolution doesn’t discount a creator. evolution explains how life diversified AFTER it came to be, it doesn’t attempt to explain HOW it came to be.

    • Amos Moses

      But the “creator of evolution” did …………

      “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

      “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”

      Discounting part of the evidence discredits the observations …………. so no …. evolution does not explain that ………..

  • Saprena Brown

    God is real and he created all of us!

    • axelbeingcivil

      I was created by the sordid antics of my parents.

      • getstryker

        Great story . . . now, how about you take a moment and explain to all of us ignorant, uneducated Christians, in Darwinian terms of course, just how your patents ‘original ancestors’, be they man or monkey, evolved their ‘Daddy parts and Mommy parts’ at the same time, found each other (male and female) and knew just what to do with ‘them new parts’ and, after billions and billions or years, . . . we got ‘little ole you?’. This is gonna be fascinating . . go ahead, we’ll wait.

        • axelbeingcivil

          If I explain a hypothesis, are you going to do anything but scoff? It can take me up to an hour to write a detailed answer, and I’m happy to do it if you genuinely want information. If all you want to do is mock, I’m very tired and have other things I can do.

          • getstryker

            I would love to hear (read) it and although I was ‘messing with ya’ a bit, I’m sure it would be very interesting in discussion. I recognize that you’re fatigued . . . we’ll do it another time – Good Night 😉

          • axelbeingcivil

            I’ll throw something together, then.

          • getstryker

            No rush – take your time.
            It will be interesting to see what you come up with but do it on your schedule. Get some rest – night

          • Seen From Space

            It’s all in the public domain and a few keystrokes away. You just have to look past the sectarian misinformation and hear it from the people who actually DO THE WORK. Discovery Institute, Answers inGenesis et al are not reliable sources, and only provide “problems” with the science. None of which withstand a minute’s expert scrutiny.

          • getstryker

            Oh yes, for absolutely certain ‘a few keystrokes away’ is an unmitigated tale of evolution and how it ALL came into existence from nothing. Really??Evolution, the faux science of the academic and supposedly scientific world, whose ‘evidence’ consists of old bones in the ground, and lots of speculation, wild imagination and open collusion mascaraing as legitimate science. Sorry, those ‘key strokes’ lead to a fantasy world of coulda, shoulda, woulda, mighta, possibly, we think, and the most accurate summation of evolution theory – the ‘definite maybe’. Nope, as a Christian, I just don’t have the faith to believe in evolution. You can’t prove evolution is real anymore than I can prove that the Creator God of the Bible exists. You can save all the ‘barbs’ about ‘stupid, uneducated, misinformed, etc., Christians and their ‘sky guy’ – belief and faith are needed on both sides. Those ‘problems’ referred to that you so easily dismissed. are the crux of the argument – science claims to ‘have the answers and yet, those many ‘problems’ continue to exist only to be ‘explained’ by another theory each time the ‘old one’ is vanquished. For Christians, the story remains the same – God did it.

          • Seen From Space

            How is it you understand a technical discipline you know nothing about, better than those who study it professionally? Please note that “proof” only exists in mathematics and logic. Biologists, astronomers et al don’t look for it in their fields. Please also Google the number of independent scientific disciplines you must carefully ignore to be a creationist.

          • getstryker

            Oh, I don’t pretend to understand any ‘technical discipline’ that supposedly supports evolution. Why, that’s the most preferred method of foisting the whole evolution hoax on those that can not dispute it because they lack that very technical expertise to rebuttal the proposition being put forward. The ‘proof’ they offer is: “Gee, if a ‘scientist said it, then it must be true” – BS – It’s the evolutionists ‘smoke and mirrors’ and we know it.
            I dispute it all based on the ‘questions’ that these marvels of science CAN’T answer . . . simple questions like the: ‘where, when, how, why and which came first’ line of questions. For example: male and female genitalia, explain their current existence, why the change from the prior function of procreation, development of eyes, optic nerves and connections in the brain. How and when did tear ducts develop, how about hearing and the bones in the middle ear area, all the millions of connections in the brain . . . things as simple as, what did the first ‘cell’ eat, after all the dividing, when and where did it find a mate, etc., the list goes on and on. Evolution says it does not deal with ‘In the Beginning’ questions and yet, where did it all come from? When ‘they’ can’t answer a question, scientists continue to speculate or presents another ‘theory.’ . . . Beyond that, who cares? – we’re here – either God did it or we all die and become ‘worm food’ . . . that end my be good enough for you and you may be right – but, I doubt it. Either way, you can believe what you like. Time will tell.

          • Seen From Space

            Your “simple questions” – although only someone with no understanding of the issues would think they were simple – are all answered with detailed, explanatory models, which will adapt and grow as new data comes in. Models you will never know about, because you are not curious enough. You prefer bluster to thinking.

          • getstryker

            No, I prefer ‘truth’ to your kind of ‘thinking’ . . . That ‘truth’ is the truth of the Bible and the testimony that every Christian who knows Christ would know and understand. Your “I’m smart, you’re dumb’ attitude means nothing to me. You claim knowledge and understand that, in the end, means nothing. You’re welcome to it. Maybe, one day you’ll get it figured out. In the meantime – we’re finished here.

          • wandakate

            Yeah, remember the bible tells us the first will be last, and the last will be first, so I guess the dumb ones will be ahead in the end, while the smart ones fall by the wayside huh?

          • getstryker

            Yeppers . . . ain’t it great 😉

          • getstryker

            Remember, all things ‘in context’ . . . read it again!

          • happylada

            Sounds a LOT like the “god of the Gaps” theory you mock in Christians.

            I have an idea? Find me a evolutionist who can explain the Blood/Testes barrier. For without it no mammal could reproduce to evolve.

            Small items like that are impossible for your worldview to explain. LIKE any irreducibly complex structure, it worked 100% the FIRST time, or the species dies and cannot evolve.

            Simple and easy to understand. ONLY an intelligent designer could get it right the FIRST time – the necessity for evolution. And IF he could get it right the first time, evolution is unnecessary.

          • Seen From Space

            Again, again! if everything you think you know about evolution comes from sectarian propaganda, of course you’ll believe all this! There are many examples of irreducibly complex (IC) structures and systems evolving. In some cases in our lifetimes e.g. bacteria that can now digest synthetic chemicals. It’s well understood how the components can have different functions in the ancestors, the bacterial flagellum being a great example. As is so often the case, the reasons creationist arguments are wrong can be quite technical, and not amenable to short explanations. This is how the propagandists get away with reusing them ad nauseam.

            I spend far too much of my time in these forums, and I hear the same wrong old arguments over and over! My advice is always: please widen your reading. Atheism has NOTHING to do with it. Creationism and Christianity are NOT synonymous. Nobody goes to hell just because they’re not a sucker for pseudoscience.

          • SDA

            This is false. There is a mountain of evidence that supports evolution. Just follow the science and you’ll find the answers.

          • getstryker

            I’ve seen the ‘evidence’ presented by your vaunted ‘scientists’ – What? you think I was born yesterday – I been looking at this stuff for years. I sounded just like you once – today, I KNOW better. Evolution is a load of garbage, ever-changing imaginations and BS.

            I’ve got a better idea . . . follow the money – the scientists that rely on grants, endowments, big government funding, etc., will say anything, write anything, do anything to keep their funding coming. Examples abound – evolution, global warming, little green men in outer space . . . heck, they’ll even try to sell you the idea that there are millions of universes and ‘we’ just happen to be in the one that works – my ache’n posterior. Your free to believe what ya want.

          • SDA

            If that were true, then you should have no problem disconfirming what evolution postulates, right?

            Have you stopped to think that maybe you’ve simply been indoctrinated?

          • getstryker

            I can’t ‘disconfirm’ evolution any more than you can ‘disconfirm’ God. It’s a matter of belief and faith – two different things but applicable to both propositions. Indoctrinated??? – oh yes, I bought into it for years. Everything that could be told, sold, taught and foisted on students of all ages which promoted evolution and that the idea of an Almighty God and Creation were myths and total fantasy. I believed that too. Suffice it to say that one day, I had an encounter with Christ and at that moment, I knew, with everything that was in me, that God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Heaven, etc., were real. I, like millions of other ‘born-again’ Christians, had met God and He is real. You can mock and scoff at it but it is what happened and nothing will change my belief and faith. Believe what you want – as for me – there is the triune God of the Bible – He did it all, He made it all and He did it good. Why, He even wrote a book about it – read it sometime. Bye.

          • SDA

            I don’t need to disconfirm your deity since I’m not talking about your deity because evolution has nothing to do with one. Whether life was created by a deity, abiogenesis or aliens, evolution would happen regardless.

            I’m glad that you acknowledge the lack of disconfirmation and indoctrination into religious fundamentalism. That’s a step in the right direction. Most don’t even bother.

          • getstryker

            Excuse me??? I didn’t ‘step’ anywhere near your supposed ‘right direction’. Let me be abundantly clear: evolution is a joke!

          • SDA

            Of course you did. You stated, quite clearly, that you can’t disconfirm evolution, and then proceeded to describe the process by which you were indoctrinated. That’s absolutely a step in the right direction. Most people never acknowledge these things.

            That being said, evolution is still supported by a mountain of evidence. One would think that fundamentalists would be salivating to provide one example of evidence that disconfirms it if they felt so strongly about it. Yet, weirdly enough, fewer and fewer even bother to try.

          • getstryker

            Perhaps they (Christians) don’t spend much time talking about ‘spiritual things’ anymore because, until you have become ‘born-again’, the ‘spiritual’ will never make sense. I’ve seen hundreds of Christians, myself included, attempt to explain the reasons for their belief and faith in God to folks like you (heck, I was a ‘folk’ like you once) and it is such a waste of time. Your so-called ‘mountain of evidence’ is just words – all you’ve got is a bunch of dead bones in the ground and lots of imagination, millions in government funds and teachers & scientists coerced into ‘towing the party line’. Evolutionists explanations change constantly, claiming new data, and yet, every new theory is explained with lots of the usual ‘weasel words’ – could, should, might, probably, we think, etc., and the almighty ‘definite maybe’ to give their speculations the sound of real authority – there are hundreds of unexplained phenomena in nature, symbiotic relationships between animals that require each to have come into existence at the exact same time – not over ‘millions of years’ – Christians don’t ‘buy into it’ because the ‘KNOW’ inside their spirits that it’s all a lie – Evolution is nothing more that the ‘state religion’ – You’re NOT interested in the ‘truth’ – you persist with questions that you have no desire to really know the answer to – why should anyone waste their time with you until you’re ready to listen – No more!

          • happylada

            “I’m not talking about your deity because evolution has nothing to do with one.”

            NO, again you are confused. YOU use evolution as a substitute for Creation. Creation has evidence, Evolution has NONE.

          • SDA

            No, the only person confused here is you by repeating the same nonsense that there’s a lack of evidence. Creation and evolution are separate concepts. We’ve already established this. As soon as you accept this, the fallacy will begin to shed itself.

          • NadaLiar

            This is one of the things that is somewhat bothersome to me with some proponents of ToE. I *think* you mean this in a general and not an absolute sense when you said “evolution would happen regardless,” but this is just in case you aren’t. IMO, belief in ToE has become a type of indoctrination and almost fundamentalism. “Evolution is correct, science supports it. Therefore, any science that appears to contradict evolution is flawed.” True, many advocates of the Bible use similar arguments (“God said it, so it’s true”), religion and science supposedly operate in different ways. My beef is the “150 years” evolution has been examined “proving” it — well, that’s kind of like me saying I know a great deal about the President because I saw *PART* of 10 sound bites on the TV, but it was muted. In “evolutionary time” 150 years is milliseconds. We have a few fossils spread over an enormity of time, even fewer that scientists would call “transitional,” and all this mutating from species to species is largely based on ‘circumstantial’ evidence. “These creatures are kind of like those creatures…and they lived kind of around the same time. The older one evolved into the younger one over xx million (or 100 thousand, or even thousand) years.” I cannot claim to be a physics expert because I read 10 random lines from a bunch of textbooks.
            I just don’t get it.

          • SDA

            I mean it in a 99.9% kinda way just as any good scientist would. There is no reason to treat the creationist hypotheses with the same weight as a scientific theory. Creationism is about faith. Science is about looking at the evidence. A lot of people don’t like to hear that, but frankly, that’s more about their own insecurities about their beliefs. They want safe and intellectually lazy open and shut cases. Static and un-changing.

            I think you really mistake the way the scientific method works. It makes observations, forms hypotheses, and tests them. A theory is ever-changing because it’s always being refined. When Darwin proposed it, it was a hypothesis that was tested, and tested, and tested. It has been refined for over 150 years now. There is no correlation between how long a theory has been tested, and the amount of time that the theory creates a history framework for.

            The transitional fossil always seems to come up. Paleoanthropology postulates that H. heidelbergensis is our direct ancestor. How does this not fit the criteria for a transitional fossil?

          • NadaLiar

            Fossils are somewhat rare. Transitional fossils far more rare. The time required to test changes to new species is far more than 150 years. There are tons of different “dogs,” and a huge explosion of such types in the last 300-400 years by selective breeding. But do such changes lead to new species (or the oft-hated “type”) of animals? We share a great deal of DNA similarity to, well, just about anything actually. But does that mean we evolved from it, or it’s just the same building blocks? If DNA was radically different would we be having this same conversion over the fact that we have the same elements and compounds as other life? I’m not a scientist, but I’ve looked up what the scientific method is instead of just relying on school from 35 years ago. And if a theory says things change from species to species, we should see some of that on a large scale. Bacterial “evolution” still gives us either somewhat different bacteria or bacteria that revert back to their original form in 20-30 generations (sometimes both). That’s NOT proof of evolution, at least not macro evolution. (got no problem with so-called micro evolution here-that’s just variations within a kind, IMO).

            My first google search of “define scientific theory” says:

            a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

            OK, systematic observation, experimentation, formulation, testing, modification of hypotheses – check – for about 150 years. Note I didn’t say much about “measurement” because ToE cannot be so measured. Bing search for “define evolution” gives:

            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.
            The “history of the earth?” Who has that kind of time! During the past “150 years” have we measured anything changing from one kind to another? I admit there are a few things that (I accept) poke a holes in my theory that ToE is garbage, but not many. I think that the many that hold water far outweigh the few that poke holes. My 2 cents. (and sorry so long)

          • SDA

            Observation actually references looking at the evidence. It’s the first step before you create a hypothesis. A hypothesis is essentially a model that you’re creating. Just like Michaelangelo’s reference to the statue already inside the marble, you chip away.

            The hypothesis was made 150 years ago, and it has been repeatedly tested and scrutinized. That’s why it’s not called Darwinism. Because he just created the original framework. The world of subsequent scientists refined it. That’s the beauty of science. It doesn’t confirm, but disconfirms.

            Re: age of the earth. Radiometric dating and geologic stratification. You don’t need to sit and wait half a million years to watch evolution take place. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same process. They’re just examining evolution at different timescales.

          • NadaLiar

            A few clarifications: I believe in creation, but I am not a “Creationist.” I don’t buy the 6,000 year old earth or the “creative days” in the Bible to mean 6 literal 24-hour days. Michelangelo’s work was a creative work or art, he envisioned it and created it.
            Science only “disconfirms” by proving something else. (hypothesis: this liquid is water. testing: hmm, specific gravity is 1.2. hypostasis: this liquid is either water mixed with something else, or something else entirely. more testing…)
            Ah, the big rub. My neck turns 20 degrees to the left and the right. My neck turns 45 degrees both ways. My neck must turn all the way around! Well, that’s easy to test, and doesn’t take long at all. Fun fact: Microevolution (changes within a species) was spoken of indirectly in the bible when a guy was told by his father-in-law he got sheep of one color. Then when those got plentiful, father-in-law change switched. Guy bred them differently, still got more. Got no issue with that. But to say: Microevolution and macroevolution are the same process…you need to EXAMIME them at different timescales (your words), then you DO NEED to wait a half a million years. If I stopped on my neck example, you’d better give me the same amount of weight to that theory. I’ll just test it a little less and call it good. Even though that would make my arguments ‘go away.’ *grin* Or maybe just make you want to wring my neck. EDIT: back to Michelangelo, was ToE envisioned and created and a work of art?
            Enjoyed chatting, perhaps more on another day. (tired and late)

          • SDA

            Science doesn’t prove anything. It only disproves. That’s how it works. You make a hypothesis, then you go about trying to prove it wrong. If you do, then the hypothesis is thrown away. Evolution was a hypothesis 150 years ago. Today it is a full-blown scientific theory, and we disrespect our heritage if we don’t understand how we got here. We don’t need stories. We need practical answers and to understand what’s going on deep in our evolutionary psychology.

            I didn’t say you need to examine at different timescales. I said that they are the same process, but at different timescales. That being said, speciation has been observed. Speciation, itself, has multiple meanings because a species is simply the name of a concept which is consistently revised. There’s a grey area between speciation events because that’s how it works. Populations shift their genetic make up if there is selective pressure to do so.

          • NadaLiar

            Yes, you didn’t say you need to examine at different timescales. You said they are the same process (at different timescales). And like my simplified example of neck joint flexibility, I can’t stop at 20 and 45 degrees and then just assume I can turn my neck all the way around. You state micro and macro are the “same process.” Well, turning my neck 20, 45 and 360 degrees are also the “same process,” there’s just a (small) time difference between each. And death. So if you’re going to say they are same across the board, you need to test it all across the board. On a side note, I agree speciation is a “grey area,” which adds to my point. Might selective pressure shift genetic make up and lead to both white & black rabbits? Yep, tested, seen, no biggie. Can or do genetic shifts lead to pikas or maybe other rodents? Dunno, test it and see. You’re going to be waiting a while. YET – those are the “closest (evolutionary) relatives to rabbits/hares” per a website I just looked up.
            Night, will try to reply another day if more. But I will try to find out what the heck a pika is before logging…

          • SDA

            No, I didn’t say they “need to examine at different timescales”. I said they’re the same process of evolution, and one is explaining what is happening at the micro end, while the other is explaining the macro-end. They’re both equally testable using different methods. Speciation in the area between the micro and the macro, and technically lies on the macro end.

            The neck example is not helping your argument. Speciation is a grey area because a species isn’t an objectively real thing. It’s an arbitrary name of an animal population that only breeds with other members of that population

          • NadaLiar

            The “your words” comment I wrote (2 posts ago) was just the “different timescale” part. Sorry for the confusion, which I thought I had cleared up when I *agreed* with you (last post) that you DIDN’T say we needed to examine at different timescales. I’m saying that if something is happening in the short term (micro changes with a specie over 150 years) and someone says it affects things in a far grander way that what has been observed (macro changes over/across species over thousands/millions of years), then that should have also be observed and tested. That is part of scientific method.
            The neck example you didn’t like – no worries. What about the example of rabbits and pikas in my earlier post? We’ve all probably heard the example of some event separating a group of animals and over time you only have brown rabbits in the plains and only white rabbits in the upper elevations. But they’re both still rabbits. If someone wants to claim (as they do) that pikas are “evolutionary cousins” to rabbits, doesn’t proper scientific method pretty much require one to test that? THAT was what I was trying to show with my neck example. I have tested it and my neck is able to turn 45 degrees. If I extrapolate from that and claim I have 360 degree movement you’d want to see that right? OK, we have rabbits of various colors, ear length, foot type (snowshoe, etc.) and so on. No worries – all are rabbits. Evolution teaches other animals are “related” and either evolved from, evolved to, or have a common evolutionary ancestor. Anything not observable or able to be tested is usually called theoretical. But the “theory” in “theory of evolution” is NOT looked at in that way. I know speciation is a grey area – but if scientist were able to selectively breed animals over successive generations far enough away from the original animal, that would be conclusive proof. Otherwise you’re just saying “since they change a little, they change a lot.” It’s sloppy science that’s been taken as fact for quite some time, IMO.

          • SDA

            I think you’re misunderstanding the way science works. You observe a natural phenomenon, create a hypothesis, and then falsify through deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. There’s plenty of evidence to test. For example, one could look at the rates of mutation to paint the genetic picture of gene flow, or compare modern bones to H. heidelbergensis fossils in order to see a smooth transition, or perhaps simulate the evolutionary behavioural ecology through live primates, and make hypotheses that would test previous findings. A theory is a model that has been tested repeatedly, and people have been trying to disconfirm it for 150 years. Most heavily scrutinized, and passed with flying colours! Evolution is a full blown theory, and accounts for just about everything.

            You can look at groups of animals that hold certain traits and recognize the phylogeny. Genetics really sealed the deal with the modern synthesis. We used to think that evolution’s selective agent was the individual, but it’s not. It’s the gene. Genes account for a lot of our behaviour, and many of those behaviours are evolutionarily built in.

            According to what evolution actually postulates, why is H. heidelbergensis not capable of being the ancestor to our species, H. sapiens?

          • NadaLiar

            We’ve actually seen and can cause microevolution. Dog breeding is but one example. Selective breeding or random chance, genetic changes over time have been actually observed and performed (as opposed to speculated or theorized), as has been well established on many occasions.

            Macroevolution (defined as “evolutionary change at the specie level or higher”) has not been observed to produce something clearly different, such as a new species or new genera. Sure, it’s been speculated, theorized and even taken as fact that it happens by the majority of scientists – but I know of none who have actually done this. Your final question shows this type of thinking: by asking “why is H. heidelbergensis not capable of being the ancestor to our species, H. sapiens?” Questioning is the FIRST step of Scientific Method, not the last. And you preface that question with “according to what evolution actually postulates,” showing your question is asked from the basis of “truth.” In terms of using the same type of logic, what’s different from your final question and a believer asking: “According to what the Bible says, why is God not capable of creating all species separately?

            Perhaps you can see why I question macroevolution, but accept microevolution. Way back someone (Darwin and others) questioned if species can change over time. They researched existing species, tested and observed the results that species change over time – observed and tested. But big dogs, little dogs, fat dogs, long haired dogs, hairless dogs – are all still dogs. Conclusion: YES, species change over time. But how did different species come to be?

            Then scientists asked “can these small changes lead to changes to new species and genera?” They researched fossils, carbon-dated evidence, compiled time lines and created hypothesis. But sadly, that previous testing and observation of results step wasn’t done – they just accepted that the answer must be “yes.” You know, because small changes within species “have” to mean it works to a greater degree across species and genera. Just like my neck turns a little, it has to turn a lot, right?

            Change some animals to new animals of a different specie (or better yet to a different genera) through breeding and actually TEST that theory. Complete all steps of the Scientific Method. (Hoping you READ this and don’t just skim over it)

          • SDA

            I think you’re mistaking what these taxonomic names actually mean. There’s no one specific characteristic that defines genus, and species has multiple meanings because you’re describing the shift in genes. Speciation has been witnessed in plants, and even in the Faroe Island mouse which evolved from the house mouse because we introduced the species.

            Also, there seems to be this silly stubbornness among creationists in wanting to see “kinds” change, which is what I think you guys mean by genus or order. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same concept. Genes change. You can’t believe in one and disbelieve in the other because they come as a single concept. The shift in populations is well-documented.

            I always ask this, but never seem to get an answer. Based on what we have postulated in paleoanthropology, what reasons do you have to doubt that H. heidelbergensis evolved into us (H. sapiens)?

          • Michael McElroy

            During the past “150 years” have we measured anything changing from one kind to another?

            “Kind” isn’t even a thing. Creationists can’t define it in a way that is even remotely consistent across all life.

          • Scooter

            Excellent points! Its encouraging to read how you’ve moved from the fantasy world of macro evolution to the reality of God and His world.

          • wandakate

            When I died back in April of 2001 in a hospital during a test, the hospital personnel had no idea why I lived again. Even the cardiologist didn’t know. I flat lined for 2 minutes and they actually didn’t expect me to live after that as no one ever had before me in that particular hospital in Florida.
            Here it is 15 years later and I’m still here ticking away. Science had NOTHING at all to do with any of it. Only GOD gives life and only GOD takes it away (at His will). I am now very grateful/thankful for each and every day that He gives me the “breath of life”. PTL. Yes, He made it all, did it all, and did it good and He’s got it all taken care of according to His plan and not the plans of the politicians, or the pastors, or the scientist or anybody else, just His own plan to bring it all to a close. It’s called the end of the age and we’re just about there.

          • happylada

            Ditto A man with an experience is NEVER at the mercy of a man with an ever-changing argument.

          • happylada

            OK – then explain HOW you can have a 80 million years old fossil that STILL contains active C14 (max age 60,000 RCY) and soft tissue (max age 200,000Y) with degraded DNA (half life 570 years)? YOUR myth is like a bowl of spaghetti – ever theory contradicts every other theory. The ONLY place these theories converge is “”GOD didn’t do it”

            GOULD had it right when he stated, along with Eldridge and Patterson that there ARE NO intermediate or transitional fossils.

            His claim was unique and based on circular logic: because there was NO evidence for any transitional fossils and because evolution was true, then the total lack of evidence PROVED his Punctuated Equilibrium theory was correct. Hilarious . . .

            And us who actually UNDERSTAND evolution laugh ourselves silly at the arrogance . . .

          • SDA

            That’s hilarious. You’re quite the spindoctor, but when you’re peddling BS, it’s pretty easy for someone who actually know what they’re talking about to spot. You claim to understand how evolution works, yet you’re repeating the same fallacious arguments that most creationists do. I’ll give you credit, though. At least you’re not blanking when someone mentions half these terms. Just exhibiting severe intellectual dishonesty. Or flat-out ignorance. Take your pick. What’s next? Behe?

            And just for your information, Gould and Edridge never said that. These has been widely quote mined and taken out of context. He pointed out that the reason why creationists don’t buy into evolution is because their prime truth contradicts it. If your starting point is a fundamentalist view of the world, then any conflicting information must be wrong by definition. Also, the term “intermediate” suggests that evolution has a direction. It most certainly does not, though! If you understood evolution like you actually think that you, you would also know this.

            Let’s start with the human lineage to make it simple. Tell me, how does H. heidelbergensis not fit the criteria of a “transitional fossil”?

          • NadaLiar

            “Disconfirming” would be proving something ‘is not (correct)’ right?
            Just as others cannot “disprove” the existence of God, one cannot “disprove” ToE (theory of evolution). In both cases you would have to objectively prove what is though to be God as being something other than God…and the other case, prove that components of ToE (which aren’t agreed upon by evolutionists themselves) to be incorrect. Since God cannot be physically seen (as most understand it) a/o in another dimension (heaven, spirit realm, etc.), that’s out. And since evolution involves viewing something for potentially millions of years that’s out too.

          • SDA

            Your definition is correct, but your view of pursuing truth isn’t. The demarcation line of science is falsifiability. One can gather a pretty good view of what’s going on using the scientific method. You can’t directly prove anything, so, cognitively, you need to use inference. Science is about eliminating possible explanations. If evidence had surfaced that had proved the theory flat out wrong, then it would have been used right now. The whole definition of a scientific theory is that it’s the gestalt of individual smaller pieces of evidence that have been repeatedly tested. Science changes, and as disconfirmation continues to occur.

            Most evolutionary biologists don’t disagree on the core concept of evolution. They disagree on how certain mechanisms work. No one doubts evolution because it’s ultimately an umbrella term for a collection of independent studies that point to an evolved history of events.

          • wandakate

            Getstryker you know what…you can never fix stupid, no matter how hard you try. I wasn’t born yesterday either, and I’ve been studying all of it for give or take about 17 years now.
            EVOLUTION IS FALSE, A MAN MADE THEORY, and as you said they will tell you anything to keep the funding coming in. Our politicians do the same. Tell them whatever they wanna hear, and just show me the money…

          • wandakate

            The scientist aren’t GOD. They didn’t make GOD. GOD was and it was He who created them, not the other way around. Without the breath of life, there is no life. When one is born GOD breaths the breath of life into that human being and they become a living soul. When we die GOD removes our breath and we cease to exist. We can’t visually see GOD, b/c GOD is like the wind. We don’t see the wind either but we know it’s windy outside, we feel the wind, and such as it is with GOD, we don’t “SEE” Him, however we do know that he is there nonetheless, as He is there sure as this world, just like the wind.
            SO, it’s GOD that gives, and GOD that takes away, nothing more, nothing less, all the rest is minuscule.

          • SDA

            Your deity has nothing to do with evolution.

          • getstryker

            Now, there ya go . . . now you’re getting it. NO, God has nothing to do with evolution – by His own Word – HE spoke it all into existence. How do I KNOW that? Because on the first page and the first sentence of His Book – it says: “In the beginning God . . . ” After years of looking at what ‘scientists’ speculate, guess and imagine happened to cause ‘everything from nothing’ – I have no trouble believing that The Almighty God of the Bible did it, He did it good, He like it and I like it. As I have said before – believe what you will. Time will tell.

          • SDA

            I’ve gotten it all along. You’re the one trying to deny history and science, remember? Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life.

          • getstryker

            Yeah, I’ve heard all that BS before too. Evolution can explain everything the moment after the supposed ‘Big Bang’ but NOT the ‘Big Bang’ itself . . . hummmmmmmm. If ‘evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life’ then explain: You have to ‘evolve’ from something – Where did ‘LIFE” itself come from?

          • happylada

            False again. You cannot build without a foundation. YOU cannot evolve if you do NOT exist.

            The false concept of separating evolution from abiogenesis is a fools errand. Assuming you are right, then you STILL have to have GOD and intelligent design to form the FIRST life. And IF that incredibly complex unit can be spoken into existence, the rest of creation is a snap.

            Of course, you could join Nye, Crick and Dawkins is assuming that we were planted here by aliens – but that is the level of ignorance and imagination necessary to be an evolutionist.

            Evolution is blind irrational faith in pixie dust and pink unicorns, NOT science.

          • SDA

            One of us is false, but it’s not me.

            Evolution is descent with modification. Full stop. It has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Whether life was created by aliens, a deity, or abiogenesis, evolution would happen all the same. If you’re unable to understand that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate theories, that’s your limitation, not mine.

          • Michael McElroy

            Evolution is blind irrational faith in pixie dust and pink unicorns, NOT science.

            Instead, let’s go with the book with dragons and talking donkeys.

          • HelenaConstantine

            Speaking something into existence is a spell. Magic is not real.

          • getstryker

            And God said: “Let there be . . . ” and all Creation happened. Jesus ‘healed and cast out demons’ with a spoken word, Those are examples of ‘miracles’.
            So-called ‘magic’ as ‘sleight-of-hand entertainment’ and in the various darker forms of witchcraft, sorcery, etc., is also called ‘magic’.

            Magic and miracles differ in their SOURCE: magic has either a human or demonic source, but miracles are a supernatural work of God.
            No one expects you to believe either definition or in either source but they are both quite real!

          • happylada

            Exactly right- He doesn’t need it. Hence, and based on ALL available scientific evidence, evolution has never occurred, never been observed and cannot be tested or measured – it is NOT scientific.

          • SDA

            How has it not been tested or measured? You know, other than the last 150 years?

          • NadaLiar

            Actually, many see a direct opposition between evolution (as well as the separate subject: the beginning of life) and “deity.” Obviously if God created the various species, they didn’t evolve…just as obvious, if various species evolved from the first living thing(s), then they weren’t created. Just a friendly FYI.

          • SDA

            The difference, of course, is the legitimacy of the claim.

          • NadaLiar

            Simply stating how a believer could feel belief in evolution to be at odds with a belief in a deity. (that being said, I do know some who believe God “used” evolution to being about other species, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here)

          • SDA

            The story given in the bible is just that. A story. Well, a collection of stories. They’re not literal. They’re allegory for cultural interpretations with the limited information they had available to them at the time. If you limit your deity’s ability to create the natural laws which allow evolution to happen, then your deity is not all-powerful. These are moral books from thousands of years ago. They had no idea of what would be in the mind of a deity, and neither does anyone today.

            Come on. You can’t compare. It’s insulting to even think that anyone would actually be able to communicate with a supernatural being and take all that historical revisionism, and then make a bold claim which leads to a personality cult. You want us to honestly buy into stories about ghosts and goblins? If your belief is in evolution, which it should be, you respect the deity that gave you life to have had a plan for you all along. A personalized plan doesn’t necessarily mean a personal relationship.

            Realize that those characters are the result of the mind’s tendency to personify emotions, vices, virtues, perfection, etc. It was a guide for morality. And it laid the foundation for a lot of modern socialism by trying to hybrid between the religion and power. Christianity is interesting because it’s a hybrid between the semitic religions (Judaism, Islam) and the Indo-European religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Hellenic Religions). The saints play the same role as the old gods that personified particular portfolios. They also celebrate visual symbols like the eastern religions, whereas Islam and Judaism rely more on sound in their devotion. Christianity embraces songs and sounds too.

            None of this is real, though. It’s metaphor, which is central to how the brain forms understanding.

          • NadaLiar

            Many believe next to nothing in the Bible is literal, others that it all is. Personally, I find it amusing that so many people, places and events that were once thought fictional or allegory have since been proven real by science. The city of Ur, that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt, the person Jesus of Nazareth and so on. (on a side note, I’m fascinated with the relationship between “reality” and “faith.” “Faith,” except for some occasionally strong placebo effects, does *NOT* affect reality. *IF* there is a God, your lack of belief won’t change that. *IF* evolution is fact, my lack of belief won’t change that. Yet most people, literally, believe what they want, regardless.) Your statement about “limiting my deity’s ability to create so as to allow evolution” (paraphrased) is incorrect. He either did or He did not allow such. Our differing beliefs don’t change that. As, frankly, your statements that the Bible is allegory. Some of it is, I freely admit, but Jesus (per the Bible) believed Adam to be an actual man, and Luke wrote genealogy that included Adam. Even tho modern Jews (mostly) believe Adam was allegory, apparently that wasn’t the case about 2000 years ago. As for the moral aspects, they are still good advice, although fewer and fewer “believe” it. Almost every culture incorporates many of them: stealing, rape, murder all considered crimes. Even infidelity, while not often illegal, is grounds for a better divorce settlement. People usually see as “unfair” even when unmarried couples cheat or leave their significant other. I will grant you that no one knows, not in anything close to a “full” way, the mind of God – which the Bible also addresses more than once. Just don’t forget, the number of people whom God talked with was extremely small, far smaller I would guess than people who today feel God (or Jesus or the Devil or Allah or Zeus) has spoken to them. Yeah, assuming the Bible accurate – I agree: “come on, you think YOU were spoken to directly by God?” I believe, and I almost immediately doubt that. Even the Bible doesn’t have every Tom, Dick and Harry having a two-way conversation with the Almighty. The Bible does tell us to use “our power of reason” which seems sadly lacking in many who profess. (FYI – can’t think of any goblins mentioned in the Bible, and only 2 or 3 “supposed” ghosts, none of which were ‘confirmed’ to be so in the book. Unless you are speaking of angels or demons.)
            Also I don’t see how Christianity can have anything “hybrid” with Islam which came later. I will give you this tho: main stream Christianity adopted LOTS of bad stuff: veneration of saints, use of items in worship (idols really), many beliefs from Hellenic religions, even things that go back to ancient Babylonian beliefs. WHICH was warned about in the Greek Scriptures that “wolves” would enter the fold and teach “twisted things” to draw people to themselves. At the end of the day, evolution doesn’t pose a “threat” to me, and I don’t really see how a belief in or a belief against affects the daily life of anyone. That being said, I do think it dishonors God – but I tried to kept my arguments more on the scientific, such as I can. And as such, I really don’t think it does hold much muster particularly under the “observed” and “repeatable” parts of scientific theory. It’s a theory that covers a huge time span.

          • SDA

            I didn’t say that it was a hybrid with Islam. I said that it’s a hybrid with the semitic religions. And yes, I am speaking of angels and demons. Ghosts and goblins, spirits and demons.

            The possibility of some deity is real. The likelihood of a Christian fundamentalist view is not supported with science. It’s debunked. Believe your teachings, but you can’t expect people to buy into your belief system when the controversy has been over for a while and all the evidence points to evolution. I’ve handled fossils that were millions of years old, and I’ve done projects with live primates. I probably have more direct experience with evolution that the average person.

            The arguments that creationists throw forward may confuse someone who lacks the conceptual infrastructure of evolution when the conversation gets technical. I’ve yet to meet a creationist who has been able to provide a good disconfirmation of evolution.

          • Michael McElroy

            Personally, I find it amusing that so many people, places and events that were once thought fictional or allegory have since been proven real by science.

            Spider-Man lives in New York City. New York City exists. Therefore, Spider-Man is real.

          • NadaLiar

            I mentioned three things out of many (the existence of the ancient city of Ur, the fact that the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt and the man Jesus of Nazareth, all mentioned in the Bible) that until after 900 were often derided by scientists as fictional. It’s not circular thinking Michael. Aside from any perceived spiritual value people may or may not have in the Bible, it actually has some historical value of which many are unaware.

          • HelenaConstantine

            You could start by finding out what life means. Its very clear you don’t know that now.

          • happylada

            YOU are simply lying.

            “Change over Time” is a scientific fact – BUT it ALL goes in the wrong direction. AS even Secular scientist note, HOW has life lasted this long with our incredible entropy rates? This has been common knowledge for 20 years, yet totally ignored for it eliminates ANY possibility of evolution.

            YOUR claim is purely a blind-faith religious belief. IT is neither scientific NOR factual.

            Kondrashov, A., Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology 175:583–594, 1995.

          • SDA

            How does this argument from incredulity disconfirm evolution?

          • HelenaConstantine

            So the real reason you taunt people better educated than yourself is that you’ve never received the testimony on the holy spirit in your heart and you desperately want to make a pretense to yourself that you have, am I understanding that correctly?

            You can ease up on yourself a little. god has never spoken to anyone, and the people who told you he has were lying to you just the way you’re lying to yourself.

          • getstryker

            Hahahaha – You can try to ‘push my buttons’ all day long but it will not do you any good . . . I know who I am in Christ, nothing you say is going to change that and the overt manifestation of your own ignorance at the moment is a ‘place’ I shared with you years ago. Perhaps someday, you’ll get it figured out as I did.

          • HelenaConstantine

            You obviously don’t care to examine any evidence or arguments, which does not reflect well on your intellectualism or your truthfulness. I bet you look good in your mascara, though.

          • getstryker

            Nooooo, over the years I’ve seen an awful lot of what your have to offer . . . it took a while to convince myself that evolution is a collection of ‘coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, we think with a definite maybe’ thrown in to really give it all that air of scientific authority – evolution is a joke – there is no credible evidence, no transitional fossils, many are proven fakes and you think that I would return to considering that ‘mess’ because you make a stupid crack about ‘mascara?’ Not a chance cupcake. I found the ‘truth’ in Christ – maybe you’ll find it too.

          • happylada

            NOTB reliable sources? Really? the most concentrated PhD think tanks in the world are NOT reliable?

            Compared to the deliberate FRAUDS perpetrated by the evolutionary crown since Hutton/Lyell and numbering in the thousands perhaps right up to the recent admission by BOTH Thweissen and Gingrich that their whale evolution is totally bogus, Evos have lied and decieved their way for almost 2 centuries.

            What have any of these Creationist sites EVER done that was a deliberate fraud?

            NOTHING!!

            Yet the Bible is STILL far ahead of science.

            Bible: millions of stars. Science – a couple thousand til 1700’s

            Bible: Life ONLY reproduces after its Kind Science – LAW of biogenesis

            Bible: Expanding universe Science steady state universe til ’66

            Bible: quarantine and handwashing in medical situations Science – fired and disgraced doctor for washing his hands between patients.

            This comparison list is LONG.

            IT makes the Bible look like a textbook and the evos as buffoons.

          • Seen From Space

            It’s science that has made possible the device and network that allows you to read this page. Also that may have prolonged your life by medical intervention. Hand washing?? WHAT has this to do with the validity of common descent by natural selection? Who is it that exposes cases of science fraud? Correct! Scientists. Do you have any idea how many independent scientific disciplines you must ignore to be a YEC. Google it. How is a global conspiracy on this scale to be maintained? Life is just not like that.

            These think tanks daily try to scam all of us with crass misrepresentations of what science tells us. Anyone with a working knowledge of these fields knows there is SO much they’re not telling you. As with all pseudoscience, it’s vital to ignore most of what is already known. If they were on to something, and the data really DOES show the universe began 6000 years ago, couldn’t you expect that they would have used their vast funds and published a good body of research? They don’t even submit such work as they do for peer review. YEC cosmology and Intelligent Design have had zero impact on the way the world is studied.

            If you think this constitutes valid scientific practice, you need to investigate how science actually works. The reality for proper disciplined researchers is a scrabble for meagre funds and constant pressure to publish. The lazy controversialists at the DI, ICR et al are swilling in money, publish only on their own websites or self finance book printing, and are paid to invent “problems” with the genuine work of others.

          • jacuzzi37

            Scientism is severely limited and a pathetic tool to discern true reality, because it’s creator (mankind) is pathetically weak. Science can’t even answer the questions of a child. Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? Science does not define the limits of rationality. Rationality is larger than science. God is not the God of the gaps, but the God of the whole show. Let me educate you. Science is on the side of Christianity period. But science is very limited and is not the end all be all panacea you believe. Science cannot tell us what gravity is. Science can’t tell us what energy is. Science can’t ell us about love or human emotions. Science can’t tell us what beauty is. Science has nothing to say about the metaphysical or the supernatural. Science can’t tell you about “the origin of life.” Science can’t tell you where the intelligence came from, that designed/created the information we find in DNA. If all you have is the scientific method to save you, you’re headed for certain doom.

          • Seen From Space

            Thank you. I’m aware of the philosophical limitations of science. You’re overstating its technical limitations rather severely, but space precludes full explanation here. I don’t remember saying that I was not a Christian, so your assumption that ALL I have is scientism and methodology is unwarranted. You are clearly a thoughtful person, so why do you advocate pseudoscience?

          • jacuzzi37

            Be careful of something I call “bonehead science,” which is that purposeless mindless cold dead chemicals/forces/laws thought to themselves and then incrementally ascertained all needs, fixes, changes, goals, pursuits, questions and answers while developing a detailed specific creative thought out plan to create time/space/matter/energy all at the same moment and the diversity of “all life” later, while also providing the first “life” “The Spark of Life,” then food, water, oxygen, sunlight, sun block lotion, temperature adaptability, predator protection, a girlfriend and searched and finally found and accepted the planet earth to place it all on. Then they followed this specific thought out plan and created all things in perfect arranged planned order by “accident” from “nothing” to do nothing. And this purposeless thing became an atheist and pointed out that although it seemed like God was the brilliant divine bio-engineer and the creator of all these things – he wasn’t. LOL

          • Seen From Space

            No idea what you’re talking about now.

          • jacuzzi37

            English not your first language or you’re overwhelmed with my irrefutable facts?

          • Seen From Space

            Purposeless, accidental, atheist, nothing, sun block lotion… not with on any of that, sorry.

          • NadaLiar

            I don’t know happylada, but for the record just because someone doubts (or even outright refutes) ToE – that does not make them a YEC (young earth creationist). Further, an accurate reading of the Bible itself *should* nip that in the bud. The word translated as “day” (as in the bible book of Genesis) applies to both the creative “days” as well as the whole creative “week.”
            Gen 2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,”
            Note that says in “the DAY” talking about the whole span of creation. Sorry for rant – big pet peeve.
            Main point: there is bad science and bad religion out there. Use your reason.

          • Michael McElroy

            Literally none of those things are in the bible.

          • Bob Johnson

            It looks like his answer to Seen From Space, (see below), is that it will be a waste of your time as all getstrker wants to do is scoff.

          • happylada

            Morons scoff. Intelligent people debate.

        • HelenaConstantine

          Sexual reproduction evolved once in a very primitive organism (ancestral to both all plants and animals). All organisms descended from that last common ancestor reproduc sexually. Why would it need to develop over again in each new species? The advantage of sexual reproduction is obvious in increasing variation (before that organisms reproduced by division or cloning). The mechanics of how it first developed are not fully understood. There are several hypothesis including some sort of parasitism.

          You really could hardly have made yourself look more foolish (unless possibly if you had claimed science has no explanation for the tides).

          • getstryker

            Oh yeah, that explains it . . .and I’m the ‘foolish one’. Next you’ll tell me that ‘a ‘teacher will need two condoms’ for the banana demonstration in sex-ed class’ Hahahaha – keep drink’n the Kool-Aid sister ;-))

      • Robert

        Obviously after the fall into sin of adam and eve .flesh gives birth to flesh as the bible stated. We are our parents fault not Gods.

        • axelbeingcivil

          And you resolve this against hard determinism how?

    • wandakate

      I’ve always known that evolution was FALSE!!! People that believe that don’t want to believe in GOD, so that is their fairy tale story…

      • SDA

        And yet, there’s no shortage of people who are religious and accept evolution as a biological fact…

  • Seen From Space

    So where’s Axe’s peer reviewed paper on this? In fact what has the Biologic Institute to show for the lavish funding it gets from the Discovery Institute by way of peer reviewed literature? (A funding situation starkly different from the austere and bureaucratic regime that funds REAL research by REAL, properly disciplined scientists.) ID is touted as the great new paradigm in biology, so couldn’t we expect some big breakthroughs by now? In fact all ID has achieved is to give creationism some technical sounding language with which to dismiss evolution. It’s had absolutely zero effect on the way biology is studied. And that’s not because it’s unorthodox, it’s because it’s sloppy science and doesn’t withstand much expert scrutiny at all.

  • Reason2012

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

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

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

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

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

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

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

    • TreeParty

      Check out Tiktaalik. Get back to us.
      Creationists are ignoring science, reason, and common sense. Rational people accept evolution irrespective of their religious proclivities. Just ask the pope.

      • Amos Moses

        ask a heretic if his heresy is correct …. thats rich ……….

        • TreeParty

          I see you did not check out Tiktaalik. Chicken?

      • Reason2012

        I checked out a dead fossil. What about it? I asked you to show an observation of it happening, since you claim it’s science, not reasons you believe in it.

        Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that does not happen does not make the fossil an “observation” of this made up belief that does not happen.

        Attacking people who believe in God does not change this fact.

        Belief in God has nothing to do with this fact.

        Ad hominem does not change this fact.

        The Pope being a false teacher does not change this fact.

  • Reason2012

    Human beings read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more, and:

    Our ancestors in the past were supposedly apes, so that means they are claiming populations of apes could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly reptiles before that, so that means they are claiming populations of reptiles could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly amphibians/frogs before that, so that means they are claiming populations of amphibians/frogs could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    Our ancestors were supposedly fish before that, so that means they are claiming populations of fish could eventually, over generations, learn to read, write, talk, publish books, design and fly airplanes and more if you just “give it enough time”.

    This is what they call “reality”.

    Behold the anti-science mythology of fish to mankind evolutionism.

    • TreeParty

      You seem to grasp the concept, but fail to accept its truth. If you give it enough time, mutation and natural selection can cause new species to arise. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Could it be that you have a (religiously derived) confirmation bias, and have not studied the subject sufficiently to be able to understand the multiple, converging lines of evidence for the truth of it? Just claiming that “I can’t believe this could happen” is a VERY weak argument….

      • Amos Moses

        ” If you give it enough time, mutation and natural selection can cause new species to arise.”

        sorry …….. no …… show where even one kind changed to another kind ……. no evidence of that ………. fail ……..

        • TreeParty

          Sorry, yes. Do an internet search on “transitional fossils” and you can spend a few months reading about the MYRIAD of examples of “missing links.” Ignorance is no excuse for knowledge, Amos…

          • Amos Moses

            most of the “evidence” of “transitional fossils” is there LACK of existence ……… but fine ….. lets say there are some ………. a fossil is a snapshot of an instant in time of something dead ……. we do not know what it really was ….. so stories are made up to explain it ….. the problem is not the evidence …… it is YOUR VIEW of what the evidence means …….

            We all have the exact same evidence ……….. many of those ….. who just showed up today for this story ….. surprise ……….. exclude part of the evidence ….. they are blind to it ….. and their conclusions of the evidence is askew at best ………… yours is askew …….

      • Reason2012

        If you give it enough time, mutation and natural selection can cause new species to arise. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

        If that claim was science, I wouldn’t need to “accept it”.
        Evolutionists try to claim that a made up belief that contradicts observable, repeatable, scientific fact is science if x% of scientists believe in it, which of course if it was science, you wouldn’t need to mention how many scientists believe in it:
        Objects drop to the ground: observable, repeatable, no need to “accept it” – it happens.
        Diseases spread: observable, repeatable, no need to “accept it” – it happens.
        Matter affects matter: observable, repeatable, no need to “accept it” – it happens.
        No matter how many generations go by in the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, flies remain flies, and so on for all animals: observable, repeatable, no need to “accept it” – it happens.

        But the mythology that populations of fish could ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish? It does not happen, so now we’re told to accept it anyway. anti-science belief, nothing more.

        Belief in God has nothing to do with this fact, but attacking belief in God to defend fish to mankind evolution that’s supposed to be science shows the motivation for this anti-science fish to mankind belief system.

  • Reason2012

    Science is about things that actually happen, not made up fish to mankind beliefs that do not and can only be given reasons to believe in it.
    Objects drop to the ground: observable, repeatable, no belief required.
    Diseases spread: observable, repeatable, no belief required.
    Matter affects matter: observable, repeatable, no belief required.
    No matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, bacteria remains bacteria, birds remain birds, flies remain flies, and so on for all animals: observable, repeatable, no belief required.

    But the mythology that populations of fish could ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish? anti-science belief, nothing more.

    • Jalapeno

      I think you’re missing a bit in your critical thinking about a scientific theory.

      It’s not “can we repeat it in the way that would make it easy to understand”..it’s “can we repeat it in the way that it would be EXPECTED to be repeated if it were true”.

      • Reason2012

        I disagree. It’s simply that we show what we claim happens actually happening. Not in any fancy way trying to convince people it happens when it never does.

        • Jalapeno

          It IS how you show that something is happening.

          You just need to learn to look for evidence that can actually be expected. It’d be easy to claim that no deity exists because there isn’t a signature on the bottom of each person’s foot. How would you dispute that “evidence”? After all.. That’s how it’d be expected to be verifiable, right?

        • Jalapeno

          People are not claiming that animals are constantly changing from fishes to reptiles in a time period where we could show it happening.

    • TreeParty

      You make no scientific argument all, just uninformed gut reaction. Not worth much in a scientific discussion. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Please get educated…

      • Amos Moses

        Yoo hoo ……… this is a CHRISTIAN site …… we discuss christianity here …… not the psuedo-science of evolution …………

        • TreeParty

          Tell Dr. Axe, or tell the author of this article about Axe’s book which tries to discredit, evolution….

        • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

          Amen

        • Seen From Space

          Then why does it publish science articles at all? I keep up with science news and take it from me: the origins science pieces it runs are a small fraction of the ones that come out weekly! Only when there’s a bit of hygienic propaganda from one of those filthy rich pressure groups like the DI, do they report on it. Don’t for God’s sake get all your science info from junk sources like this!

          • Amos Moses

            it published a science article from a christian worldview ……… the lies from the psuedo-science crowd come out fast and furious …… so it makes it harder to keep up with their lies ….. but they are all still lies …………

          • Seen From Space

            You don’t get it. Worldviews and all that are exactly what the scientific method exists to circumvent. You shout about lies, but that’s just sectarian rhetoric. You obviously don’t realize how scientists love to debunk one another’s work! If they spot an undeclared assumption or foul play with the data, they’re down like a ton of bricks. Who do you think it is that exposes science fraud? Creationists??

          • Amos Moses

            “Worldviews and all that are exactly what the scientific method exists to circumvent.”

            No they do not ……. everyone has a worldview ……. they believe in something ….. it changes how they view things ….. if a person says they have no worldview …….. they are either an idiot or a liar …… dont want to believe in God/Christ …… your business ……. but dont hand me the garbage you just spouted …..

          • Seen From Space

            Please try and avoid logical non sequiturs. I didn’t say everyone didn’t have a worldview. The scientific method recognizes this and operates to avoid bias, preconceptions and fraud. Also I don’t remember saying I wasn’t a Christian. Stop firing from the hip and finish your science homework. You’ve a lot of catching up to do.

          • Amos Moses

            “The scientific method recognizes this and operates to avoid bias”

            No … it does not ………… you cannot avoid bringing biases to conclusions …… especially when the A Priori conclusion is that there is no God ………… “Also I don’t remember saying I wasn’t a Christian. ” ….. and yet it is obvious from your statements that your conclusions remove Him for the evidence …………..

          • Seen From Space

            Your reasoning is completely muddled, so it’s pointless continuing. Please do your homework.

          • Amos Moses

            No …. my thinking is straight and you cannot lie to me with your fancy footwork and dancing about …… bye …. see ya …. would not want to be ya ………….

    • Seen From Space

      A fish IS an animal already. You make all the basic naive errors of someone with no real understanding of science, but still imagine you know better than professional biologists.

      • Reason2012

        Who said a fish is not an animal? I didn’t. Why be dishonest?

        Focus: please show their claim of populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish.

  • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

    Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    And that, is all we need to know, nuff said 🙂

    • TreeParty

      NOT observable. NOT repeatable. Belief required…

      • Win Mister Trump WIN WIN WIN!!

        It is the Word of God, I observe it right there in my King James Bible and I read it every day.

        • TreeParty

          “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” THAT (creation, in the beginning) is NOT observable, NOT repeatable, and requires belief since it cannot be demonstrated and there is no solid evidence for it. You CANNOT know that it is the “word of god”. You got nothin’, compared to the overwhelming evidence for evolution…

          • Amos Moses

            Same evidence for us all ……… and all you have said applies to “evolution” …… just another belief system ………..

          • TreeParty

            Explain why kangaroos and koalas only live in Australia. Can’t? Evolution can! A “belief system” based on evidence and predictive power is so preferable to a “belief system” based on bronze age myths that it isn’t even a contest, for an intelligent person.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You guys have to dig up new stuff. That’s already been debunked.

          • sangrita

            Yes. Except not at all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            At least you don’t have an avatar that looks like a werewolf.

          • Amos Moses

            Evolution does not explain it ……… your “belief” in “evolution” does ….. you have no way of reproducing the results of the rise of them …… and that nulliffies “evolution” as science …. it is not testable, repeatable or observable ………… so not science but psuedo-science and just another belief system ………

          • Seen From Space

            “testable, repeatable or observable” (I really wish I had a dollar for every time…… ) ID has yet to produce a testable hypothesis, let alone any results that we can try and repeat! Why do you not denounce ID as pseudoscience? It lacks every attribute of proper science by your own standards.

          • Amos Moses

            You are not here to promote science ….. you are here to promote gnosticism ……… you remove God from the evidence ………. that is not science ………… you disagree with ID ….. then prove them wrong with science …… but so far all you are doing is hurl insult and ad hominem attack ………

          • Jim Tully

            Neither is anything in the Bible.

          • Amos Moses

            and your evidence is …………………..

          • Jim Tully

            The burden of proof is on you, Chief. Don’t ask me to do your job for you.

          • Amos Moses

            No ……. the burden of proof is on you ….. you made the assertion it was not true ………. step up, man up ……… or shut up ……….

          • Jim Tully

            Your every argument for creationism begins with the supposition that the Bible is fact and not Mythology. So prove it.

          • Amos Moses

            No ………. the A Priori, the given, the default position here on a CHRISTIAN website …… and in case you do not know, that is where you are …………. is the PREsupposition ……….. that God exists and that scripture is correct ………. i have NOTHING to prove ……….. if it is a lie ….. then YOU prove it to be a lie ………… good luck with that ….. FAR BETTER than you have tried …….. scripture still stands ……….. they are dead ……….

          • Jim Tully

            I wish you well in your bubble.

          • Amos Moses

            Not in a bubble ……… good luck living your lie …………..

          • Jim Tully

            Over 13,000 disqus comments? You need to leave the house, pal. Good luck living your life, should you ever get one.

          • Amos Moses

            So nothing intellectual …… just turn tail and run ……. see ya … would not want to be ya …..

          • Jim Tully

            To be me would require evolution on your part and your 2,000 year instruction manual won’t allow that. I win. So long, loser. See you in the afterlife. You probably won’t have ever kissed a girl there either.

          • Amos Moses

            i used to believe in evolution …. but then i evolved … and now i think it is stupid ………..

          • Amos Moses

            YAAAAWWWWNNNN ……… oh, i am sorry …. did you have anything important to say …… no …… thought not ………….

          • SDA

            Why isn’t evolution testable? How much research have you actually done on this subject?

          • Amos Moses

            How is it in anyway testable ….. we would have to exactly replicate the conditions that existed at the supposed time ……… HOW do we do that ….. HOW do we even know the conditions with any accuracy …….. we do not ……. not testable …. not observable so not testable ……..

          • SDA

            How much research have you actually done on evolution?

          • Amos Moses

            So tell me the magic number ……….. is there one ………. i used to be an atheist …… i know all the arguments ….. i have made all the arguments on the other side ……. so tell me ….. how much is enough …….. this much ………………………………………………………………………….. or this much ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. asinine question ……………..

          • SDA

            The question, of course, was: how much research have you actually done on evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

          • Amos Moses

            How much research have you done on atheism ………. it is the sole basis of “evolution” ……………… you cannot believe scripture and God and believe in “evolution’ ……….. BEEN THERE, DONE THAT ………… atheist or agnostic … no difference ………
            Mao=evolutionist=murderer=atheist ……
            Pol Pot=evolutionist=murderer=atheist ……. Stalin=evolutionist=murderer=atheist ……

            and the list goes on and on and on …………..

            DARWIN ………

            “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

            “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”

            The creator of “evolution” was a disbeliever …….. the only way for anyone to believe evolution is to disregard scripture and God ……..

          • SDA

            So, none?

          • Amos Moses

            So none …………. you have no experience with atheism ….. as it relates to “evolution” ……….

          • SDA

            In english, please.

          • Amos Moses

            i have yet to see your CV or Bona Fides …….. you have the exact same time in service time in grade as anyone else here ……. i have looked at it for years ……… and it is all a lie ….

          • SDA

            That’s true, but then I’m not the one who is making the bold claim. Why isn’t it testable?

          • Amos Moses

            and i told you ……….

          • SDA

            And yet it’s been consistently tested for over 150 years.

          • Amos Moses

            we would have to exactly replicate the conditions that existed at the supposed time ……… HOW do we do that ….. HOW do we even know the conditions with any accuracy …….. we do not ……. not testable …. not observable so not testable …….. and no it has not …….

          • SDA

            Of course it has.

            Curious. How do you think that scientific models are tested?

          • Amos Moses

            the “theory” is all this took “thousands and millions of years” …………. how did that model get tested ……….. in 150 “years” ………. it did not ….. it can not …… not observable ….. not testable …………. and even Dawkins admits it is not observable …….. so …… of course ……. it has not …………

          • SDA

            The question, of course, was: how do you think that scientific models are tested?

          • Amos Moses

            By replicating the conditions of the the original outcome ……….. and it has not ……….. it cannot ……

          • SDA

            Wrong.

            That’s how individual experiments are tested. I asked about scientific models.

            If you’re not even getting the basics of the scientific method right, and haven’t bothered to research this topic in any great deal, then why are you pretending to have a qualified or equal opinion on this?

          • Amos Moses

            Wrong ……… you’re not even getting the basics of the scientific method right …… the theory is not testable …………..

          • SDA

            This is called projection. Evolution is fully testable, but we’re not there yet because you don’t understand how science works. The question, of course, was about models, however. How does one test a scientific model?

          • Amos Moses

            “Evolution is fully testable’

            It is not testable and it is not observable and therefore not science …….. you are delving into gnosticism not science ….. puedo-science really ………

          • SDA

            Of course it’s testable. You haven’t demonstrated yet how that is.

          • Amos Moses

            “How does one test a scientific model?”

            A scientific model is accepted as valid only after it is tested against data from the real world and the evidence supports it. Scientists have most confidence in models that are supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.

            you have no real world data points for the model of evolution ………. fail ……… it takes “millions of years” …… according to “evolutionists” ……….. how did the inanimate become animate ………… the inanimate does not “evolve” …………. fail …………..

          • SDA

            Good, you can google.

            Now, if you create a model, make a hypothesis that certain outcomes will be found under particular conditions, how is that not testing it?

          • Amos Moses

            Again ………….. how did the inanimate become animate ………… the inanimate does not “evolve” ……….. DNA in the cell is animate …….. the structures that allow it to replicate is animate ………… your model must conform to reality ………….. it does not in that respect ……..

          • SDA

            Abiogenesis is not evolution. If you had actually researched this, you’d know this is a red herring.

            That being said, the question was: if you create a model, make a hypothesis that certain outcomes will be found in a particular circumstance, then how is this not testing a hypothesis?

          • Amos Moses

            No …… no “red herring” ………. gaping hole in the idea that nothing created everything …… that the inanimate became animate through …… has to be “magic” ……. because you got nothing else …………..

          • SDA

            So, you don’t know or you do and just won’t say because it doesn’t fit the false narrative? I can’t tell which because you’re trying to change the subject to talk about a different theory.

          • ShemSilber

            Evolution is a devil’s joke on humankind, a false and contradictory belief. “Theory” is a Greek word meaning “guess,” not established truth. Evolutionists, as you will learn one way or another, have more blind faith than the most ignorant of creationists. The Master Yahushua (the same one Christians call “Lord Jesus”), who formed each one of us, regardless of our “religion” in our mothers’ wombs, will have the last laugh, and you will end up ashamed of evolution, just as surely as the sun shines on the earth. You will know eventually that the Creator is right, and we have a lot yet to learn from Him, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, omein.

          • SDA

            What’s false or contradictory about it? Specifics, please. If this were the case, it would have been disconfirmed at this point, right?

          • ShemSilber

            I submit to you (1) that there is no demonstration of how life can come from anywhere but another like living being, (2) that there can be evolution within a specie, but where has it been shown that one specie has evolved into another specie? (3) Creation demands a Creator to set it in motion, just as any manufactured work demands a manufacturer. (4) Evolution therefore is a weak-kneed excuse to deny that there is a Creator to whom we must answer, and therefore they put all the credit on accidents that just “happened” and over which no being had any control.

            Therefore evolution is your religion before which you worship, from the very Satan that you also deny exists. You are therefore that evil one’s abject slaves, and that religion requires MORE BLIND FAITH than even the most ignorant of the creationists.

            “The fool has said in his heart that there is no Elohim (Mighty One),” but “The fear of Yahuwah is the beginning of wisdom.”

            If we don’t have even that beginning of wisdom and understanding, we will swallow whole all sorts of lies and things that do not profit, says Yahuwah of armies, in the Name of the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus), who formed us all in our mothers’ wombs, omein!

          • SDA

            This is, of course, a strawman. You’re conflating abiogenesis and evolution. Two completely different theories.

            Do you know how scientific models work? They make a prediction of what will be found in nature, and then go about attempting to disconfirm it. Given the overwhelming evidence, and the 150 years of scrutiny, no one has disconfirmed this theory yet.

            Can you provide any evidence that disconfirms evolution? Just one example?

          • ShemSilber

            Certainly I know how scientific models work. They work in accordance with the principles that the Creator Yahuwah set in motion. You breathe, for example, because he breathed into you the breath of life, the same as He did for Adam and Eve.

            The theory of evolution has evolved quite a bit since the ancient times, and it’s a good deal older than 150 years, but there has been nothing to confirm it in the first place, so why would anyone have to “disconfirm” a pile of wild guesses that have not a leg to stand on? (“Did we come from scum, or did we climb from slime?” as one radio personality put it some 50 or so years ago.) It does not have the stability of a house of cards in a hurricane.

          • SDA

            If you know how scientific models work, then you should also know that science doesn’t confirm anything, but only disconfirms. Evolution isn’t a hypothesis anymore. It’s a scientific theory which means it has been backed up with testing. The theory of evolution hasn’t been around since ancient times, so this is simply false.

            I’m guessing that you can’t provide any studies that disconfirms what evolution (not the strawman that creationists create) actually postulates?

          • ShemSilber

            Maybe I should just shut up and let you remain in denial, so you can follow your blind leaders into the ditch, whatever that ditch is. You will eventually meet up with your Creator, and then you will be off your high horse, and may it be in shalom rather than in judgment, in Yahushua’s Name, omein.

          • SDA

            In other words, you don’t know enough about the topic that you’re trying to argue against. Although, that was obvious pretty quickly when you tried to conflate unrelated theories into evolutionary theory.

          • ShemSilber

            Rather, I don’t know enough about getting a blind fool to take off his blinders and look at the truth for once, for I’m just another limited mortal just like yourself, but one cannot (figuratively speaking) fittingly describe a beautiful sunset to a man who was born blind. You have to wait for the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus), your Creator, to heal your vision as he healed a man born blind, and for the first time ever he had eyes with which to see.

          • SDA

            It’s rather hypocritical that you talk about blind fools who need to take their blinders off and look at the truth. Someone who accepts what they’re told without actually critically thinking or looking at evidence is indoctrinated, and that’s the difference between you and I. I’m not so arrogant as to think that I have figured out how the universe works. You can’t really say the same.

            I really urge you to put pride aside and question the accuracy and morality of your beliefs. At a certain point, we need to grow up and accept that the world is more complex than the stories we learned as children.

          • ShemSilber

            There are no “stories” in the Scriptures, but accurate accounts of Yahuwah’s work building creation and putting life on it in a special creation that did not involve evolution.

            If you want to go along (until you learn finally learn that Isaiah 45:23 applies to you as well as anybody), that’s your beezwax. I just hope you don’t drag a lot of people with you into the ditch. Your blessing be on your own head, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, who, as I said, formed us ALL–regardless of our ethnicity or whatever–in our mothers’ wombs. Omein and so long.

          • SDA

            I don’t know what to tell you. If you’re opting for mythology over science, that’s on you. You’re not going to find many people, even among Christians, that consider scripture an accurate historical source. Hell, it’s not even a primary source.

          • ShemSilber

            As King David tells us in Psalm 111:10, “The fear of Yahuwah is the BEGINNING of wisdom…” If one does not even have that first step, it’s understandable if he has none of it.

            Without the Scriptures all else is vanity and chasing after wind. Go on chasing the wind, if you want, until in your frustration you finally come back to the source of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding that’s worth anything, the Master Yahushua, omein.

          • SDA

            Quoting mythology isn’t helping your case against evolution.

          • ShemSilber

            You have much blind faith in evolution, which is YOUR mythology. You will learn that the Scriptures are anything BUT mythology, but that there is a higher reality that we do not see with our physical eyes or perceive with our physical brains. All you have to do is wait.

            When you finally learn the truth, we will not be laughing, but shaking our heads at your foolishness, for the Master Yahushua, the one who died on ALL our behalves, has no pleasure in the death–the second and final death, that is–of the wicked, but that we all turn from our Torah violations and live. YOUR CHOICE.

          • SDA

            There’s no faith required for evolution. Faith is a belief with a lack of evidence. Science has provided a wonderful mountain of information that supports the model. It’s the most heavily scrutinized scientific concept in history, and has passed with flying colours. Follow the scientific method, and you’ll reach the same conclusions.

            It’s unfortunate that you don’t want to admit it, but I’m afraid that scripture is mythology. Arguing for a higher reality is fine, but that’s a separate argument. One is claiming that there is something bigger that we’re a part of, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption. The other is claiming that an anthology of allegorical myths, which makes claims that blatantly contradict scientific findings, is true.

          • ShemSilber

            Evolution is indeed a faith founded on quicksand; it is indeed a religion, the established church of the U.S. government. I have given up on religion, for all religion is riddled with the lies of the evil one that people call Satan the devil, who also goes about with the alias Allah, the false god of Islam.

            Our faith is founded on the evidence, including evidence that Yahuwah Almighty has worked in our lives. For me, if it were not for His intervention in my life, I would long since have gone belly-up and gone to push up daisies.

            Neither one of us is about to change the other’s mind. You don’t expect to see me at all, but I do expect to see you on the Day of Judgment before the Master Yahushua, and maybe by then your vision will have been cleared up to see truth.

            Until then, enjoy your blinders.

          • SDA

            Of course you haven’t given up religion. You’re pushing a religious view.

            I don’t need to change your mind. The validity of evolutionary theory has no correlation with whether you accept it or not. I wonder if you realize how ridiculous it’d sound if you swapped all those references with random names.

          • ShemSilber

            When you meet personally with the Master Yahushua–may it be in shalom rather than in judgment–then He will correct your false premises that have led you to false conclusions. He gives sight to all of us who were born blind to His Truth. Omein.

          • SDA

            That dissonance must be unbearable.

          • ShemSilber

            The dissonance truly IS unbearable, UNTIL one is learning to be in harmony with one’s Maker, the Master Yahushua, and then and ONLY then, all comes into harmony, omein.

          • SDA

            At least you acknowledge that you have dissonance.

          • Amos Moses

            ” then why are you pretending to have a qualified or equal opinion on this?”

            So still have not seen your CV and Bona Fides ……… so back at cha ………. and you opinion is just that …………

          • SDA

            Trying to deflect when you’re backed into a corner is a pretty common tactic for history deniers. You’re the one making the basic mistakes about evolution and the scientific method, remember? If you don’t have a basic knowledge of evolutionary, then why are you pretending as if you know more than people who do?

      • Amos Moses

        That describes “evolution” to a “T” ………….thnx ………..

      • Reason2012

        Exactly why fish to mankind evolution is anti-science. Seems you only understand what science is when it comes to beliefs besides fish to mankind evolution.

      • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

        Evolution is not repeatable and not observable, therefore you must take it on faith that it happened, it is a religion…

    • Seen From Space

      Then why bother with any kind of systematic study of nature? Your computer and this network, and medical intervention that may have prolonged your life all fall into this category. You may believe whatever you like, but don’t be scammed into thinking that science is gonna get you out of the hole of being descended from worms. Science tells us exactly this, no matter how much money and junk publications the DI likes to throw at it.

      • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

        Evolution is a religion, it takes faith to believe it because you can’t observe it and it is not re-producable.
        So then, it is FAR easier to believe that God created everything then to believe that it just appeared one day on it’s own without any external influence.

        • Jalapeno

          Everything that should be reproducible is reproducible.

          All of the evidence we have points in one direction.. No faith is required.

          • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

            DNA is a binary sequence….

            Human DNA genome encodes 4^(3 billion) = 2^(6 billion) choices, or 6
            billion bits of information. The epigenome encodes at least 2^22,500
            choices, or 22,500 bits. The total information is 6,000,022,500 bits, or
            approximately 6 Gb (gigabits).

            Now, tell me how a computer program can be created by natural selection and i will tell you that a Tornado went to a junk yard and a new cadilac was created lol

          • Jalapeno

            Computer programs are not created by natural selection.

            DNA isnt a computer, even if you translate the amount of data into computer terms.

          • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

            ok, if you say so, Genius.

            Though i’d love to watch as you argue with Jesus on judgement day, oh wait, you won’t be arguing because you will be way to busy kneeling down and confessing that Jesus IS Lord

            Romans 14:11-12
            For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
            So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

            You don’t think so? ok, we shall see…..

          • Jalapeno

            Ah yes, the old “I can’t say why you’re wrong so I’ll just tell you that you’re going to suffer for eternity for not agreeing with me”. That was quick.

          • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

            I can and do say that you are wrong, it’s not my problem that you are blind and suffering from a strong delusion, you will find out one way or another though eventually who is right and who is wrong…

          • Jalapeno

            You sure did a great job backing up your statement.

          • getstryker

            Why should Terry waste his time . . . you’re not interested anyway. What Terry said was correct and it was all that needed to be said. Whether you accept or continue to reject what Terry has told you, time will tell.

          • Jalapeno

            Oh I really was interested.

            Don’t you think people should be prepared to back up what they say?

          • getstryker

            Oh yeah, I’m sure you’re just ‘panting in anticipation’
            hahaha

          • Jalapeno

            Well, no..that would imply that I actually have expectations of getting a response.

            I’m sure you’re making yourself feel better though with some sad insults.

          • getstryker

            Interesting, your expecting a response . . . well, it’s certainly Terry’s choice – I don’t speak for him, I just expressed my personal opinion about the matter.
            And you’re right, I do feel better now that you mention it. . . . thanks ;-))

          • Jalapeno

            Hah, that’s hilarious.

            Randomly insulting people on the internet makes you feel better. Think that says quite a lot about you.

          • getstryker

            Oh, there’s nothing ‘random’ about it . . . I aimed it specifically at you. I extend the same ‘courtesy’ to others, just as you do, when I disagree with what said 😉

          • Jalapeno

            The insults were random and kinda pointless..and they somehow made you feel better about yourself.

            See, insulting people doesn’t make me feel better about myself. I wonder why that is.

          • getstryker

            Must be because you’re such a good person . . . oh wait a minute – I’ve read a myriad of your comments.

          • Jalapeno

            I don’t think you have to be a “good person” in order to not take pleasure out of insulting people.

          • getstryker

            Ok, relax . . . I’m just ‘mess’n with ya’ . . . I don’t agree with most of the comments I’ve seen you make but your opinions are just as valid to you and mine are to me. We’ll surely meet again another day and on another subject . . . till then – have a good one ;-))

          • jacuzzi37

            “I’m your huckle berry. That’s JUST my game” 😉

          • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

            Muchio Kaku said….

            “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,” says the famous scientist, reports the Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies. “Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

            Kaku
            explains that the possible reason that explains everything is the
            existence of a God, the omniscient being like he said. “To me it is
            clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were
            created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance,” adds
            Kaku.

          • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

            There is a plan, little man….

            More and more scientists are discovering what we have known for thousands of years, that GOD does exist.

          • davidreilly7

            I have no qualms with a scientist believing that God exists. I have great respect for the Evangelical Christian Geneticist Francis Collins and Catholic Biologist Kenneth Miller. These men of God fully accept evolution.

          • Jalapeno

            Hey I can post quotes too! Fancy that.

            “Before we understood science, it was natural to believe that God created the universe, but now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

            -Stephen Hawking

          • NadaLiar

            For the record, Terry didn’t say anything about an eternity of suffering…(at least not that I’ve yet seen.)
            : )

          • Jalapeno

            What exactly do you think he thinks would happen if someone DIDN’T suddenly try to lie about their beliefs to an all-knowing deity?

          • davidreilly7

            There that’s what I was waiting for. If the (incorrect) probability calculations don’t convince, bring out the stick of hell.

          • ter ber

            Still trolling the Christian websites David?
            You must deep down really miss your past.

          • davidreilly7

            Nice to hear from you Ter Ber. Actually I don’t visit too often, but try to do what I can to correct misguided thinking about evolution.

          • jacuzzi37

            Oh, I have the goods 😉 … God is proved by facts, science and logic. At the same time atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) is easily destroyed by the facts and I’ll list a few:

            Nature (Bees making honey, flowers blooming, speciation, reproduction. gravity, time/space/matter) repeats daily, every 10 secs on every street corner; while the lies of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) do not repeat period AND THEY SHOULD because atheist scientists list them as “nature.” They don’t repeat like other things of nature, because they don’t exist and never did exist.

            Since the big bang never happened, what does the evidence for the big bang point to instead? The fact that God created the Heavens from one point and expanded them (documented in his word over 3500 years ago):

            “He alone STRETCHES OUT the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.” Job 9:8.

            ” … who STRETCHES OUT the heavens like a curtain, and SPREADS THEM like a tent to live in.” – Isaiah 40:22

            “In the beginning (time [past, present, future]) God (intelligent force [Father, Son, Holy Spirit]) created (action) the heavens (space [height, width & depth]) and the earth (matter [liquid, solid, gas]).” – Genesis 1:1

            NOTHING CAN ONLY PRODUCE NOTHING. It’s impossible that purposeless mindless unguided NOTHING created EVERYTHING from NOTHING. Everything came from God. There is no other option.

            “Time” does not help evolution as “time” does not add new information to the genome (DNA) to make a life form
            NEW & BETTER.

            Any person that can create time, must be timeless. Does someone “timeless” have a beginning? No. THEREFORE God is “timeless” or eternal. He designed/created time/space/matter/energy ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

            The only option for the design/creation of the high-complexity/high function human being, is a brilliant divine God. It’s impossible that MINDLESS UNGUIDED processes (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) designed/created anything.

            God is THE ONLY ONE that has life, intelligence, morality and value to give us AND the tools (divine power & divine brilliance) to give it. LIFE, INTELLIGENCE, MORALITY AND VALUE CAN COME FROM NOBODY ELSE as God designed/created us in his image:

            Genesis 1:26.. “Then God said, “Let us (Trinity: Father, Word, Holy Spirit) make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

            Life could not of been created in stages and survived, because along w/ the ability to reproduce, life had to have all bodily systems (circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, pulmonic, digestive, skeletal, muscular, nervous, body (skin), etc., etc.) intact to survive and progress. This fact proves life was created SUDDENLY as depicted in The Book of Genesis, while at the same time destroys atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution).

          • davidreilly7

            Copy, paste, CAPS. Argument done.

            How old is the earth?

          • jacuzzi37

            My facts set you straight and I’m glad. Now you want to know how old the earth is? That’s what you’re going to hell over? Please tell me you’re going to hell over something more…………….because nobody knows how old the earth is. Study “The Gap Theory” and get back to me.

          • davidreilly7

            I used to believe the gap theory when I was a Christian. I am glad that you didn’t say 6000 years old.

            It’s 4.54 billion give or take a few million years. Lots of time for deleterious mutations to die, beneficial mutations to survive and small incremental changes over millions of years become big changes.

          • jacuzzi37

            No, it’s not. No dating method works for that span of time; thus, nobody knows. And there’s no such thing as a “beneficial mutation.” At the heart of the evolution is the assumption that mutations produce more advanced traits or characteristics. However, all geneticists admit that this requires new information. And the blueprint for a living organism is locked inside its DNA. For cells to develop and organs to form, this detailed information is required. For different types of cells to appear, new information is needed—the blueprint must be expanded. Evolutionists understand this. To explain the infusion of new information, they have put their hopes in mutations—random shifts within genes or chromosomes that produce new, inheritable traits. But mutations are only the product of the intial genome and cannot bring in the required “new information” for evolution to be true. You simply cannot “pull two aces out of thin air” to win the game. You are dealt one hand and that hand contains all the cards you can play. That’s why a frog can’t evolve into a squirrel, because it only has the DNA of a frog, understand?

          • This style ten and six

            As a matter of fact you won’t see because when you are dead you will be dead and you consciousness will cease. Your body will rot or be turned into a jar of ashes. The only thing left of you will be in the memories of your family and friends so live a good life and be kind to your fellows.

          • NadaLiar

            Well spoken. An interesting side note: your statements mirror some lesser known passages in the Bible. Two come to mind about “your consciousness will cease” and are found at Psalms 146:4 “thoughts perish” at death; and Ecclesiastes 9:5 “dead know not anything.”
            Never did really understand the whole “immortal soul” thing, except as a fear of no longer existing. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe In the resurrection spoken of in the Bible, but in the meantime (Biblically speaking) you are out cold, no thoughts, no emotions, no nothing.

          • Jim Tully

            You are so arrogant.

          • getstryker

            Not arrogant . . . truthful! (whether you accept it or not)

          • SDA

            Nothing truthful in that statement of his. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

          • getstryker

            Are we speaking of the same statement?

            Terry stated: “More and more scientists are discovering what we have known for thousands of years, that GOD does exist.”
            I see nothing inaccurate about that statement and I certainly agree with it. .

          • SDA

            Actually, I was referring to his other comment about evolution. But this works too. Which scientists have discovered a deity, and why isn’t this world news?

          • getstryker

            You’re certainly welcome to investigate that mystery for yourself . . . as far as the ‘world news’ aspect . . REALLY?

          • SDA

            Just so we’re clear on this, you’re saying that science has discovered a supernatural being, you won’t reference who these scientists who have proven this are, and you think it’s ridiculous to ask why it’s not global news?

          • getstryker

            Science hasn’t discovered anything ‘spiritual’ – it’s NOT looking for it.

            If you want to know scientists that have rejected evolution – look it up, I don’t do your research for you.

            The ‘world news’ can’t even tell the truth about Hillary Clinton . . . you really expect to hear anything good about God??? . . . REALLY

          • SDA

            Is that a yes or no? I couldn’t tell.

          • getstryker

            Hummmm . . . give your buddy Saul a call and ask him

          • SDA

            I guess that’s a yes. Back to your conspiracy theories, I guess.

          • NadaLiar

            Are you seriously asking this question?? Darwin didn’t “discover” a big rock that said “EVOLUTION” on it, did he? But I don’t think anyone would have a fit if someone said “I’ve discovered what Darwin knew all along: the theory of evolution is fact.’ Besides, REREAD what he wrote and apply English skills to it. Statement in question: “More and more scientists are discovering what we have known for thousands of years, that GOD does exist.”
            OK, scientists are “discovering” what? Not “GOD,” but the phrase “that GOD does exist.” So they are “discovering” what the writers (presumably believers in God) already believe. Not finding the existence of God in a physical or measurable manner.

          • NadaLiar

            Big difference between “discover” and “believe.” And I’m about 98% sure that the scientists ‘discovering what we have known’ means, not that they have been able to quantify God by direct observation, but “discovered” in the sense of “found religion.”

          • sangrita

            That comes across like a paranoid revenge fantasy, you do see that don’t you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So like are you going to come up with a werewolf picture for your avatar too?

          • sangrita

            Is that supposed to mean something to me?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Perhaps it did go *whoosh!* over your head. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Well, we weren’t discussing avatars nor werewolves, there’s no reason for you to bring either one up. Hope you’re having fun amusing yourself but your words are irrelevant to everyone else reading this, myself included.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You can’t speak for others on the board (unless we’re discussing your alts). 🙂

          • sangrita

            Haven’t got any. You’re welcome to disprove me, but I know you can’t, because I haven’t got any.

          • TreeParty

            Guest: your words are IRRELEVANT concerning avatars, werewolves, etc. How about you learn something about evolution before spouting off about whereof you know nothing….

          • jacuzzi37

            Evolution? You gotta be kidding. A better name for the farce is “Evo-Garbage.” Anybody that believes things improve automatically, without intelligent input, needs a drastic amount of mental help 😉 How many things have to go right for a car to function? Thousands? AND ALL THE PARTS ARE BY INTELLIGENCE. And all “life” is far more complex than a car 😉 AND it only takes ONE THING to go wrong, for that car to not function… like not having the key 😉 Evolution is a mindless unguided process, so unless you can point out an intelligent agent in evolution, you have less-than-nothing 😉

            Science is something that is testable, measurable and observable. Evolution is NONE of these 🙂 Evolution is in the mind of the atheist and the atheist simply thinks it happens and desires that it happens via their Godless desperation 😉

            If MINDLESS evolution is such a genius, why is it that 99% of all animals are extinct? Why, like other Godless desperation such as big bang and abiogenesis, is it not observed? THIS JUST IN! Not only does purposeless mindless evolution not exist, but it is impossible. There is no mind, power, purpose or ability in the model of evolution. There is no creator for it. You don’t have a mind, power, purpose or ability to start it. You don’t have it to progress it forward. And you don’t have it to maintain what it supposedly created. There is absolutely no ENTITY OR ATTRIBUTE in the model of evolution that would allow anything but total dysfunction & failure; therefore, evolution is a farce, it’s impossible & it has no tools to even do the job you claim it does. Yet millions are brainwashed by the atheist anti-God liars that promulgate this lie of evolution, which is part of the doctrine of demons (atheism, evolution, abiogenesis) that will literally take millions to hell. On top of that, you are telling me you are certain of evolution, when it’s SOMETHING YOU HAVE PERSONALLY NEVER SEEN!! Therefore, ALL YOU PROVE HERE is that you are totally gullible to false propaganda. Evolution is a purposeless mindless unguided process, which makes it impossible to do anything. If you don’t believe me, jerk out your brain and make me a ham sandwich. Let’s see how far you get. Go ahead and tell me that the human being came from a rock by purposeless mindless unguided processes. Let’s see just how ridiculous you can be, due to your Godless desperation. Every so often the atheist sect throws out a new FRAUD for atheism, so they can convert the latest generation to the lie of evolution. Keep in mind: a newly discovered extinct species does not prove a “missing link” has been found. Evolution is more than dangerous, as creation necessitates a creator and like it or not, a living, intelligent, moral God of absolute worth is the ONLY option for creating time/space/matter/energy ALL AT THE SAME TIME, the universe and the 8.7 million species of life within and ALSO a living, intelligent, moral human being of value as God created us in his image/likeness:
            “Then God said, “Let us (Father, Word & Holy Spirit) make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” – Gen 1:26

            “Faith convinces us that God created the world by his command. This means what can be seen was made by something that could not be seen (God).” – Hebrews 11:3

            Science declares that neither Chaos (big bang) nor stagnant material over time (evolution) can create systematic design; only your fairytale religion declares otherwise.

            Evolution is a stupid & dangerous theory. Nothing we observe in the world or the universe comes about by chance. Everything is designed/created by intelligence, whether it be by life here or by the innate intelligence placed in nature by God. By your logic, houses, buildings and cars should all intelligently create themselves because you think helium and hydrogen & non living matter created living matter, when it didn’t exist to create itself in the first place. Evolution, big bang, abiogenesis – all just a mantra you foolish people live by to escape the inevitable judgement from our divine creator. It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in him, you will still be judged by him at “The Great White Throne Judgement” declared in The Book of Revelation.

          • getstryker

            It has been a pleasure reading your comments – excellent. May God Bless you and yours.

          • NadaLiar

            Needs more salt…. : (

          • jacuzzi37

            Oh, I got it, baby!!

            30 Reasons why Evolution is impossible

            1. Mutations degrade information & do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

            2. Evolution of a new and BETTER species as a result of new genetic code arising via mutations, has never
            been observed and thus is not science whatsoever.

            3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

            4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

            5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed and thus is not science whatsoever.

            6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants — not a record of the evolution of life forms.

            7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record period.

            8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

            9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

            10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

            11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately “know” the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

            12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

            13. Evolution is a mindless unguided process and therefore is incapable of intelligent arrangement.

            14. An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere, evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth’s early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth.

            15. All forms of raw energy are destructive. The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available.

            16. DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and
            ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that “Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine).” Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

            What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and
            survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution.

            17. The “Living Fossil” Fish Proves Evolution is Wrong The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman’s net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.

            The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years, the fish still doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

            18. Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong, as it’s impossible that mindless unguided processes (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) could produce high-complexity life forms.

            Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

            This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule ON PURPOSE as found in all animals, yet evolutionists believe this protein was created by accident.

            The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.

            The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.

            The smallest single-cell creature has millions of atoms forming millions of molecules that must each be arranged in an exact pattern to provide the required functions.

            The cell has an energy-producing system, a protective housing, a security system to let molecules into and out of the housing, a reproductive system, and a central control system. This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance.

            19. Intelligent Design can be Seen in the Smallest Bacteria and the Largest Galaxy

            The scientific study of complex biological structures has made enormous strides in revealing Intelligent design in nature.

            One example is the motor and propeller propulsion system, called a bacterial flagellum, found in many bacteria, including the common E. coli. The propulsion system of the bacteria has 40 moving parts made from protein molecules, including a motor, rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller.

            The motor is powered by ions and can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm. It can reverse direction in only 1/4 of a revolution and has an automatic feedback control mechanism.

            The size is 1/100,000 of an inch (1/4,000 mm) in width, much too small to see with the human eye. One cannot deny the obvious conclusion that this system has an Intelligent Designer and not by the mindless unguided process of evolution.

            20. Scientific Fact: Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization in both open & closed systems, cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics, which has never been proven wrong.

            The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally towards disorder or chaos.

            21. Scientific Fact: Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.

            Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

            Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

            22. Scientific Fact: Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong:

            Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem.

            The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang Theory” doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

            23. Evolutionists claim that high-complexity organisms arose spontaneously from a primordial soup of low-complexity chemicals that randomly came together in the beginning of what we now define as “life” BUT this breaks the second law, as order can only go to more disorder. No scientist or group of scientists has ever replicated the primordial beginning of life from pure chemistry to biology ON PURPOSE, yet they claim it happened by accident without an intelligent source, which is impossible.

            24. There is no way to get life from non-life. Something from nothing is mathematically, scientifically, and logically impossible and we’re not talking just “something from nothing,” but “a high-complexity/high function cell from nothing” by accident, which is impossible.

            25. The impossibility of spontaneous generation is one of the first fundamental tenets of science that a child learns, and yet it is a basic tenet of the evolutionary scientist whether he cares to admit it or not.

            26. Evolutionists believe that life came into being in a sterile environment. The intense heat of the primordial world would have killed any potential life form. (This is a testable hypothesis today.)

            27. It’s impossible that the non-physical mind, the non-physical “laws” of logic, non-physical reason and the immateriality of morality all were the products of evolution which acted on INFORMATION to make everything work.

            We need to keep reminding evolutionists that they have not explained or demonstrated through empirical evidence how even the most simple organism got its start in a hostile chemical soup billions of years ago let alone evolve into what we are today.

            28. It’s impossible that information arose spontaneously.

            29. How did information organize itself to bring about our designed world? The computer analogy: The components of a computer did not arise randomly.Computers didn’t just put themselves together.The non-material information needed to run a computer was designed. Without the program, a computer is worthless.There is no program without a programmer. It’s impossible that information came from mindless unguided processes.

            30. To begin with chemicals and end with humans (let alone everything in between) requires changes that increase the genetic information up the evolutionary ladder. This would be like claiming 2 plus 2 equals 5000, which is impossible.

            SUMMARY: NOTHING CAN ONLY PRODUCE NOTHING. On the other hand, from the letters in the word “Christmas,” you can get: has, mat, sam, Christ, ram, sat, hit, etc. But you cannot get: Xerox, Zebr or Queen!

            Evolution is a purposeless mindless unguided process that has no “purpose” to do anything, no “mind” to arrange anything and no “guidance” to accomplish anything. Evolution fails on all counts even if it did exist; it doesn’t.

          • davidreilly7

            Old Earth Creationist copy/pastes from facebook group without even removing the Young Earth Creationist arguments.

          • jacuzzi37

            Code for “facts.” I get it. I guess you do too, else you’d try to debunk me. You’re pretty easy to back down and paint into a corner. I’d of thought someone with experience might put forth more of a challenge. It’s like you know I’m right, but you just don’t want to deal with truth anymore or you just know you can’t live the life of a Christian. You thought I’d be weaker 😉 when, in my estimation, I’m easily “The Heavyweight Champion” of any thread I enter 😉 I’ve heard the “pigeon” thing from other losers a lot 😉

          • davidreilly7

            I would hate to have been a patient of yours. No wonder you are on your 3rd marriage.

          • jacuzzi37

            You do know that personal attack only confirms your defeat. I know you’re a novice here, so I try to help.

          • davidreilly7

            I couldn’t understand why you were so nice to that other atheist on his you tube video and here you are the opposite. I realize now the difference. There you were using your real name, here you are (were) anonymous.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong again, Toonbury. I never use my real name.

          • davidreilly7

            So your daughter used the same fake last name? OK that’s pretty good.

          • jacuzzi37

            So to save face and now instead of talking about me, now it’s my daughter you want to talk about. Keep in mind – I don’t have any pets to mention 😉

          • davidreilly7

            I enjoyed your daughter’s cute rendition of Titanium by BISEXUAL singer Sia.

          • jacuzzi37

            Well, she’s only 11. Hopefully, she’ll be slow to understand this sick world.

          • jacuzzi37

            God’s going to say to atheists on Judgement Day, “How could you of been so stupid. You are the most intelligent, resourceful & powerful entity in my creation and you can’t even design/create a tree; much less, a human being. Yet you think a mindless unguided process designed/created trees and even human beings? You deserve hell just on your stupidity alone!”

          • davidreilly7

            “You deserve hell just on your stupidity alone!”

            I would be careful and examine yourself. Matt Slick’s daughter left the faith.

          • jacuzzi37

            As usual, you avoid the topic only to change the topic. I already told you that “what people do” is not our example. Jesus is our example.

          • davidreilly7

            By the way, you asked for a boxing match. No holds barred bud. Including mentions of your failed marriages.

          • jacuzzi37

            Oh, I don’t mind you trying to change the subject when you’re defeated, nor what you mention. I just wanted to point out your losing tactic here. I just wanted it made clear that mentioning anything about my personal life only confirms your defeat.

          • davidreilly7

            “statistically it is impossible.”

            That is laughable. I am a applied statistician. Show me the peer reviewed probability calculations that take into account the non random natural selection. Then go claim your Nobel prize if you do.

          • davidreilly7

            So did you steal this from Sanctus Lupus, or is that you. I will message him/her on fb to find out.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Apparently I’m the only one here who knows anything about it since I’m using scientific sources in my discussion! 🙂

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Oh my, now I’m shaking in my boots.

          • jacuzzi37

            Atheists have no coherent theory as to how life began. “Magic happened” a billion years ago. but it does not happen now. SUDDENLY it stopped 😉 Christians believe God created creation AND that ONLY HE could create creation. Either way, you have to “believe.” I believe God, you believe what?

            NO SCIENTIST will ever take “nothing” and create “something,” especially “intelligent life” as God did. And it’s IMPOSSIBLE that life came about without intelligence. It’s possible that I wake up in the morning with a million dollars in my right pocket. But it’s improbable. And if I based my life on that – I’d be pretty stupid. We must consider the evidence and what’s more plausible. Order and design do not come by chance, but points to a designer. Mount Rushmore does not point to drops of water dripping down on rock to carve out the faces of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy, George and Tommy. NEVER in my observation do you get order and design by chance. Reproducing life is a trillion times more complex than Abraham Lincoln’s face on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. The high-complexity/high function that we find in the human being is IMPOSSIBLE to come by chance. And whoever did design/create the human being, has intelligence, resources and power FAR BEYOND that of mankind. And don’t start your atheist reply by reaching down for some dirt, because God started with NOTHING 😉

            ALL of atheism is easily defeated by this one idea: Intelligence exists period. It’s clear to anyone sane that only a brilliant divine God could design/create the high-complexity/high function we find in the human being. One only has two choices: chance or intelligence. And chance has no chance when it comes to OBVIOUS design, such as that which we see in the human being. The mindless unguided processes of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) have no intelligence to give. So it’s impossible that these lies of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) are true. In other words, atheism has nothing. Atheism has no “intelligent agent” in it’s mix of lies (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution), so nothing of atheism can be true. It’s not even a conversation. That said, the ony thing that CAN be true is that our intelligence comes from the only person out there that has “intelligence” to give us AND the means/tools to give it to us (divine brilliance & divine power). It’s a MUST that God be in the equation, because God is the ONLY possible source of life, “intelligence,” morality and value, as God IS living, intelligent, moral and of absolute worth.

          • Jalapeno

            One..you’re confusing the big bang with evolution. Second..there’s a difference between believing that there was an extremely hot ball of energy and believing that there was an infinitely powerful deity that came out of “nowhere”.

            “NEVER in my observation do you get order and design by chance”

            Well, you’re right about one thing. Evolution isn’t just “chance”.

            ” Intelligence exists period”

            Yes, it does. It does if evolution is true too, it is in no way dependent on a deity. I know you want it to be, I know you can’t make sense of it without just explaining it away with a non-answer..but that doesn’t mean that the actual people who study it can’t explain it.

          • jacuzzi37

            One..you’re confusing the big bang with evolution.>>>>>>>> Wrong. All the lies of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one lie without the other.

            Second..there’s a difference between believing that there was an extremely hot ball of energy and believing that there was an infinitely powerful deity that came out of “nowhere”.>>>>>>>>>> True. One is Godless desperation and the other is fact.

            NEVER in my observation do you get order and design by chance” Well, you’re right about one thing. Evolution isn’t just “chance”.>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution does not exist, as I have proved.

            ” Intelligence exists period” Yes, it does. It does if evolution is true too, it is in no way dependent on a deity. I know you want it to be, I know you can’t make sense of it without just explaining it away with a non-answer..but that doesn’t mean that the actual people who study it can’t explain it. >>>>>> Sorry, but you don’t get order and design out of the MINDLESS UNGUIDED processes of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution).

          • Jalapeno

            “You can’t have one lie without the other.”

            Why wouldn’t it be possible to have a universe that came out of nowhere and a god that was a part of it? Why wouldn’t the opposite be true?

            “True. One is Godless desperation and the other is fact.”

            So..how could you prove that a infinitely power deity came out of nowhere?

            ” Evolution does not exist, as I have proved.’

            You proved nothing.

          • jacuzzi37

            “You can’t have one lie without the other.” Why wouldn’t it be possible to have a universe that came out of nowhere and a god that was a part of it? Why wouldn’t the opposite be true? >>>>>>>> Because of the order and design we see in the universe and especially the human being. NONE-OF-THAT can possibly come by MINDLESS UNGUIDES PROCESSES of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution. It’s not even a conversation.

            “True. One is Godless desperation and the other is fact.” So..how could you prove that a infinitely power deity came out of nowhere? >>>>>>>>> “Nowhere” came out of God. All things come from God. He’s uncreated (eternal).

            ” Evolution does not exist, as I have proved.’ You proved nothing. >>>>>> I proved it, unless you think order and design come by MINDLESS UNGUIDES PROCESSES of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution).

          • Jalapeno

            Cool, you don’t understand the explanations. No big deal.

            You didn’t answer the question though.

          • jacuzzi37

            Then I’ll elaborate. Nothing comes into existence without a cause. The universe came into existence and therefore, has a cause – God. There is no other possible creation. Take the human being, for instance. The design/creation of such high-complexity and function would take no less than a brilliant divine God. Surely, you understand that whoever designed/created the human being is FAR BEYOND the intelligence, resources and power of mankind.

          • Jalapeno

            “Then I’ll elaborate. Nothing comes into existence without a cause”

            Okay..so where did an infinitely powerful deity come from?

          • jacuzzi37

            You’re question displays that you’re thinking of the wrong God and are assuming a limited God, which is your problem here. If God is affected by time, space and matter, then he’s not “God.” The God of the Bible is not limited by time, space & matter.

            We know that time,space matter came into existence ALL AT THE SAME TIME, because they have a correlative nature.
            If there were matter, but no space, where would you put matter? If there were matter & space, but no time, when would you put matter/space? You can’t have time, space or matter independently; they all have to come into existence simultaneously. The Bible answers that in 10 words:

            “In the beginning (time) God (intelligent force) created (action) the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).” – Genesis 1:1

            You have the trinity of trinities here: “In the beginning (time: past, present, future) God (intelligent force) created (action) the heavens (space: height, width, length) and the earth (matter: solid, liquid, gas).” – Genesis 1:1

          • Jalapeno

            Okay..so when you say “nothing” can be there without a cause..you mean nothing *except for what you agree with*.

          • jacuzzi37

            No. You have to understand the fact that “infinite regress” is impossible. That means there MUST be an “uncaused first cause” in the mix.

          • Jalapeno

            So..OBVIOUSLY it makes sense for the original to be an infinitely powerful and complicated deity.

          • jacuzzi37

            What I’m saying is that it’s impossible that a creator God needs to have been made by a creator, that creator would also need a creator who needs a creator …like an infinite chain of toppling dominos, which is an impossibility. You have to have an “uncaused first cause” and we call him, “God.” And for God to design/create time/space/matter/energy ALL AT THE SAME TIME, he has to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial.

          • Jalapeno

            Circular logic..All you’re saying is that it’s true because it’s true because it’s true. You’re making an unsupported assumption that it had to be “created”, and you’re ignoring the fact that there are many other explanations for how the universe “started”.

            You’re also ignoring the key point that..if you’re going to assume that SOMETHING just “started”…it does not make more sense to assume that it was infinitely powerful and complicated, it makes more sense to assume that it was something simple and comprised only of energy.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. I’m proving it’s true, by facts. Fact: Order and information that we find in the universe only got here by intelligence, resources and power far beyond that of mankind. There are no other rational “explanations” for creation.

            I don’t “assume” anything. I explain it with facts. Like it or not, nothing “simple” created the human being.

          • Jalapeno

            ” Fact: Order and information that we find in the universe only got here by intelligence, resources and power far beyond that of mankind.”

            That’s not a fact. It’s an untested assumption.

            So..you can’t make sense out of intelligence coming from non-intelligence, so you decide that a deity has to come from nothing.

            It doesn’t add up.

          • jacuzzi37

            No, not at all. You just lack education or your Godless desperation is rearing it’s ugly head. Everybody in the know understands that order and information only come from intelligence and the order and information we see in the universe is far beyond the capability of mankind to produce. It “adds up” perfectly.

          • Jalapeno

            ” Everybody in the know understands that order and information only come from intelligence”

            ..Everybody that is religious, you mean.

          • jacuzzi37

            My facts have nothing to do with religion. Sorry, but order and information only come from intelligence and it’s impossible that they came by atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution), which has no “intelligent agent” in the mix whatsoever.

          • Jalapeno

            You say that everyone “in the know” understands it, but it doesn’t line up with what most scientists actually believe. It’s actually pretty exclusive to people who have religious ideas for the origin of the universe.

          • jacuzzi37

            Most scientists are atheists, so……………

            Science has no opinion on “the origin of life.” They squirm when abiogenesis is mentioned, because they know it’s impossible. You don’t seem to understand that all of your atheist beliefs are impossible.

          • Jalapeno

            “Most scientists are atheists, so……………”

            So what you meant is “everyone that agrees with my viewpoint understands it”. Should be more specific in the future.

            ” They squirm when abiogenesis is mentioned”

            I think you’re misunderstanding what’s happening. Most scientists happily admit that we don’t know for absolute sure yet, and some provide possible explanations.

          • jacuzzi37

            The facts are the same for atheists and Christians. We both have the same facts to consider…. No. I’ve proved ALL of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) is impossible. What you fail to understand is that all of your atheist ideas are not only irrational, but impossible, due to the facts I’ve presented. You don’t even have “POSSIBILITY” to stand on.

          • Jalapeno

            You said that “everyone in the know” feels a certain way, but a significant portion of the population, including a majority of the scientists don’t.

            So..your statement doesn’t hold up.

          • jacuzzi37

            So “majority” rules? Is that it? Because if that’s the case, hell is the place to be. That’s where the “majority” resides.

          • Jalapeno

            Nope.

            You said that “everyone in the know” feels a certain way though, but you seem to have meant “a portion of the population” when you said “everyone”.

            Unless…you don’t think scientists are people?

          • jacuzzi37

            Yes, I was referring to the found (Christians) vs the lost (people like you). The lost cannot ascertain spiritual matters:

            “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” – 1 Cor 2:14.

          • Jalapeno

            Of course..you don’t consider scientists relevant..only people who agree with you.

            If only you could show that all Christians couldn’t make sense of evolution.

            (Oh. Wait. Let me guess…you dismiss all of the Christians who think that evolution is the best explanation we have by saying they aren’t TRUE Christians?)

          • jacuzzi37

            LOL. That made me laugh out loud. You think there are no Christian scientists out there?

            Anybody that looks into the topic of evolution, will know it’s a lie and that goes for ignorant Christians also.

          • Jalapeno

            There are many Christian scientists. There are also many Christians that think that evolution is the best explanation.

            So..really..your “everyone in the know” boils down to nothing more than “people who agree with what I say”..which it’s a worthless statement.

          • jacuzzi37

            Facts are all that matter and I’m the only one here that has them. But it took me over 45 years of research and experience to get them. That’s why I’m here – to teach. That’s why I easily rule any atheist thread I enter. I prove your ideas irrational and impossible, while my facts are irrefutable. The only thing that separates us is your Godless desperation.

          • Jalapeno

            The “fact” that everyone who agrees with you agrees with you?

            Wow, what a crazy concept.

            You can’t even make statements that MEAN anything.

          • jacuzzi37

            You seem allergic to facts, which is all I use.

          • Jalapeno

            The “fact” that people who agree with you agree with you?

            Man, what a stumper.

          • jacuzzi37

            I know it’s tough for you, but let’s stick with the facts regarding the topics and not what other’s think.

          • Jalapeno

            YOU said that people “in the know” understand what you understand and pretended like it gave it some credence.

            The hilarious part is that you only meant that the people WHO AGREE WITH YOU understand it..which means that it’s pretty much a useless statement.

          • jacuzzi37

            You continue to misunderstand or is it on purpose, because I’ve proven you wrong via the facts and will continue to do so.

          • Jalapeno

            Do you even pay attention to what you say in the slightest?

            ” Everybody in the know understands that order and information only come from intelligence and the order and information we see in the universe is far beyond the capability of mankind to produce”

            That was you.

            It turns out though, that you were only including people that already agreed with you.

            So..you tried to use the fact that people who agree with you believe a certain way as evidence that the belief was factually correct…

          • jacuzzi37

            I set the tone with irrefutable facts and your response is to whine n’ whimper about how I’m spanking you in the public eye and what you think others think – which is irrelevant. You can’t win, so you go after my tactics? lol

          • Jalapeno

            If other peoples opinions are irrelevant..why’d you bring it up?

          • jacuzzi37

            Again, all that really matters is the facts. You have none. You come here hoping and guessing, while I come here in certainty.

          • Jalapeno

            Ah yes..

            You say “people agree with me!”

            I point out you’re wrong.

            Then all of a sudden you whine about “peoples opinions aren’t relevant!”

            I’m not sure if you’ve noticed this, but you saying “I HAVE FACTS” doesn’t actually fool me.

          • jacuzzi37

            Must I repeat everything? I said “all that matters is the facts.”

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah..the FACT is that many people disagree with you..and the FACT is that you tried to use peoples opinions as a reinforcement for your statement.

          • jacuzzi37

            Fact of disagreement is irrelevant. Facts of the topic is all that matters and you have been proven, by me, to have none. Thanks for playing though. I enjoy destroying atheism one fool at a time in public.

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not actually irrelevant in the slightest.

            When it comes to subjects that actual require a deep understanding in order to figure out how things actually are..the argument from expert opinion becomes a valid argument (within reason).

            Why would you say that a valid argument..especially when YOU brought it up..is irrelevant?

          • jacuzzi37

            I just proved you wrong. Topical facts are all that matter.

          • Jalapeno

            No..you SAID that I was wrong. That’s a bit different.

            Saying that the big bang theory didn’t happen doesn’t make you right.

            Saying that the thoughts of the scientists who actually study this stuff is irrelevant doesn’t actually make it so.

            As it stands…the FACTS that the actual scientists have lead to the big bang.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wow, are you lost. Let me ask you, genius, what “bang” creates information and order? Information and order that we see in the universe? Let me answer you – NONE! Since energy was created at the big bang (they say), where did the energy come from to cause it? See………….facts matter – opinions don’t. Some day you might learn that fact. In the meantime, you’re headed for hell. Pathetic.

          • Jalapeno

            First off..you need to separate the ideas.

            Idea A) You saying that something is a fact does not make it a fact.

            Idea B) The Big Bang theory was the beginning of the universe as we know it.

            Idea C) Information and order can come from non-order.

            Does that confuse you?

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. Facts have their own merit. Your thoughts are irrelevant. The Big bang never happened. That’s a fact. Research it all you want, but I’ve already did the research. No “BANG” creates the information and the order we see in the universe. That’s a fact. Order does not come from disorder – it comes by intelligence. Life does not come from life. That’s a proven fact. There will never be a toy for Christmas entitled, “Create life from non-life in your own living room! Great family fun!!” LOL!!

          • Jalapeno

            ” That’s a fact”

            Not at all.

            “That’s a proven fact”

            ..Also not.

            Do you think that “it doesn’t make sense to me” and “it’s a fact” are the same thing?

          • jacuzzi37

            Again, you can’t debunk my facts, so you go after me personally. Pathetic. I appreciate you allowing me to dissect your weaknesses in the public eye. Please call your atheist friends to help you, because I’m used to destroying groups of atheists all at once.

          • Jalapeno

            Wow, you’re a bit over-sensitive.

            It’s not YOU, it’s what you’re saying.

            You’re saying that these things are facts..but there’s nothing more than the fact that it doesn’t make sense to you to back it up.

          • jacuzzi37

            About “me” again? My tactics of kicking your atheist butt again? You stopped responding to my irrefutable facts about 10 posts ago, lol. I guess you’re not used to being owned so thoroughly on the facts. I’m now bored with beating you up.

          • Jalapeno

            Do you know the difference between “this is a fact” and “this doesn’t make sense to me”?

          • NadaLiar

            I think jacuzzi is basically saying:
            1. Everything we know has a beginning. (you, me, the earth, the universe) 2. Nothing we know happened without a cause (same: you, me, etc.)
            3. Since we know the universe started, that implies something started it.
            4. Eventually you reach a wall. Either everything was started by something else infinitely backwards in time…*OR* there is something or Someone who is “without beginning,” namely God, who started the ball rolling, so to speak.
            Personally, I have a harder time with the first supposition in #4, as the idea of a Creator makes far more sense to me (and I’m guessing to Jacuzzi also). As to the “infinitely powerful” part….well, if you started “everything,” you certainly aren’t a weakling.

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah..it’s a pretty often repeated argument.

            If EVERYTHING has a beginning, then all deities must have a beginning. If you’re willing to say that there are SOME things without a beginning, there’s no reason to say that the universe isn’t, for instance, a cyclical universe that has been around for all time.

            There’s also the assumption made that the cause has to be a deity. If you can assume that a deity was formed without a cause, you can assume that a ball of energy was formed without a cause.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Okay..so where did an infinitely powerful deity come from?

            Don’t you know that? Magic!

          • NadaLiar

            For those that believe in the God of the Bible, the bible itself says God “has no beginning and no end” and elsewhere that He existed “from time indefinite to time indefinite, even forever.” In other words, as impossible as it is for me to fully grasp, the bible states God has always existed.

          • Jalapeno

            Cool.

            So..either its possible for something to have always existed (like the multiverse and the explanation people want for a deity) or its not.

            The double standards don’t cut it.

          • NadaLiar

            Explanations can be flawed. Maggots were once thought to “spontaneously generate” from rotting flesh. One man tried to weigh an “immortal soul.” And a personal favorite: “the Sun is a ball of burning wood and coal.” Just because a person “explains it” shouldn’t be taken as the end all be all. That’s supposed to be one of the hallmarks of science, but humans being humans there is quite a bit of politics, pride, envy and deception involved. That being said, any scientist turning his back on ToE takes a big risk.

          • Jalapeno

            All of those faulty explanations were replaced with BETTER explanations that explained all the existing facts and incorporated any new information.

            The same does not apply to creationism.

          • NadaLiar

            Belief in creation is *NOT* the same as “creationism.” The former is a belief that the world was created by something; in this context basically a belief that a deity created everything in the physical universe. The latter: “Creationism” is usually more of a political-religious movement determined to have their “young earth creation” views taught in schools either alongside or instead of evolution. They often use unsubstantiated or misrepresented “facts” of a scientific nature.
            Yes, those flawed beliefs were replaced. And IMO eventually evolution will be replaced with a far more correct view on ‘the origin of the species.’ But right now many scientific studies, theories, and even “facts” are driven, NOT by scientific principals, but by money, prestige and so on. Look at the huge debate on “climate change.” Just a few short decades ago there was lots of scientific debate on the safety of cigarette smoking. There’s a huge amount of money involved where the results of a study are being put first even before the founding principals of science. My beef with evolution involves some of that. You cannot replicate millions of years of theory. Non-repeatability should (and usually does) flunk theories. For the record I have no problem with so-called micro evolution. There is a HUGE amount of variance within specie (or “kind” if one wishes). But by saying we have fossil evidence of different kinds of animals *and* we know there are variances within a kind of animal automatically MEANS variances can lead to new kinds of animals…that just doesn’t make scientific sense. It’s a guess that’s been allowed to become “fact” with evolution. Non-duplicable circumstantial evidence that would probably be thrown out in a court case. Just my two cents.

          • Jalapeno

            ” And IMO eventually evolution will be replaced with a far more correct view on ‘the origin of the species.’ ”

            Sure it’s technically possible..but there’s no indication that it’s going to be anything to do with the Bible.

            “Non-repeatability should (and usually does) flunk theories.”

            It’s repeatable in the ways that it SHOULD be repeatable. It’s testable in the ways that it SHOULD be testable.

            “But by saying we have fossil evidence of different kinds of animals *and* we know there are variances within a kind of animal automatically MEANS variances can lead to new kinds of animals”

            It’s not automatic. It’s not just a concept that people threw out there, it’s been tested in every way available and every scientific fact we have lines up with it.

          • NadaLiar

            SHOULD? Isn’t that more of a religious argument? *grin* If the theory says mutations will produce new species, we need to see some new species for it to have been tested. NOT species with some mutations. Bacteria that, say, eat oil – are still bacteria – NOT a new species.
            I tend to think your 2nd statement in the last paragraph would be more accurate by removing the “not.” Evolutionary theory has not been tested (as far I know) with the creation of new species, and it certainly hasn’t be “observed” for 1000s or even millions of years of mutations. How could it be? I mean, really, the ORIGIN of the species? Who has been alive to observe or verify that? It’s what puts it in the realm of hypothesis, not scientific theory. It’s just taken as fact and very popular. But popular doesn’t equal true.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes…should.

            It’s a “would this evidence exist if the theory were true? What would be expected to happen?”

            We HAVE had speciation though…which is a major part of the distinction between micro and macro evolution.

            It’s not very intellectually honest to say that something is false because evidence doesn’t exist..but the evidence wouldn’t exist if the theory WERE true.

            It’d be similar to claiming that a deity doesn’t exist because we don’t have recorded evidence of miracles.

          • wandakate

            And He breathed LIFE into Adam, and Adam became a living SOUL (a being, a human, a person, flesh and blood)…

          • Bob Johnson

            Actually some programs are created by un-natural selection as in Evolutionary Algorithms.

          • Almostcertain2

            Shinny example of what I posted above, arguments by analogies fail… for after-all analogies are best used as a teaching tool. They are for describing a difficult concept to someone who has no experience with that concept. By relating that concept to something that they already understand, then they can begin to see how that concept works.

            I get that two bits can represent 4 things. In this case, the four DNA nucleotides: A, T, C, and G.
            But if you think that you are describing DNA using 4 bits, then you must brush up in BioChem. Why?
            Yes, 4 bits covers the 4 nucleotides for DNA. But you need another bit to get include RNA, which, as we all know can act as a enzyme to change DNA. So, that’s pretty important.

            Not to mention that you need another bit to cover methylation. Basically, the molecule for the nucleotide gets changed and has a methyl group attached to it. That can have a variety of effects, including stopping other things from happening. So we have to consider that. Don’t you think?
            In fact there over 100 known chemical changes that occur to various nucleotides. Each one being either present or not, so we need 100 bits (minimum) to deal with those.

            Just a thought.

          • Bob Johnson

            “Now, tell me how a computer program can be created by natural selection”

            This is being done every day, you need to read up on Evolutionary Computing and its several sub-fields of AI.

        • Seen From Space

          Again, again, you only believe this because you only read about science on creationist websites. If everything you think you know about it comes from sources like that, you’re only going to get a small part of the story, at best. Please widen your reading. There is SO much they’re not telling you!

        • davidreilly7

          “Evolution is a religion”

          I praise thee evolution, random mutations and natural selection. Thou hast produced all things beautiful for our enjoyment, like wasps that paralyze its victims so that they can be eaten while alive.

          • http://rapture-resource.org/ Terry

            It takes faith to believe in evolution so therefore it qualifies as a religion, and, for your info, it is still a theory it’s never been proven, observed or re-created so therefore it’s junk science at it’s best.

          • davidreilly7

            “It’s still a theory”

            As is the theory of gravity, germs, atoms and heliocentricity.

            Junk science is what the Discovery Institute is best at. Promoting religion disguised as science.

            Evolution has predictive power. Vaccines are developed based on evolutionary biology. Intermediate fossils like Tiktaalik are found exactly where they are expected to be found.

            You should study the works of evangelical Christians who are real scientists at Biologos dot org.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. That’s speciation – not evolution. And your examples are pure fallacious speculation. Nobody can conduct a scientific experiment and show us any of the lies of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) period. That’s because none of it exists.

          • davidreilly7

            News flash: speciation is evolution.

            Only creationists distinguish species and kinds.

          • Kasey

            They didn’t used to, until speciation was observed.
            To maintain their denial they had to move the bar.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. We can observe speciation, but there’s nobody on the planet that can conduct an experiment where evolution is tested, measured and observed (scientific method); therefore, evolution is not “science” and as a MINDLESS UNGUIDED process, it couldn’t do anything IF it did exist.

          • davidreilly7

            Well I would reference Lenski and the Chichlids but no point in doing so.

            There are Christians who believe that God directed evolution, but natural selection works quite well.

          • jacuzzi37

            Lenski is a failure. He started with “bacteria” and ended with “bacteria.” No evolution happened. Evolution is not supported by the Bible and facts prove the Bible correct: Life could not of been created in stages and survived, because along w/ the ability to reproduce, life had to have all bodily systems (circulatory, respiratory, reproductive, pulmonic, digestive, skeletal, muscular, nervous, body (skin), etc., etc.) intact to survive and progress. This fact proves life was created SUDDENLY as depicted in The Book of Genesis, while at the same time destroys atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution)…. Natural selection does not help your errors.

          • davidreilly7

            Ok you win. Just like a pigeon wins chess by knocking over the pieces.

          • jacuzzi37

            What else can you say when faced with the facts? You’re obviously a lost quitter, just by the fact that you embrace atheism. How about getting out and doing some actual spiritual research in the field? Your eternal soul deserves at least that amount of effort, when I’m certain you’re currently headed for hell.

          • davidreilly7

            Ah yes that mythical place called hell, invented by the Zoroastrians, popularized by Plato and embraced by the early church. I fear and tremble it the same way you fear Muslim hell.

            “A lost quitter” Yes I lost an imaginary friend. I now have a personal relationship with reality.

          • jacuzzi37

            Nothing mythical about hell. The same for God, heaven, Adam’s sin, destiny. You have a lot to learn & I suggest you get right on it. And there’s no “reality” in thinking that anything besides a brilliant divine God could design/create the high-complexity/high function we see in the human being. Because whoever did make us – he’s far beyond our intelligence, resources and power. And that fact is in your face.

          • davidreilly7

            Tell you what. You can spend an eternity in heaven fellowshipping with born again serial killers Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, and fraudsters like Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff. I would gladly enjoy the company of Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and Francis Crick in hell.

            P.S. Tongue-in-cheek of course.

          • jacuzzi37

            You shouldn’t get caught up in people or what they do, when Jesus is our example. As for hell, there will be no “enjoyment.” Let’s face it… can we face it? Atheists are lazy “responsibility shirkers.” ANYBODY feels “better” when they lighten their load of responsibility to their God. It’s like “playing hookie.” Only problem is – that a spanking is coming.

            You’re in pathological denial. More than dangerous, because hell is much more than death – it’s eternal damnation where there is no conversation, no calm (screaming), no tranquility, no silence (screaming), no breath of fresh air (poisonous sulfur), no relaxation, no view (fire & brimstone), no absence of pain (torture), no food, no water, no peace whatsoever and all of you will reside there if you don’t WAKE UP! Time is short.

          • davidreilly7

            Yes as should you be worried. Allah will send you there for not being a Muslim.

            As absurd as that is to you, so is what you are saying to me. No difference.

            I do agree with you on the statement ” Time is short.” Yes it is. We have only one life to live, and every year is proportionally a smaller percentage of your lifespan so time seems to go by quicker. So I focus on the things that matter in life: family, friends, work and making the world a better place to live.

          • jacuzzi37

            No such thing as Allah, nor does Islam provide remedy for sin. As for time being “short,” Time on earth is not “life,” due to it being brief, erased & forgotten – EXACTLY as if it never happened. True “life” begins in Heaven where “life” is eternal and “lasting.” It cannot be taken away. My free advice is that your free will is temporary and you should not limit yourself to focusing on this temporary sliver of time on earth, when eternity should overwhelmingly be your focus. You’re being vastly shortsighted to your demise.

          • davidreilly7

            Thank you for confirming that what I said to you sounds absurd.

            But guess what, if you were born in Saudi Arabia that is, in all likelihood, exactly what you would be saying. And you would be arguing using Muslim apologetics. You would believe that the moon split in two but not believe that the temple veil was ripped in two.

          • jacuzzi37

            No, I simply explained to you what billions of people already know, that Islam is a pathetic cult that offers no remedy for sin, while Allah does not exist and has no love for his so-called “slaves.”

            Guess what? You’re not wise enough to know that intellect overrides the teachings of youth. Beyond that, you fail to realize that thousands of muslims on a daily basis are converting to Christianity, only to have their heads cut off by ISIS. So much for “where you were born.”

          • davidreilly7

            thousands is a very small percentage.

            If I had said born Thailand and Buddhism, I expect that you would just have something nasty about that.

            Gotta love Evangelical Christianity.

            That’s why I left. If it’s true then every second another person in the world dies and goes to spend eternity in hell. Billions upon billions in hell. And God is supposed to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent? More like a colossal failure and the worst moral monster in all of history.

          • jacuzzi37

            Well, “a very small percentage” is going to heaven, right? So the numbers match the facts.

            Facts can come to anybody anywhere. They simply have to be blessed enough to understand them and coordinate their lives to the success parameters offered to their personal potential.

            Facts are facts. Adam sinned and cursed us all. Jesus was the second Adam that stopped our doom if only we’d allow him to save us by accepting what he did on the cross. God has certainly shared our misery through the life and death of Jesus. God is no stranger to what we go through daily.

          • davidreilly7

            I used to believe that and tell myself and others the same things, free will, etc.

            As an outsider it is so obvious that the whole thing is simply man made religion.

            I sleep very well at night. I love life but I do not fear death. I do not fear the mythical Christian hell any more than you fear the mythical Muslim hell.

            And these are not just words that would change if I was “in a foxhole”. Two months ago I had lung surgery with a small but real chance of death (1%). I had no inkling that I should pray “just in case.”

          • jacuzzi37

            No, not even a little bit. The high-complexity/high function of the human being is in your face and you must deal with it. OBVIOUSLY, whoever designed/created the human being has intelligence, resources and power FAR BEYOND that of mankind. You’re being vastly naive. If you don’t WAKE UP in time to acknowledge the truth, well………most people go to hell, right? So if your destiny is in hell, it won’t be too much of a surprise.

          • davidreilly7

            Sorry but I don’t play chess with pigeons. No point in responding to your complexity argument.

          • jacuzzi37

            This “pigeon” just kicked out all your atheist teeth. If I missed any, smile and I’ll take care of them too. I don’t allow atheism nonsense in the public arena AND you can’t “respond” to my “complexity argument” because there is no rational reply possible.

          • davidreilly7

            Well bud you are losing the fight big time. Read the Pew Surveys.

          • jacuzzi37

            I don’t lose…. obviously.

          • davidreilly7

            On every front my life is a dream.

            I own a software business that does very well.

            I have a beautiful wife.

            I am 60 years old but physically in the best shape of my life. Now post surgery I’m getting back to running 5k’s. I bench press at National competitions.

            I am happy. I sleep well at night. I don’t worry about a mythical hell. I don’t worry about the mythical return of someone who said he was coming back in their generation and got it wrong.

          • jacuzzi37

            You have nothing. You know why? It’s ALL going to be erased – just as if it never happened. The only thing eternal is your soul and where it will spend eternity…. If you were so confident, you’d not still be discussing this topic with me – a Christian expert.

          • davidreilly7

            I’m having fun. I enjoy these discussions.

            I meant to ask you though, how many of the atheists that you “kicked in the teeth” have come to Christ?

            I’m going to make a prediction, and stand to be corrected: 0.

          • jacuzzi37

            No, you don’t. Atheists only remain after being defeated, because they have nothing else. They try to somehow score in quiet desperation, but what they fail to realize is that they’re not even in the game.

            You need to understand that atheists are on these threads for one reason only – to bolster their pathetically weak confidence in their atheism, by bashing a few Christians until OMG, they meet me 😉 And when I kick them in the teeth, you actually think they suddenly love me? lol. NOBODY comes here to convert. You are here hoping and guessing, while I’m here in certainty. Guess what? That means I’m the teacher/expert. I’ve been here 3 years destroying one atheist at a time 😉

          • davidreilly7

            You keep saying that you destroy atheists. How many of them have accepted your arguments and become a Christian?

          • jacuzzi37

            No, I destroy “atheism” one person at a time. Sometimes, a dozen at a time 😉 You never convert anyone by proving them wrong. You MIGHT plant a few seeds that MIGHT grow though. As a Christian, I’m responsible to get the message out – not be responsible for the results. That’s God’s area.

          • davidreilly7

            What I am saying bud is that you are failing in your job as an evangelist. I did a better job than you when I was a Christian.

          • jacuzzi37

            No, you didn’t. Not on here, anyway. Beating up atheists in the public eye only helps weaker Christians see how easily atheism is defeated and how easily Christianity is defended. Nothing else. What other things you mentioned – yes, you were in a better environment. Jesus himself couldn’t win anyone on this thread.

          • davidreilly7

            For three years on Disqus you have a pretty poor upvote count, so I don’t think you are being as effective as you think you are.

          • jacuzzi37

            Never was my plan to appeal to fools. I’m here to plant seeds (facts) and maybe they’ll grow. Maybe the person will want to get a better grip on the full spectrum of true reality after me poking holes in their atheism. The search for truth.

          • davidreilly7

            “a Christian expert”

            I have a Masters in Theological Studies from a well know evangelical seminary. In the 80’s I taught apologetics, ran creationist workshops, led evangelism explosion teams, did street preaching and revival meetings, and briefly had a radio program on Trans World Radio.

          • jacuzzi37

            Yeah and guess what? Hell is full of intelligent fools. Einstein is there for one. See, you can be full of knowledge and be bankrupt of wisdom. Even the Bible declares it:

            “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” – 1 Cor 2:14.

            Do “enjoy” being owned so easily?

          • davidreilly7

            Yea I’ll enjoy talking to Einstein in hell./s

          • jacuzzi37

            We both know you know better than that. Let’s face it… can we face it? Atheists are lazy “responsibility shirkers.” ANYBODY feels “better” when they lighten their load of responsibility to their God. It’s like “playing hookie.” Only problem is – that a spanking is coming. Pathological denial. More than dangerous, because hell is much more than death – it’s eternal damnation where there is no “conversation w/ Einstein,” no calm (screaming), no tranquility, no silence (screaming), no breath of fresh air (poisonous sulfur), no relaxation, no view (fire & brimstone), no absence of pain (torture), no food, no water, no peace whatsoever and you will reside there if you don’t WAKE UP! Time is short.

          • davidreilly7

            Anyway I have to sleep. Nice chatting. Talk later if you wish to continue.

          • jacuzzi37

            You either went to a dead church and got discouraged or you stopped trusting God and started trusting the flesh. I’ve seen too many miracles for doubt to even cross my mind. I’ve seen the gifts of the spirit in operation. I’m seen hundreds of messages in tongues interpreted in English. I’ve heard 100’s of testimonies of healing and I’ve seen dozens of NDE’S of people seeing Hell and/or Heaven. I’ve loved the Lord for over 45 years. Too bad I can’t inject my certainty into your experiences. It’s just the way it is.

          • davidreilly7

            I can still speak in tongues at will. That is nothing other than learned jibberish.

            I saw legs being lengthened. Now I know that they were being pulled or simple psychological ideometer reflex.

            I saw people being healed but now I know that it was adrenaline. There was never much interest in showing medical validation (like that stupid phase where supposedly medical screws and pins were being removed). Never saw an amputee get a new limb. I wonder why?

            On the topic of true “miracles” like spontaneous remission of cancer, that does happen rarely, but strangely why is it that unbelievers experience it as often as believers? There is a lot that we have to learn about the bodies immune system and these rare events are an interesting study for research, but no proof of a miracle.

            I have experience the word of knowledge where I correctly identified a murderer at our workplace. Upon careful reflection I could see the perfectly natural clues that would lead me to that correct “word”.

            Confirmation bias and selective memory play a big part in the Charismatic Movement. You hear hundreds of prophecies and remember only the few that happen to come close.

            Same with dreams. I don’t know if you hang out at Charisma News but I’m still waiting for terrorists to attack Nashville as given in a prophetic dream a couple of years ago. Not going to happen.

            I highly recommend that you read Carl Sagan’s “A Demon Haunted World.” Not that I expect you to do so but it would do you a lot of good.

          • jacuzzi37

            I see you have no answers, but plenty of questions. I’m way past having doubts based on the facts I’ve presented. You have no answer to my “high-complexity/high function design/creation of humans being FAR BEYOND the intelligence, resources and power of mankind” fact. I think we both know why: There is no rational answer but the truth and God speaks about it only once:

            God himself says that if you don’t believe in him as the creator when you open your eyes and look at his creation, that you are lying and are “without excuse.” > “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. “ – Romans 1:20 (NIV) … All that’s left is your willingness to commit intellectual suicide as you reach for impossibility, due to your Godless desperation.

          • davidreilly7

            Re complexity I have told you I don’t play chess with pigeons who strut on the board knocking over the pieces and having a victory poop on the board.

            So you win in the same way.

          • davidreilly7

            “facts”

            bogus tongues and interpretations
            bogus healings
            bogus prophecy
            bogus word of knowledge
            NDEs fully explained by brain activity. Zero experimental evidence of actual out of body experience.

            “complexity”

            Too complex, must be God. Argument debunked over and over and over. DI and ID have lost the battle in the courts and in the court of public opinion. See Pew Polls.

          • davidreilly7

            ” willingness to commit intellectual suicide”

            The pot calling the kettle black.

          • davidreilly7

            John MacArthur would say that you are deceived and going to hell. Is he going to hell?

          • jacuzzi37

            Probably on his way. There’s always hope for fools until their last breath.

          • davidreilly7

            Charismatics say that John MacArthur and the Cessationalists are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. John and the Cessationalists say that the Charismatics are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

            Both believe they are correct.

            Both love the Lord.

            Both believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

            Sounds to me like the God the supposed author of communication has failed to communication his Word in such a way God that the message is perfectly clear.

            And you wonder why people are leaving Christianity.

          • jacuzzi37

            Fools can’t blaspheme the Holy Spirit. God sees the heart and it’s intent. The Bible is clear; we are to work out our salvation w/ fear and trembling. Why? Because you could be wrong. You could believe a lie and be damned. Luckily, I have enough experience with the real thing, to fall for the counterfeit.

          • davidreilly7

            This is not denial. I simply do not believe that God exists. God is silent. God is inert, so while I cannot disprove God I have no reason to believe he exists. Just like you don’t believe that Allah is real.

            You don’t believe that the moon split in two. I don’t believe that Joshua had a long day.

          • jacuzzi37

            How do you explain the design/creation of the human being, with it’s high-complexity/high function, which is impossible to come from the mindless unguided non-existent processes of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution)? Because whoever designed/created the high-complexity/high function of the human being had intelligence, resources and power FAR BEYOND that of mankind.

          • jacuzzi37

            My “complexity” proof makes me a “pigeon” and you leave the room? Sounds like that fine atheist cowardice I see so much of, after they’re cornered with no escape 😉

          • davidreilly7

            God is high complexity/high-function and irreducibly complex. I suppose that God the Father has debates with God the Son about intelligent design and who created them?/s

          • davidreilly7

            I appreciate how lucky we are to be here, the brevity of our time here and how insignificant we humans are in the vastness of the universe.

            Unfortunately the human race will most likely become extinct as have 99% of other species. Whether self destruction due to global warming (oh right you probably don’t accept that science either), nuclear, viral, or being hit by a very large asteroid, or in a few billion years be engulfed by the sun’s expansion.

          • jacuzzi37

            It’s just the opposite. “The vastness of the universe” is here for 2 reasons: One, to show us just how awesome God is. Second, to show how precious we are to him – us being created in his image. As all the “vastness” is simply “landscaping” for the apple of his eye – us (mankind).

            The Bible is clear. The world will never be destroyed; just changed. We are now in “The Church Age” which is 2,000 years from Christ. Next, is the “Day of the Lord,” which starts with the Rapture, The Great Tribulation and the Millennial Reign of Christ, which will all last 2,000 years. After that, we go into “The Perfect Age” where the curse of Adam will be lifted and babies will then be born into “righteousness” instead of “unrighteousness” as they are today.

          • davidreilly7

            If all we had was the solar system, then the complexity and fine tuning arguments would be powerful indeed.

            So you are pre trib. I guess those mid tribs, post tribs and especially amillenials are going to hell, along with the Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Jesus Only Oneness and everyone else who doesn’t believe as you do?

          • jacuzzi37

            They are powerful no matter what. That’s why you have no rational reply.

            Those that go are the one’s looking for him, the Bible says. I’m looking.

          • NadaLiar

            Question: what are the wages of sin? (from the Bible)
            Will Hell (hades) ever be emptied out? (from the Bible)
            Is the phrase “eternal soul” found in the Bible?
            Was Adam warned about eternal torment in the Garden?
            These are important questions to ask before one embraces belief in both a loving God and eternal torment.

          • jacuzzi37

            God is loving, but sin = death. God experienced our pain by living in our world for 36 years and then dying on the cross for us. He saved us. All we have to do is accept that we are guilty of the sin he died for and accept his sacrifice and follow him. The way is easy, while a life of sin is hard.

            Jesus loves you dearly & has shown you this love by bringing you from non-existence & giving you “the gift of life.” And did you say “thank you?” No. He also removed your doom via the sin of Adam by the suffering on the cross for you. And did you say “thank you?” No. He’s also “prepared a place for you in Heaven” if you’ll only return his love that’s already given you. And did you say “thank you?” No. Again, it’s the “love” of Jesus for people is what attracts them to Christianity.

          • NadaLiar

            Exactly. Sin = death. That’s exactly what the Bible says. It doesn’t say sin = eternal torment. And actually the “broad road leading to destruction” (of sin) is easy. The “narrow way to everlasting life” (of following Jesus) is definitely more difficult. I agree sin is harder on a person, but it’s the path of least resistance, less effort is required. I mean, if truly trying to live every day with kindness, humility, love for neighbor and enemy was *easy* there would be far fewer wars, crime, and hatred.
            Have you thought about the other 3 questions?

          • jacuzzi37

            Death is the absence of God, which is eternal torment…… Years ago.

          • NadaLiar

            That was mean. But I laughed. Hard.

          • davidreilly7

            Thank you.

            I saw your thread with SDA and I like the way you approach the topic unlike some others here :).

            I would add to what SDA is saying that you should have a look at the web site started by evangelical Christian and Geneticist Francis Collins called Biologos dot org.

            Also you should get his book “The Language of God”

            Dr. Collins is an outstanding scientist and one of the world’s foremost geneticists. He really knows his stuff and he shows how genetics proves evolution in his book.

            I personally don’t agree with his arguments for Theism (consciousness and fine tuning), but that’s very much another matter.

          • NadaLiar

            You’re welcome, and thank you for the complement.
            At the end of the day, things either are or are not a certain way(s). Why get too upset if others don’t believe as I do? I stated elsewhere that belief (other than sometimes strong placebo effects) doesn’t affect reality. I have come to my conclusions with the help of both the Bible and science. I also believe there to be plenty of “bad science” AND “bad religion.” One scripture I like speaks of believers using their “power of reason.” Sometimes I think people who…favor…one over the other (both ways) sometimes lose sight of that, and that doesn’t help anybody.
            More than that, it bothers me when I feel God and the Bible are misrepresented, and sometimes those professing to believe do that in word, deed, or tone – so I try not to be one of them. : )

          • davidreilly7

            Please do pick up Collins’ book. And check out the website Biologos.

            Another good book is “Only A Theory” by Catholic Kenneth Miller.

            I recommend these books because no one can accuse them of having an atheist philosophy or agenda. It’s all about the science.

            However if you are will to venture out, “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne was an eye opener for me. Also “The Greatest Show On Earth” by Richard Dawkins is very good.

          • davidreilly7

            By the way those “30 Reasons” are a copy/paste from a creationist Facebook page.
            Every one of those arguments are debunked at Talk Origins.

          • NadaLiar

            I’m hoping you replied to me on accident. Not only did I not list “30 reasons,” I rarely copy & paste. I also don’t have a Facebook account and am not familiar with the “30 Reasons” in question.
            Or perhaps I am missing something? Please clarify.

          • davidreilly7

            I apologize for the confusion and ambiguity. That was a comment regarding jacuzzi’s reply to you.

          • davidreilly7

            I wanted to add to my apology that I do like your inquisitive style!

          • NadaLiar

            Thank you sir! I enjoyed posting here.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. All 30 are my own – compiled over time. And NONE of them can be debunked by the atheist leaning God biased Talkorigins or any other fallacious page. I can debunk any atheist on the planet and everyone on this thread knows it. Evolution is a mindless unguided process and even if it did exist – it couldn’t do nothing and we all know it 😉

          • davidreilly7

            Ok so you are Sanctus Lupus?

          • davidreilly7

            James, you are a liar. Much of this is plagiarized from Duane Gish.

          • jacuzzi37

            I don’t lie. I’ve researched for years and some of it I found and some of it I didn’t. It’s a compilation, but none of it can be debunked, obviously.

          • davidreilly7

            Me: “Old Earth Creationist copy/pastes from facebook group without even removing the Young Earth Creationist arguments.”

            James: “Wrong. All 30 are my own – compiled over time.”

            So I admit that I was wrong about the facebook group – but for you to say “My own” is a lie. You are in violation of the ICR copyright policy (go read it):

            “Avoid Plagiarism

            Please bear in mind that if you plagiarize content from someone else’s work, you are essentially stealing credit from that person. Following these guidelines will allow you to use well-documented information in your own ministry, while at the same time showing the respect and courtesy due to the original author.”

          • jacuzzi37

            Atheist tactic #49b: “If the Christian busts your grill to shards with the facts, change the subject to save face, by complaining about the technique in which he is kicking your butt. That way, hopefully they will abide with the tactic and you will not be seen as the pathetic loser you are.”

          • davidreilly7

            Well show me the money. Prove the statistical impossibility with statistics.

            P.S. I have taught applied statistics to PhD’s and nuclear scientists, so anxiously awaiting your irrefutable proof that will surely win you a Nobel prize.

          • jacuzzi37

            There are no statistics, because it’s impossible. That’s what you don’t understand. You have no “intelligent agent” to even create the “statistics” 😉 Nothing of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) exists 😉

          • davidreilly7

            You just hate the fact that I am right. You plagiarized Duane Gish. I used to teach his material.

          • jacuzzi37

            You have no chance of being right. That’s what you don’t get. You’re not even in the game. I already admitted I’ve used a modicum amount of research by other parties. Facts that bust your atheist grill are facts, regardless of where they came from.

          • davidreilly7

            Ok this has been fun. You get the last word. I apologize for the personal attacks. I won’t be replying to any more of your comments. No point.

          • jacuzzi37

            I wish you well, but if you can’t beat me, why are you here? I’m here because I can obviously beat any atheist on the planet w/ the facts. I’m here because atheism will take millions to hell and I have a gift of defeating atheism one person at a time. And yes, I don’t think I convert anyone, but I do plant seeds. It should mean something that no atheist can beat me on these topics. You can’t be satisfied with stating the “pigeon” thing and walking off.

            I would tell you that you’re going to suffer a deeper level of torment in hell, because you’ve dealt deeply with the things of God and rejected him. Others that go to hell, won’t suffer as much as you will. But hey, once in hell – it’s hell. Hell for everybody.

            It all comes down to your atheism fallacy. It’s never a problem to mount evidence for all things God. The problem is that you suppress it all. The rejection of the existence of God is not an intellectual problem, but a moral one. The rejection of Jesus Christ opens you up to other world views. And you will find that they are less coherent than the one you are rejecting. Outside of Jesus Christ, there is no answer.

            The scariest thing I ever heard was in a Florida Camp Meeting with Ray Hughes as the night speaker. A message in tongues was given and he interpreted with his mighty voice, “Once again, you’ve heard my message… From pulpit to pulpit you’ve heard it time and time again. And you say, “I’ve heard it over and over.” IT PASSES YOU BY! And I say, LET IT SINK DOWN INTO YOUR EARS! Believe on me! Believe on me! Believe on me! For except ye believe, ye shall be damned and ye shall be damned because you have rejected my death upon Calvary!”

          • jacuzzi37

            I always “win” over the atheist. I’ve never found one even able to enter the game, much less score 😉 All the lies of atheism are easily disproved, obviously.

          • davidreilly7

            Scorecard:

            Jacuzzi37 Upvotes: 50

            DavidReilly7 Upvotes: 731

            You lose in the scorecard of Disqus readers.

          • jacuzzi37

            That only means there’s more lost atheist fools than wise expert Christians; yet, everyone on this thread knows I can beat any atheist with only the facts I’ve submitted this far.

            Atheists have no coherent theory as to how life began. “Magic happened” a billion years ago. but it does not happen now. SUDDENLY it stopped 😉 Christians believe God created creation AND that ONLY HE could create creation. Either way, you have to “believe.” I believe God, you believe what?

            NO SCIENTIST will ever take “nothing” and create “something,” especially “intelligent life” as God did. And it’s IMPOSSIBLE that life came about without intelligence. It’s possible that I wake up in the morning with a million dollars in my right pocket. But it’s improbable. And if I based my life on that – I’d be pretty stupid. We must consider the evidence and what’s more plausible. Order and design do not come by chance, but points to a designer. Mount Rushmore does not point to drops of water dripping down on rock to carve out the faces of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy, George and Tommy. NEVER in my observation do you get order and design by chance. Reproducing life is a trillion times more complex than Abraham Lincoln’s face on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. The high-complexity/high function that we find in the human being is IMPOSSIBLE to come by chance. And whoever did design/create the human being, has intelligence, resources and power FAR BEYOND that of mankind. And don’t start your atheist reply by reaching down for some dirt, because God started with NOTHING 😉

            ALL of atheism is easily defeated by this one idea: Intelligence exists period. It’s clear to anyone sane that only a brilliant divine God could design/create the high-complexity/high function we find in the human being. One only has two choices: chance or intelligence. And chance has no chance when it comes to OBVIOUS design, such as that which we see in the human being. The mindless unguided processes of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) have no intelligence to give. So it’s impossible that these lies of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) are true. In other words, atheism has nothing. Atheism has no “intelligent agent” in it’s mix of lies (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution), so nothing of atheism can be true. It’s not even a conversation. That said, the ony thing that CAN be true is that our intelligence comes from the only person out there that has “intelligence” to give us AND the means/tools to give it to us (divine brilliance & divine power). It’s a MUST that God be in the equation, because God is the ONLY possible source of life, “intelligence,” morality and value, as God IS living, intelligent, moral and of absolute worth.

          • davidreilly7

            Still waiting for you to prove the statement “statistically impossible” with probability calculations suitable for publication in a respected journal like The American Statistician or The Journal of The Royal Statistical Society. Please account for non-independence and non-randomness of natural selection in your calculations.

          • jacuzzi37

            Don’t get lost in the irrelevant weeds, son. Until you show me an “intelligent agent” in the mix of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) for the proponent of design and order of the universe, you have nothing 😉 There’s not a conversation to be had.

          • NadaLiar

            How “suddenly” was life created, IYO? The Bible doesn’t specify that the “creative days” were literal 24 hours days, does it? In fact, at Genesis 2:4 speaks of the whole creative period as a “day” as well.

          • jacuzzi37

            You’re asking me to describe the speed of divine creation? I don’t see why it matters, but my research holds that it was 24 hr days.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. Like anything in nature, Speciation is observed daily; evolution, not at all. Same with the other lies of nature (big bang, abiogenesis). Not you or any other lost frog can conduct a scientific experiment where evolution can be tested, measured or observed. That’s because evolution does not exist. Same goes for the other lies of SUPPOSED “nature” (big bang, abiogenesis) that do not exist. Facts sting; do they not.

          • davidreilly7

            Yes facts sting like Christians can’t agree on Cessationalism versus Gifts Today, Pre Trib versus Mid-Trib, Post Trib and Amillenial, Trinity versus Jesus Only, Calvinism versus Arminianism. Every one of those love the Lord, love the Bible, and are absolutely convinced that they are correct and that the others are heretics.

            Such clarity. More like roll the dice and hope that you pick the right one.

          • jacuzzi37

            That’s why “religion,” with it’s ritual, man made tradition and liturgy, is the enemy of God. Jesus is our example – not “people” or what they think or do. Keep it simple. Personal faith is key.

          • davidreilly7

            If it sounds like I’m avoiding this conversation it is because I tried having a conversation with you on this topic and all you do is copy/paste your favourite responses with lots of CAPS.

            So you can go on strutting Too Complex, Lies, all you want.

          • SDA

            Theories are based on facts, hypotheses, and laws, which have been repeatedly tested.

            Also, science doesn’t prove. It’s only disproves. That’s what falsifiability is.

        • SDA

          Why would it take faith to believe in something that hasn’t been disconfirmed in 150 years?

        • Seen From Space

          No it is not “a religion”. This plus the observable, reproducible idea is stock creationist rhetoric. I could link to clear rebuttals of this fallacy, but this comment would go into a moderation list, and you would likely never see it. Please google it yourself, avoiding the usual misinformation on sectarian websites of course.

          Yes it’s far easier to believe a miracle than to take the trouble to understand complex technical matters. Since when has that been a test of truth?

    • Bezukhov

      It’s one thing to argue for a “First Cause”. It’s an entirely different thing to prove your version of this “First Cause” is the correct one. And that He was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead.

  • davidreilly7

    The Discovery Institute and its members are liars for Jesus. At least Ken Ham is honest that what he does is evangelistic.

    DI with their ID and IC are simply BS.

  • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    All scientists, even the most devout evolutionists, will tell you there is no proof for it and that they don’t really believe it.

    • Reason2012

      Exactly. Given how hateful and rabid fish to mankind evolutionists get, smearing the reputations of scientists, attacking their funding and even getting them fired, then of course when asked most scientists are going to pledge their support for fish to mankind evolutionism, all so they can go back to doing actual science in peace.

    • Jalapeno

      Weird..what “devout evolutionists” have you seen saying this?

      I’ve seen some say that you can’t actually “prove” it, but that’s because it’s a scientific theory and those cannot be “proven”.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        All science must be proven or it isn’t science. That’s how science works – it must be observable. Otherwise you just have people throwing out crackpot theories with no basis, which is exactly what failed scholar Charles Darwin did.

        Here are some quotes for you:

        “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” (Stephen M. Stanley from Johns Hopkins)

        “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the
        imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological
        formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s
        hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.” ( Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki)

        The late Dr. Collin Patterson, who was certainly no Creationist, said evolution was “positively anti-knowledge”, and that “all my life I
        had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth”.

        • Jalapeno

          Scientific THEORIES cannot be proven. They are explanations…you can never actually prove that it’s the best explanation for all of the evidence.

          ““In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.””

          Have you ever looked at the rest of the quote? He’s actually talking about the fossil record at a SINGLE LOCATION. It in NO way proves that he doesn’t actually think that the fossil record shows that overall.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Science means knowledge. There is absolutely no knowledge that pertains to evolution. Again, even the most well known evolutionists will admit that.

            This is the rest of Stanley’s quote “But in view of the rapid pace evolution can take, and
            the extreme incompleteness of fossil deposits, we are
            fortunate to have as many transitions as we do. The
            creationist argument that if evolution were true we should
            have an abundance of intermediate fossils is built by
            denying the richness of paleontological collections, by
            denying the transitional series that exist, and by
            distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of
            evolution.”

            And here’s the problem with that – evolution, in theory, does NOT happen at a rapid pace. In fact, we’re told it takes millions and millions of years. And if evolution can take place at a rapid pace, it should be observable, should it not?

          • Jalapeno

            “Superb fossil data have recently been gathered from deposits of early Cenozoic Age in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming. These deposits represent the first part of the Eocene Epoch, a critical interval when many types of modern mammals came into being. The Bighorn Basin, in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, received large volumes of sediment from the Rockies when they were being uplifted, early in the Age of Mammals. In its remarkable degree of completeness, the fossil record here for the Early Eocene is unmatched by contemporary deposits exposed elsewhere in the world. The deposits of the Bighorn Basin provide a nearly continuous local depositional record for this interval, which lasted some five million years. It used to be assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together in such a way as to illustrate continuous evolution. Careful collecting has now shown otherwise. Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time. David M. Schankler has recently gathered data for about eighty mammal species that are known from more than two stratigraphic levels in the Bighorn Basin. Very few of these species existed for less than half a million years, and their average duration was greater than a million years.”

            How does that prove that he doesn’t actually think evolution is the best explanation?

            ” And if evolution can take place at a rapid pace, it should be observable, should it not?”

            Even the “rapid pace” is far longer than we’ve been around. We HAVE been able to show speciation, but until we actually are able to document an animal going from one genus or family to another, people will continue making this claim. (Of course, that doesn’t really happen so..as usual, the expectations are far out of line with reality.)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            See what you did? You made up more fables to “prove” your assertion. This is exactly why, the higher up you go in science, evolutionists will admit there is no proof.

            Look at the words in your first quote – “thought to have”, “may have”. These are fairy tales and assumptions, not scientific fact.

          • Jalapeno

            That’s not a fable. It’s a reasonable hypothesis…some things can never be *proven*, we can only take our best understanding and apply it to the idea.

            Saying that a scientists willingness to acknowledge when something isn’t 100% certain means that the science is wrong is..laughable.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If something can’t be proven then it isn’t science.

            True scientific discoveries, like H. pylori, or antibiotics, or the MRI, etc. are provable and reproducible. They are observable.

            What is laughable is to claim that an uproven fantasy of a failed academic, is science.

          • Jalapeno

            “If something can’t be proven then it isn’t science.”

            So..scientific theories aren’t science? That’s a new one.

            “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

            Definition of science…I don’t see where it says that the only relevant part is the actual data. Do you think hypothesis and theories are just crap people make up out of nowhere or something?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The word science itself means “knowledge”. Unproven speculation isn’t knowledge. It’s just someone’s opinion. Darwin, a failed academic, has duped many and been responsible for communism, the Holocaust, abortion, and murder.

          • Jalapeno

            A scientific theory is an EXPLANATION.

            How do you think you prove that an explanation is true? We can say “there is overwhelming evidence in support of this and no reason to doubt it and nothing that has disproven it yet”..but you can’t actually say “this is absolutely true” without a time machine.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Explanations are only credible if they are provable. Evolution is not provable.

          • Jalapeno

            How exactly do you think you “prove” an explanation?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            An explanation itself should be provable. Evolution’s “explanation” is conjecture, not fact. That makes it a fairy tale or fluff piece, not science.

          • Jalapeno

            How do you “prove” an explanation?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Let’s take the MRI for example. One can prove how it works and why it works.

          • jacuzzi37

            Sorry, but there is no such thing as a “fossil record.” Bones prove ONLY one thing – the animal is dead. It doesn’t prove it’s parents or siblings or offspring. THAT is total fallacious speculation by atheist fools.

          • Jalapeno

            No..it doesn’t show who it’s immediate family is, but it does show that an animal with that bone structure and build existed.

            That bit of information is what they needed.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. It’s all speculation and wishful thinking by the atheist. The fact stands: There is no such thing as a “fossil record.” Bones prove ONLY one thing – the animal is dead. It doesn’t prove it’s parents or siblings or offspring.

          • Jalapeno

            That’s not a fact.

            That’s you not understanding what information they got out of the fossils.

          • jacuzzi37

            Of course it’s a fact. I only use irrefutable facts. BONES does not prove anything, as I’ve proven. To go further, is simply Godless desperation and atheist wishful thinking.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re arguing against a strawman.

            It’s not proving who that animals specific parents were, it’s proving that the animal with that bone structure existed in that area.

          • jacuzzi37

            Then you have nothing.

          • Jalapeno

            Knowing that a certain animal existed in a certain area with a certain bone structure actually tells biologists quite a lot.

          • jacuzzi37

            Yes, that the animal is dead. That’s it. The rest is speculation, as the animal could of arrived by driftwood from a calamity of some kind.

          • Jalapeno

            Luckily there are other silly things like being able to look at surrounding soil and basic critical thinking.

            It’s not “nothing”. They have managed to figure out approximately where the bones of that species tended to be found, what kind of physical characteristics the skeleton has and approximately how old it is.

          • jacuzzi37

            You’re merely describing “speculation” in different words. If you presented this in a Court of Law – you’d be laughed at. You have no evidence of evolution via dead bones. It’s simply all atheist wishful thinking. Well, gotta go to work. Have a good one.

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not “speculation”.

            It’s how science works.

            “These are the facts, this is the best explanation of the facts”.

          • jacuzzi37

            Sorry, but evolution is not science. Nobody can conduct a scientific experiment and show us evolution so that it can be tested, measured or observed; thus, evolution is not “science” whatsoever. And “best explanation” doesn’t cut it. As a mindless unguided process, evolution (even if it did exist), is only capable of dysfunction.

          • Jalapeno

            It is testable and provable in many different ways, and it’s falsifiable.
            How many of those apply to creationism?

          • jacuzzi37

            You’re dreaming and naive. If evolution was provable, there’d be no naysayers, but there are plenty. As for creationism, it’s crystal clear to the wise. Only a brilliant divine God could design/create the high-complexity/high function we see in the human being. You have no come back and we both know it.

          • Jalapeno

            Which of those standards apply to creationism?

            Is it falsifiable?

            How is it testable?

          • jacuzzi37

            For you to even ask these questions proves that you are totally lost. The scope of science does not include the metaphysical. Anything else I can teach you?

          • Jalapeno

            Any decent scientific theory is easily falsifiable.

            Is creationism? What would it take to show you that it’s wrong?

          • jacuzzi37

            You still don’t understand, so let me say it a different way: The scope of “Science” does not include the supernatural. That’s why we can’t solely depend on science to reveal to us the full spectrum of true reality.

            Scientism is severely limited and a pathetic tool to discern true reality, because it’s creator (mankind) is pathetically weak. Science can’t even answer the questions of a child. Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? And at least 30 more off the top of my head.

            Science does not define the limits of rationality. Rationality is larger than science. God is not the God of the gaps, but the God of the whole show. Let me educate you. Science is on the side of Christianity period. But science is very limited and is not the end all be all panacea you believe. Science cannot tell us what gravity is. Science can’t tell us what energy is. Science can’t ell us about love or human emotions. Science can’t tell us what beauty is. Science has nothing to say about the metaphysical or the supernatural. Science can’t tell you about “the origin of life.” Science can’t tell you where the intelligence came from, that designed/created the information we find in DNA. If all you have is the scientific method to save you, you’re headed for certain doom.

          • Jalapeno

            Saying “religion is special” is nothing more than a way of saying that it can’t even meet the most basic standards of critical thought.. Even though you expect evolution to go above and beyond those same standards.

          • jacuzzi37

            I didn’t say religion is special. Anything I do say, I back it up with irrefutable facts. Evolution is the religion of atheism, because it can’t be shown to exist & it takes faith that it happened. At least Christianity has a preponderance of evidence to support it’s claims. And we already know that order and intelligence we see in the universe could only come from a person far beyond the intelligence, resources and power of mankind (God). At the same time, we know that there is no intelligent agent in the whole of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution), to account for the order and intelligence we see in the universe. So your stance is impossible, while my stance can’t be denied with rational ideas.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re saying that it can’t meet the standards that you apply to evolution because it’s not “within the scope”.

            That is effectively saying that you consider it to be special.

            ” So your stance is impossible, while my stance can’t be denied with rational ideas.”

            What would prove your stance FALSE?

            If another deity showed up on earth and said that he was not the Christian god and he made the universe..would you stop believing?

            If we could prove absolutely that the universe started with the big bang, would you stop believing?

          • jacuzzi37

            You’re saying that it can’t meet the standards that you apply to evolution because it’s not “within the scope”. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simple. God can’t be revealed by science and it’s the same with evolution. Yet God is proven as fact – knowing the human being does exist and can’t be duplicated by mankind; thus, something greater than mankind designed/created mankind (God).

            That is effectively saying that you consider it to be special.>>>>>>>> I consider it to be what it is: Fact, yet not revealed by the weak tool of “science.” Facts are facts, whether they are revealed or not.

            ” So your stance is impossible, while my stance can’t be denied with rational ideas.” What would prove your stance FALSE?>>>>>>>>>> Nothing. Mankind can’t create a human from “nothing,” yet we do exist. Atheism can’t explain it. The proof of God is in his creation that mankind can’t duplicate.

            If another deity showed up on earth and said that he was not the Christian god and he made the universe..would you stop believing? >>>>>>>>> I don’t do hypotheticals. After over 45 years of research, I see “the big picture.” so to speak. I see how everything fits. So while I come here in certainty – you come here hoping and guessing.

            If we could prove absolutely that the universe started with the big bang, would you stop believing? >>>>>>> Sorry, but your asking for the impossible to be possible. It’s impossible that the big bang or any “bang” designed/created anything of order or intelligence that we see in the universe.

          • Jalapeno

            “God can’t be revealed by science and it’s the same with evolution. ”

            You’re trying to replace a theory that meets standards with one that can’t even pretend to.

            Do you not see the issue with that?

          • jacuzzi37

            I see the facts and evolution does not “meet” any rational standard whatsoever.

            Atheists have no coherent theory as to how life began. “Magic happened” a billion years ago. but it does not happen now. SUDDENLY it stopped 😉 Christians believe God created creation AND that ONLY HE could create creation. Either way, you have to “believe.” I believe God, you believe what?

            NO SCIENTIST will ever take “nothing” and create “something,” especially “intelligent life” as God did. And it’s IMPOSSIBLE that life came about without intelligence. It’s possible that I wake up in the morning with a million dollars in my right pocket. But it’s improbable. And if I based my life on that – I’d be pretty stupid. We must consider the evidence and what’s more plausible. Order and design do not come by chance, but points to a designer. Mount Rushmore does not point to drops of water dripping down on rock to carve out the faces of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy, George and Tommy. NEVER in my observation do you get order and design by chance. Reproducing life is a trillion times more complex than Abraham Lincoln’s face on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. The high-complexity/high function that we find in the human being is IMPOSSIBLE to come by chance. And whoever did design/create the human being, has intelligence, resources and power FAR BEYOND that of mankind. And don’t start your atheist reply by reaching down for some dirt, because God started with NOTHING 😉

            ALL of atheism is easily defeated by this one idea: Intelligence exists period. It’s clear to anyone sane that only a brilliant divine God could design/create the high-complexity/high function we find in the human being. One only has two choices: chance or intelligence. And chance has no chance when it comes to OBVIOUS design, such as that which we see in the human being. The mindless unguided processes of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) have no intelligence to give. So it’s impossible that these lies of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) are true. In other words, atheism has nothing. Atheism has no “intelligent agent” in it’s mix of lies (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution), so nothing of atheism can be true. It’s not even a conversation. That said, the ony thing that CAN be true is that our intelligence comes from the only person out there that has “intelligence” to give us AND the means/tools to give it to us (divine brilliance & divine power). It’s a MUST that God be in the equation, because God is the ONLY possible source of life, “intelligence,” morality and value, as God IS living, intelligent, moral and of absolute worth.

          • Jalapeno

            Evolution is falsifiable.

            Is creationism?

          • jacuzzi37

            I’ve already proven evolution is impossible, while at the same time, I’ve proved something far more intelligent, resourceful and powerful than mankind, produced the human being.

          • Jalapeno

            “I see the facts and evolution does not “meet” any rational standard whatsoever.”

            You said that it did not meet ANY standards.

            I provided a standard that it easily met.

            It seems silly to try to replace it with a theory that can’t even meet the simplest and most basic standard.

            And..for the record, I am absolutely not agreeing that you “proved” anything…I’m just keeping to the point.

          • jacuzzi37

            It’s not a theory; it’s a fact. Whoever designed/created the high-complexity/high function of the human being is far more intelligent, resourceful and powerful than mankind. We both know you have no rational come back, because there isn’t one.

          • Jalapeno

            That IS rational.

            If you want to replace a theory with one that supposedly makes more sense…it should at least meet the same basic standards.

            Is creationism falsifiable? Is there anything you can hypothetically imagine that would convince you that you’re wrong?

          • jacuzzi37

            No, it’s not. Name your creator if not God. Again, you have no rational answer. That means you’re lost. Your weak non-productive tool of science does not help you w/ certain facts. You have to have more than science to see “the big picture.” I’m not wrong about anything, which makes me wonder why you are here. Are you here to bash weaker Christians to bolster your weak confidence in your atheism?

          • Jalapeno

            Sure, sure, whatever you say.

            Why do you think that you can replace a theory that meets standards with one that doesn’t?

          • jacuzzi37

            Because the science “standard” is just one weak tool of observation that can’t be used to uncover everything, such as beauty or wisdom. If all you have is science – you’re doomed.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re trying to replace a SCIENTIFIC theory though…it means that basic critical thinking standards should apply..

            You know, ones like “is there any situation where I would ever change my mind about this?”.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. I’m not trying to replace anything. I’m just pointing out the facts. You shouldn’t go off on irrelevant tangents; it impairs your free education here. If you’re waiting for me to place God in a test tube for your review, then you’ll have a long wait. Like it or not, God, beauty, wisdom, memories and much more, can’t be discerned by the weak tool of science.

            As far as changing my mind, that’s like proving my mom is my imagination. I’m way past certainty.

          • Jalapeno

            The..fact that creationism is true and evolution is false.

            Yeah, you’re right..that is nothing like trying to say that one theory is replacing the other.

          • jacuzzi37

            Evolution is not replaced, when it never existed. Besides, evolution is nothing without the lies of the big bang and abiogenesis. None of it possible, as I have proved.

          • Jalapeno

            If you’re saying that creationism is right and evolution is wrong..you’re trying to replace on theory that explains life with another.

            Thus..they should both meet basic critical thinking standards.

          • jacuzzi37

            True and they don’t. Evolution, as I have proved, is impossible. As for God, I’m certain of his existence. As far as how I can show the lost these facts, it’s according to their amount of Godless desperation. That aside, I can point to the fact that infinite regress is impossible; thus, it’s impossible God does not exist. Evidence of his existence? It’s found in the design/creation of the high-complexity/high function we find in the human being, as nothing less than a brilliant divine God could make us.

          • Jalapeno

            So..you’re trying to say that the theory of creationism is the explanation for the same things that evolution explains.

            Therefore, you’re trying to replace the theory of evolution with one that doesn’t even PRETEND to meet the same standards.

          • jacuzzi37

            No, not even a little bit. I’m saying that all of atheism (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution) is proven lies of the Godless desperate, that manufactured them out of influence by Satan, coupled with the desire to not be held accountable for their sin. Furthermore, all that hold this fallacious propaganda to be true, are destined to an eternal hell, unless they wise up before they take their last breath in this world.

            “They traded God’s truth for a lie, and they worshiped and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. “ – Romans 1:25 CEB (Common English Bible)

          • Jalapeno

            ” is proven lies ”

            Cute.

            How does it make more sense to say “an infinitely powerful deity came out of nowhere” than to say “a ball of energy came out of nowhere”?

          • jacuzzi37

            Facts are “cute?” … Nothing “comes out of nowhere.” That’s the point. There is always a “cause.”

          • Jalapeno

            No..your attempt to say that you’ve proven something when you haven’t is cut.e

            If NOTHING comes out of nowhere, then you need to figure out where the deity came from.

          • jacuzzi37

            Sounds like a cop out… That said, you clearly & simply can’t fathom anything infinite, because all you are open to is the finite. You apparently don’t possess the acumen to discuss these topics.

          • Jalapeno

            You said that NOTHING can come from nowhere.

            If you demand that there is a cause for the “start” of the universe, then you should apply that same standard to anything capable of creating the universe.

            If you say that it’s possible for a deity to have always existed, then there’s no reason that you refuse to grant that same possibility for the universe.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. I said that anything that exists, has a cause.

            Wrong again. I’ve already proved that infinite regress is impossible.

            Wrong to the end. The universe is finite/created.

          • Jalapeno

            “Wrong. I said that anything that exists, has a cause”

            Okay..what’s the cause of an infinitely powerful deity?

            “I’ve already proved that infinite regress is impossible.”

            I think you’re confusing “I said this” with “I proved this”.

            “Wrong to the end. The universe is finite/created.”

            Many people disagree…but even if you ARE right, then that simply means that you need to apply the same standards to the universe that you apply to a deity.

          • jacuzzi37

            You don’t seem to understand that an “uncaused first cause” has no “cause.”

          • Jalapeno

            Nope..I understand that quite well.

            You said that if something exists, it must have a cause.

            If a deity exists then, by YOUR OWN STATEMENT, they must have a cause.

            So..what is it?

          • jacuzzi37

            You fail to understand finite vs infinite. Look that up and get back to me. While you’re at it, look up “infinite regress” and why it’s impossible; thus, proving God’s existence.

          • Jalapeno

            You didn’t say “if something FINITE exists, it must have a cause”.

            You said “if SOMETHING exists”. (Caps added by me, of course.)

          • jacuzzi37

            Yes, well maybe I wasn’t specific enough. I was discussing the created universe vs the uncreated God.

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah, you seem to be a big fan of making sweeping statements but failing to indicate that you only are applying them to specific parts of reality.

            If you can make sense of an infinite god, then there’s no reason why you couldn’t make sense of an infinite universe.

            If you’re willing to say that a god came from nothing, then there’s no reason that you can claim that a universe could not have come from nothing.

          • jacuzzi37

            I’m here to help. I’m already certain I’m correct about anything I state. It makes me wonder why you’re here. All you do is hope n’ guess, while you throw rocks at the facts you can’t disprove. All the while, all your atheist ideas have been proven to be impossible.

            NOBODY can make sense of anything infinite. All we know about God is what he allowed us to know via the Bible.

            I’m not willing to say that God came from nothing. God is eternal and has no beginning. The universe is scientifically proven to have a beginning; thus, it’s finite.

          • Jalapeno

            “The universe is scientifically proven to have a beginning; thus, it’s finite.”

            False.

            There’s a lot of people out there who think that the “beginning” was actually the end of another universe…thus making it actually infinite.

            ” All the while, all your atheist ideas have been proven to be impossible.”

            No..you’re just SAYING stuff. That’s it.

          • jacuzzi37

            Sorry, but it’s already been decided by fact that the universe is finite. Like it or not, the sun & all stars will eventually burn out, due to a set amount of usable energy being eventually exhausted. The universe will then become cold, dark & motionless.

            But “a lot of people” don’t know the facts that prove them wrong. There is only one universe and it continues to expand daily, which was documented by God 3500 years ago:

            “He alone STRETCHES OUT the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.” Job 9:8.

            ” … who STRETCHES OUT the heavens like a curtain, and SPREADS THEM like a tent to live in.” – Isaiah 40:22

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..as I said…there is evidence out there that our universe is actually just cyclical, which would mean that it, as a whole, is infinite.

          • jacuzzi37

            Wrong. There’s Godless desperation and atheist wishful thinking “out there” – not evidence. Furthermore, you desperately need to understand “infinite regress” and why it’s impossible and how it proves you wrong.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re making a lot of faulty assumptions with that argument.

            Again..let me remind you that you said that if SOMETHING EXISTS, it has a cause.

            You’re assuming that if something was created, the creator would have to be the god that YOU believe in.

            You’re assuming that it’s not actually possible for something to create itself.

            You’re assuming that the universe THAT WE KNOW is all there is.

            Do I need to keep explaining it for you?

          • jacuzzi37

            Blah, blah and …….blah. Please don’t waste my time with non-supported opinions.

            Wrong. I said that if something created exists – it has a cause.

            I believe in the God that created creation.

            It’s a fact that something can’t create itself, because it didn’t exist to begin with, duh.

            Wrong. I know this universe is all there is, because infinite regress is impossible.

            You have a lot to learn, but you probably don’t have the perspicacity to bother with.

          • Jalapeno

            “Wrong. I said that if something created exists – it has a cause.”

            No..you said if it “existed”, period.

            “I believe in the God that created creation.”

            No..you believe that your god created creation. If you believed in another god, you would think THAT god created creation.

            ” I know this universe is all there is, because infinite regress is impossible.”

            So..how does that prove that there wasn’t a universe before this one?

          • jacuzzi37

            I’ve corrected you. Debunk me or stop wasting my time.

            There is only one God and he is Jehovah of the Bible, which provides the only coherent explanation of the full spectrum of true reality.

            There was no universe before this one, because infinite regress is impossible.

          • Jalapeno

            “There was no universe before this one, because infinite regress is impossible.”

            Ah yeah, I forgot.

            YOU said it was impossible, therefore it must not be possible.

          • jacuzzi37

            Facts state it’s impossible.

          • Jalapeno

            You are right that the MOST LIKELY scenario is that we have a universe that started at one point, but it has absolutely not been proven that the universe will not eventually collapse into a ball of infinitely hot energy that could end up being another big bang.

          • jacuzzi37

            There never was a big bang, so there certainly won’t be “another one.” I thought I made that clear.

          • Jalapeno

            All you’ve said is that something finite cannot be without a cause. (After I pointed out how hilariously inaccurate your actual statement was, of course.)

            You seem to be under the impression that you saying something makes it true.

          • jacuzzi37

            CLEARLY, you don’t want to talk about the facts anymore, but you’ve retreated now to only talk about how I stated them.

          • Jalapeno

            Do you think that the actual statements you make don’t matter?

            Do you think that saying that something is a fact MAKES it a fact?

            What about the fact that the vast majority of scientists agree that the big bang happened?

            Oh. Wait. You said it wasn’t a fact thus their opinion is irrelevant. I forgot.

          • jacuzzi37

            The facts are all that matter and you lost that match. So now you want to whine n’ whimper like the defeated atheist that you are and go after my techniques of giving you a good beating in the public eye. I’m used to it 😉

            Again, what people “think” is irrelevant to the facts. No BANG is the cause of information or order, duh! Your Godless desperation is showing.

          • Jalapeno

            “Again, what people “think” is irrelevant to the facts”

            So..why did you bring it up?

          • jacuzzi37

            You “brought it up” when I proved you wrong via the facts. You started whining n’ whimpering about what others thought and I told you what other people “think” is irrelevant to the facts. I’m only questioning what your next retreat will be.

          • Jalapeno

            ” Everybody in the know understands that order and information only come from intelligence and the order and information we see in the universe is far beyond the capability of mankind to produce. It “adds up” perfectly.”

            That was YOU, not me.

            I said it didn’t add up, and YOU said that ‘everybody in the know’ understood that it DID add up.

            So..you tried to make it irrelevant.

    • This style ten and six

      No, they won’t. What you say is not true.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        I’ve already given quotes to that effect. I can easily provide more. Even evolutionists doubt evolution.

        • This style ten and six

          It is easy to find quotes to prove anything you want but unfortunately they don’t prove anything.

          Your use of the term “evolutionist” shows that you don’t have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’ve argued this before, claiming there is no term “evolutionist” when, in fact, you’ve been proven wrong time and again. 🙂 Give it up. 🙂

          • This style ten and six

            Only in the heads of creationists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do you really think the late Dr. Collin Patterson was a Creationist? 🙂

          • This style ten and six

            “Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth … a world-wide flood … or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. … I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of ‘quotable quotes’, often taken out of context.” Colin Patterson.

            He certainly did not use the term “evolutionist”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Many Creationists began as evolutionists, saw the error in failed academic Darwin’s crackpot theories, and thus became Creationists.

            Here you go:

            ev·o·lu·tion·ist
            ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/
            noun
            noun: evolutionist; plural noun: evolutionists
            1.
            a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
            adjective
            adjective: evolutionist
            1.
            of or relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection.”an evolutionist model”

          • This style ten and six

            You are beyond hope. Darwin is considered by his peers as one of the greatest minds in science. He stands on a level with Newton and Einstein. What you think about him is neither here nor there as you have obviously made no effort to find out what evolution is about.

            Remain in ignorance if you wish, no skin off my nose.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You keep repeating yourself while saying nothing of scientific value.

            Newton and Einstein were Creationists.

            Did you even study science in high school? Not trying to be mean, but you seem to be unaware of the most basic tenets of science.

          • This style ten and six

            Newton was a man of his time and probably was creationist. He also dabbled in alchemy and other oddities.

            Einstein was most certainly not a creationist.

            “you seem to be unaware of the most basic tenets of science.”
            This from a guy who doesn’t understand the Theory of Evolution. Don’t make me laugh!

            .

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Einstein believed in a Creator which makes him a Creationist. He did not believe in a personal God, but he still believed God made all things.

            Evolution is not science so of course I don’t believe in it. I’m sure you’ve never studied evolution or science in any depth. Did you graduate high school?

          • This style ten and six

            A few words and I have finished with you.

            You wrong about Einstein. Even if you were not it would make no difference to the facts.

            Evolution is a fact, supported by 160 years of research, with each advance reinforcing the fact that all life is descended from a common source.

            My education is none of your business but I can see that yours has been seriously neglected.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re finished because you can’t refute facts.

            Evolution has not been proven, which is why so many scientists no longer believe in it.

            Now I am sure you never completed high school. You really should get an education Science is fascinating to study.

          • sangrita

            It isn’t true to say that “many scientists no longer believe in it”. That’s a big, fat prefabrication, plain and simple. Most scientists, in fact nearly all, accept evolution (notice I didn’t say “believe in” implying that it isn’t acceped science…)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I said many, not all. Your reading comprehension skills are as poor as your science skills. 🙂

          • sangrita

            How many science skills do you possess to lie?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Scientists don’t lie, which is why we know evolutionists are not real scientists. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Evolution’s not a lie, your fundamentalist pastor has merely told you it is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I studied science prior to becoming a Christian. 🙂 Michael Faraday, one of the greatest scientists in the world, said that evolution was garbage. He was right.

          • sangrita

            He also said that about a million years ago.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah,. you don’t know who he is. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Another baseless statement pulled from your nether regions.

        • sangrita

          Ah…no. No, they don’t. At all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t know who the scientists I quoted are, do you? 🙂 I’ll bet you had to look up Pupin, Damadian, and Faraday too. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Tell you what. For every one you mention, I’ll mention 3000.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So what? How many Muslims can you name who believe in Sharia law? Numbers don’t necessarily equate truth.

          • sangrita

            So what’s the point in quoting 5 scientists when I can outnumber them by 10000 to one?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I can quote hundreds of scientists, but the ones I quote are the ones who have done amazing things for science. The ones you would probably quote are the ones who believe in ET, like Dawkins.

          • sangrita

            So you would quote the scientists who went to the same church you did?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t know when Michael Faraday lived, do you? 🙂

          • sangrita

            Of course I do, he died in 1867. Real up to date info in other words.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not millions of years. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Hyperbole is lost on you too. Not surprised.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You erred and got called out on it. Own it like an adult instead of lying.

          • sangrita

            I made the point that he’s long dead and you didn’t like it. Poor baby.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No you didn’t. You made a mistake and you’re trying to cover. Darwin has also been long dead. So what?

          • sangrita

            What mistake? I stand by everything I said. Stop putting words in my mouth.
            If Faraday were living today, he’d have no reason to oppose evolution.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Faraday was a contemporary of Darwin. He was one of his loudest critics.

          • sangrita

            Being critical of Darwin and being critical of evolution are two different things.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            He was critical of evolution. 🙂 You’d know that if knew who he was and when he was actually born. 🙂

          • sangrita

            If he died in 1867, I don’t think knowing when he was born matters very much in terms of the knowledge the world possessed at that time, do you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you’re saying the theory of evolution is outdated? 🙂

          • sangrita

            …you seriously want me to believe you’ve written books?

            No, I’m saying the understanding and research done in 100 years is pretty significant.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I don’t put much stock in what you believe. After all, you thought Faraday was born millions of years ago. 🙂

            Lots of research done over 100 years ago is still true today. Truth stands regardless of when it was found.

          • sangrita

            No, I don’t believe Faraday was born millions of years ago. Hyperbole is with lost on you or you are a troll. Hope for your sake it’s the latter.
            Lots of research done over 100 years ago is still true today. And lots more has been discovered since. Which Faraday did not know about.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t know what hyperbole means evidently. 🙂

            Darwin and Faraday were contemporaries. Faraday made discoveries that we still use today. Darwin just had a fairy tale that has yet to be proven, and in fact, has been disproven.

            And you still have no science degree but pretend to know more than those who do. 🙂

          • sangrita

            Yes, hyperbole means exaggerated language, which means that when I make the observation that Faraday lived a long time ago and say “millions of years” it should be instantly obvious that I am not being literal about it.

            Evolution hasn’t been disproven. It exists and is observed and accepted by everyone except a few people whose religion doesn’t permit it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t even know who he was, and yes, evolution has been disproven. There is absolutely no basis for believe in it. Only racists believe in evolution. Hitler did.

          • sangrita

            Of course I knew who he was. You need to stop making claims about other people that you don’t know. Your “only racists believe in evolution” quote should make you a star over at fstdt dot com after I submit it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t know who he was, and you didn’t know that he was a Darwin contemporary. You also didn’t know that evolution has yet to be proven (as evolutionists themselves will admit), and you didn’t know that Darwin based his entire theory of evolution on the fact that he thought blacks looked like apes and that they must have “evolved”. You can read about it in his books. Hitler cited him for his bigotry, too. You don’t know science, and you don’t know basic history.

          • sangrita

            I DID know who he was – and you can’t prove otherwise, so you should just let this one go. Furthermore, you’re claiming he’s on your side on this one but he’s clearly not. We know that Faraday was one of the world’s finest scientists, but where did he stand upon the subject of evolution? The answer is that we do not know. Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1861, just six years before Faraday’s death. Faraday made no disparaging comments about evolution, but Colin Russell (2000) suggests that his silence on the matter may have been because, like many physical scientists of the time, he dismissed evolution as “only a theory”.

            Note those words “of the time”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I can prove you don’t know who Faraday is because you didn’t know a thing about him! 🙂 We do know where Faraday stood on the subject of evolution because he spoke and wrote extensively on creationism and did not adhere to Darwinism or evolution in the least . You copied and pasted your comment from 42 Evolution which is a propaganda site, not a science site. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            only racists believe in evolution? please keep it up….

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sure, because its entire premise is racism.

          • uninvitedguest

            so glad youre not the expert. i guess if talking snakes and people who walk on water sound more feasible………

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Have you studied Darwin? He states his premise: that blacks resemble apes and so they must have descended from them. Whites are superior (according to failed academic Darwin) and so they must have “evolved”. He’s so stupid that he doesn’t realize that he’s claiming thus to be part of an inferior (according to him) race. Real science (check out the law of entropy) states that things start out strong and then decay, not wax stronger. So if Darwin is correct and blacks came first, then blacks are the super strong ones and whites are the weakest. See how nutty he is? However, the Bible (and true science) teaches that we’re all descended from a common ancestor.

          • uninvitedguest

            shame that your bible is nothing more than a collection of stories that are pure fiction. whats nutty is that people believe we decended from a mud man and a rib woman. i do study science as its the fieldnin which i work . thanks but you can keep your fables and ill stick with actual science

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re desperate now. How do you work “in science”? Draw blood in a lab? Run an x-ray machine? 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            not desperate at all. pediatrcian

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re not a pediatrician! LOL You can’t even lie well! LOL

          • uninvitedguest

            whatever you say😀

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I won’t dox you, but you make it too easy. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            go for it…

          • uninvitedguest

            go for it

    • uninvitedguest

      lol. any proof? they wouldnt be “devout evolutionists” if they didnt really gelieve it

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Read the entire thread before commenting. I’ve already provided sources.

        • uninvitedguest

          youve provided nothing but ad hominems….typical

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here you go again. 🙂 Just admit you don’t know any science. Be truthful and perhaps you will learn something.

          • uninvitedguest

            you’re making me laugh…thx!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yep, just like I figured – no science. 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            whatever you say……whatever you say

  • Reason2012

    Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils that never happens and then claim fossils are “evidence” of it is anti-science circular reasoning, not science.

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

    It would be similar to the analogy of someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

    • Seen From Space

      No that is NOT the analogy you’re looking for. From your post it’s quite clear you have no grasp of the theory you’re disparaging. Please get acquainted with what evolutionary theory actually does say before tilting at straw men. What you are doing is like someone who doesn’t own a PC or smartphone insisting that email doesn’t exist.

      • Reason2012

        Feel free to point out ONE detail I got wrong, and cite what I should have said that would have supposedly been correct. All you have offered is ad hominem, which is all evolutionists can fall back on when their anti-science belief system has been exposed.

        • Seen From Space

          1. You don’t know the difference between a belief system and the scientific method.
          2. Shrieking “anti-science” when you’re obviously unclear on what science even is.
          3. Who “makes up” stuff about fossils and performs circular reasoning therefrom? This is another straw man.
          As if fossils were all there were by way of validation for evolutionary theory! You only believe what you write because everything you think you know about evolution you picked up from creationist propaganda. The phrases and tropes are all so familiar. And wrong. You haven’t got even the basics. If that counts as ad hominem in your book, too bad. You walk into it because you do NOT understand these technical matters better than people who study it professionally. You do not.

          • Reason2012

            1. Prove it. Only claiming it proves nothing and actually shows you know you’re wrong.

            2. SHOW i’m unclear. Only claiming it proves nothing and actually shows you know you’re wrong.

            3. Claiming “this is a transitional fossil” is making up a belief about the fossil that does not happen. Before you can call something, for example, a “transitional fossil” between fish and amphibians, you have to first show it’s reality that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into amphibians.

            The rest of your ad hominem only shows you not only lost the argument, but you know you did.

            So you cannot show ONE detail I got wrong, citing what I should have said instead, only claim I’m wrong.
            End of story.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What exactly is it you think evolution states?

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        What exactly is it that you think it doesn’t state? (Just showing how inane your question is. 🙂 )

  • Paul Burnett

    While Axe plays a biologist for the Dishonesty Institute’s fake “Biologic Institute”, his PhD is in Chemical Engineering! At least this book is a breakthrough, as the intelligent design creationists have stopped being coy about Who is the Intelligent Designer, after decades of not admitting it.

    • Amos Moses

      Henry Ford had no training in making automobiles or assembly lines ….. but guess what ……….. so you do make a point …. that is pointless ………

  • https://disqus.com/home/channel/fakethoughtsandprayers/ Chip01

    Does he mention WHICH God?

    With there being something like 4,200 gods worshipped today…it would be helpful to narrow down this theory of his

  • Scott Hurst

    Just goes to show, the market for lies that people are desperate to hear keeps on booming.

    Give it up people.

    • Reason2012

      If one is seeking that truth, it’s easy to figure out. Our attempt to pretend we cannot know will fall flat when we face God.

      The Bible is the only ‘religious’ book that dares to make prophecies, several hundred that have come true after the fact of them being written down, even up to thousands of years later.

      Although it is not a science textbook, there are dozens of scientific facts in the Bible that scientists didn’t and couldn’t figure out until hundreds and thousands of years later. Simple google of scientific facts in the bible will list some sites that go into great detail.

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

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

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

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

  • Reason2012

    It won’t make people believe as we always want to pretend we have an excuse not to believe so we can continue to sin all we want, but this will be one more reason we’ll be without excuse when we face God and face judgment for a lifetime of sinning, refusing to stop and refusing to be forgiven for it:

    Is a prosthetic leg proof of an intelligent designer? Is that not PROOF? Is the information that is then followed to make more of them not proof? Is the ability to decode that information and ACT on it to do what it says to build such a leg also more of the PROOF?

    Of course it is.

    Yet we want to pretend the leg itself, which is millions of times more ingenious and complex is NOT proof of an intelligent designer, nor the information encoded in DNA on how to build it, nor that information being decoded and acted upon to build more legs, nor that information being copied so it can be used again and again and again. Now we instead show how willfully ignorant we’re determined to be and say “nothing did it”.

    Not to mention the entire body it’s attached to, the brain that controls it by thoughts, the lung to breath air and air to be breathed, the heart to pump blood and blood to BE pumped, eyes to see, brain to process it and act upon it, ears to hear, brain to process it and act upon it and so many, many more systems. To pretend all of that is NOT proof of an intelligent designer, but a plastic prosthetic limb IS, is just willful ignorance on our part.

    Please think again on these things. God offers eternal life, not just life for our brief time here. And we will face Him to be judged for our lifetime of sinning, where the consequences of those sins would be death. But Christ took that punishment for us: God in the flesh. All we have to do is willingly accept that amazing gift: repent (change our mind about sin) and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to save us from the coming judgment.

    “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up [on the cross]: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
    And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved [exposed]. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

    John 3:14-21

    It’s between each person and God, and many false churches keep people blind to that truth by teaching the false claim it’s about works, or church attendance or cleaning up your act and so on.

  • Arthur Paliden

    Lets see Creationisum is giving chickens genes for growing:

    meat eating teeth, heavy jaws, a long segmented tail, and a penis

    All of which are first grown and then absorbed wasting vital food energy from the fixed food resource which is the yolk. In addition there is the waste of food energy as a result of the genes controlling the development and then breaking down of these features being copied over and over during cell division throughout the life of the chicken.

  • Arthur Paliden

    Demonstrating Species Evolution on Your Kitchen Table

    In 1979 it was discovered that the two sub species plants of the same species Senecio vulgaris and Senecio squalidus could interbreed and produce a hybrid.

    Now the hybrid generated by this inter-breeding was given the name Senecio eboracensis. This new plant can breed with itself which means it is a viable hybrid. However, and this is the really important part, it cannot breed with either of its parent plants or any other plants. So this means that the new hybrid must be of a new and different species than its originating plants.

    So what we have is two plants interbreeding to create a new never before seen plant species.

    Needless to say as these are plants you can of course repeat this on your own kitchen table as often as you want. You know repeatable testable evidence of macro evolution, the evolution of a new species.

    • Amos Moses

      But …….. still a plant …………….

      • Jalapeno

        In order for it to be macro-evolution, there only needs to be a change in species…not a change in class.

        • Amos Moses

          To explain animals you need to show how it happened ……… a plant is still just a plant ….. does not get us to a chicken or anything else ……….. actually you have to get us from single cell organisms to even plants ….. that has not been shown ….. mostly because you cant ….. you cant even explain how the single cell came to be from the inanimate ……

          • Jalapeno

            You said that we cannot show evolution, which refers to macro-evolution in these contexts typically.

            Macro-evolution refers to speciation.

            We have been able to show speciation.

            So..unless you want to come up with an explanation of what evolution means IN YOUR EYES…

          • Amos Moses

            show how a kind changes to another kind ….. a plant is still a plant … same kind ………..

          • Jalapeno

            Evolution consists of a split in species, not class.

            Imagine that an earthquake splits a species of lizards…one half moves to a more wooded climate and one to a more wet one after.

            Generations later, they meet up again and can no longer mate with each other because they have adapted enough to their individual areas that they are not the same species anymore.

            That is macro evolution.

          • Seen From Space

            Evolutionary theory does NOT say that a plant can turn into a chicken. With every post you prove yet again that you don’t understand even the basics.

          • Amos Moses

            So where did the chicken come from ……….. your theory ……

          • This style ten and six

            Chickens are descended from dinosaurs.

          • Amos Moses

            No evidence ………..

          • This style ten and six

            Just look at a rooster, it looks more like a dinosaur than a dinosaur does. (My little joke). But seriously there is very good evidence, we have feathered fossilized dinosaurs, archeopteryx and other transitional fossils. The evidence is very strong.

          • Amos Moses

            My Dodge pickup looks like a Chevy ……….. but it aint ……………

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Life is mysterious and is too wonder-filled and too solemn for it to be just a material. Praise the Lord our God, the Giver of all life. Atheists miss out everything valuable by denying the Creator God.

    • Seen From Space

      Wonder and amazement are not evidence. Theories depend not one bit on lay people being able or willing to understand them. Who said you need to be an atheist to realize Intelligent Design is a fundamentalist scam?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Atheists are bad; they massacre babies in both communist nations and free nations, and they massacre believers in communist nations, and they force Sodomy’s reign in free nations. Unbelieving Americans do not know the outside world other than their own little well-constructed-by-the-gentle-Protestants nation and that’s why they rant ignorance.

        • Seen From Space

          None of which means that Darwin was wrong, that creationism alone is synonymous with Christianity or morality, nor Intelligent Design is not pseudoscience. You don’t try and abolish the law of gravitation when someone is pushed out of a window. Anyway we live in a less violent world than at any time in history- don’t believe me? Look at the data – you can’t blame secularism for such crime as there is. People like Axe would love to abolish evolution by way of science. Not gonna happen. The real science is unambiguous. If he tells you different there’s a lot more he’s not telling you.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Darwinism is wrong. God created the world and gave life to creation and designed species separately. Nothing merged from nothingness no matter how much time you add; it’s not observed and it’s been impossible – zero possibility. Those who firmly held Darwinism committed the Holocaust last century. The Christendom found the physical laws including gravity’s effects, not secularists. Atheists and secularists only polluted the planet. It’s been more violent world for billions of unborn children and world’s population; you notice not a thing about the world when you are not the victim. The West’s secularism has become deadly only in recent decades; it carried the Christendom’s goodness till the 70’s. Civilizations do maga evils when they oppose the Holy Bible. It’s sad to see today’s Americans turning into villains. Having superb legacy doesn’t help a man to be good, I guess. You must repent of your sins and believe in Jesus to get saved. (John ch.3)

          • Seen From Space

            You only believe all that because your only sources are sectarian. Look at the data. You are far less likely to be murdered today, especially in Europe where evolution happens to be uncontroversial, than in earlier more devout centuries. Crime and social violence has declined markedly since the 70’s, so I don’t know what you’re thinking there! There is no link between secularism and crime. If you believe otherwise then produce some compelling data. And it’s nonsense that Darwinism caused the holocaust. There are passages in Mein Kampf that nail Hilter as a creationist. You will find that ISIS mass murderers are also creationists. Please widen your perspective. Loudly insisting the world is utterly black and white is simplistic and divisive.

          • Amos Moses

            “You are far less likely to be murdered today, especially in Europe where evolution happens to be uncontroversial,”

            Guess you dont read the news …………..

          • Jalapeno

            The news and statistics are very different things.

          • Amos Moses

            yeah …….. tell that to those in Paris about a truck driver running them down ….. hey, you guys were safe ………

          • Jalapeno

            Do you know what the difference is?

          • This style ten and six

            It was in Nice and was tragic. The US has also had mass murders, the latest big one being in Florida where 49 people were killed.

            The US is more dangerous than Europe or Canada due to the proliferation of guns.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Europe is superb only because it was a Christendom. Secularists murder unborn babies by millions. You would never have said what you are saying if you were an unborn baby murdered in your mother’s womb. The Germans believed in the superiority of their race, “chosen by natural selection”; it’s none else but Darwinism. USA does not combat ISIS seriously because USA is no longer good; it used to be a good guy bearing a noble mission, but today it is just a merchant counting his money and selling his own children to pervs on a dying planet. Americans need Christianity to be saved and to be noble.

          • Seen From Space

            However the Nazis may have misused evolutionary theory, that doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. Neither have ethics anything whatever to do with the technical validity of any scientific theory. Do you deplore the use of the periodic table in teaching chemistry because steel instruments are used in abortions? Please think things through, and ignore the misinformation spewing from the likes of the Biologic Institute.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Nazis applied Darwinism in the most purely logical way. Atheism cannot value human life.

          • Seen From Space

            Do you KNOW any atheists?? I know many and none are criminals. Most if not all are good compassionate people and model citizens with less of a judgmental attitude than you. Why would the murder rate decline so dramatically with the rise of secularism if Christians, and only certain denominations of Christian, have a monopoly on good behavior? What about all the public executions and judicial torture that used to go on in previous more devout centuries? Your opinions are not consistent with reality.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Atheists massacre the unborns and believers. Secular Americans are naive because they’ve always protected by the best Protestant Church. Christian Western civilization is the only civilization that had conflicts over the access to God’s truth and the freedom of conscience; all other civilizations did not even have such concepts(the value of objective truth, everyone’s human rights, freedom, etc) because they had no Bible. The West has been better-off only because of the Bible-literate Christianity, although it is fast deteriorating today because of blasphemies, infanticide, and immorality. You must stop repaying the good with evil to the Church; Europe and America are nothing without the Christian Church, as a man is nothing without his conscience.

          • Seen From Space

            Human rights rights and freedoms come from the Bible? In which parallel universe? Come on! These are quite new ideas, as are equality for women, being kind to animals and children, the abolition of slavery and torture, to name only a few. You have as little sense of history as you have for science. It’s not only evangelical Christians who deplore abortion and human rights violations! I don’t know what country you live in, nor what sort of company you keep, but it sounds like another planet to me.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You know not a thing because you are too young and didn’t read books especially the Origin, the Holy Bible. Read something written before the 1970’s such as John Locke and Frederick Douglass. The Western culture is just another illiterate barbarism like the rest if it had no Bible. Read the Holy Bible and find out the truth yourself. Colossians ch.1.

          • Seen From Space

            You have no idea what I haven’t read! I know monasteries were reservoirs of learning after the Roman Empire collapsed, and I understand quite well the role of the church in western civilization. The Enlightenment is a thing evangelicals despise, but it’s to this we owe modern humanitarian sensibilities as much if not more than to religion. The Abrahamic faiths have ratified our very worst instincts over the centuries: violence against and oppression of women, intolerance of minorities, demonization of the outsider and of the infidel.

            Creationism is like denying the Roman Empire ever existed, and insisting all modern European languages came into being, fully formed, simultaneously at some arbitrary date. And that all the archaeology, literature and art have been misinterpreted or faked. Imagine being a historian and having lay people, who obviously don’t know anything, try to sell you this! There is AT LEAST as much evidence for evolution as for the Roman Empire. If you doubt this, you’ve not looked into it properly.

          • Seen From Space

            On the technical points on Darwin, you are completely wrong. Again if all you think you know about evolution comes from sectarian websites, then of course you’ll only get a story heavily filtered and grossly misrepresented. The science is unambiguous, like it or not.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Species are not to be mixed up; the Creator God designed differently. Darwinism is wrong. Creationism is right. The Holy Bible is the truth. There is no other means for mankind to combat secular West’s Sodomism.

          • Seen From Space

            Sodomism? Wow. As if gay people have only existed since the end of some imaginary Golden Age! Vehement assertions don’t make reality. You believe whatever you want about the past, but don’t imagine for a second that science has not conclusively shown that we are of common descent with all life on earth, and that the universe is billions of years old. Faith or the lack of it is irrelevant. Creationism and Christianity are NOT synonymous.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You Westerners lost your common sense by losing Christianity.

          • Seen From Space

            Common sense is vastly overrated. If that’s what you use to judge validity of scientific results, you need another approach. Science is well known for being hugely counterintuitive! Also western science gave you this network and your device to allow this conversation, and may have prolonged your life by medical intervention. The applied methodology behind this tech and more is the same used to determine the age of the universe, in comparative genomics to map common descent, radiometric dating and many other fields. You disparage these achievements, and then pick and choose which results to ignore on grounds of sectarian theology. As sense goes, that’s not even very common.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Modern science is exclusively of the Bible-literate Christendom. Atheists and secularists only contributed in polluting the planet beyond recovery. Know your history correctly. God blessed the Christian West, and the secular humanists are destroying their own nations by being haughty against the Creator God. You must repent of your unbelief to get saved. Read John ch.3. Jesus is the Light and Life and atheism is a darkness of death and despair. Secular Westerners do not even know whether a person is male or female; that’s not just lack of common sense but altogether insane. Worse, powerful secular West forces their falsehood upon mankind. You guys are normal only when you are Christian.

          • Seen From Space

            Excuse me, I don’t remember telling you I was an atheist. You have a very selective view of both past and present.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are atheist if you are Darwinian.

          • Seen From Space

            Crap.

    • This style ten and six

      Are you saying that atheists cannot live a good and rewarding life, love their family, bring up children who contribute to the community? Are you saying that atheists are beyond the pale of polite society? Is that what you are saying?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Americans are altogether naive on atheism because they never suffered atheism’s brutal reign, being always well-fed by the nicest Christian churches on earth. Atheism is evil and nothing can stop its conduct of massacre, unless halted by God Himself. Atheists need to repent of their evil of unbelief because they are all dying meaninglessly in their sin. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Psalms 14, Romans 6)

        • This style ten and six

          Dear me, you are in a tizzy. Have you ever met an atheist?

          • Amos Moses

            We all was one once ……… silly question ……….

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, a lot. None of them had any clean language. All of them blaspheme and they massacred my countrymen for being Christian. Psalm 14 is true. You have no truth or life apart from Christianity.

          • This style ten and six

            I can assure you that i have never killed or injured anyone. I know quite a few church goers and we get along very well. We never even discuss religion.

            In fact my only difference from you is that I do not believe in a supernatural being who interferes in human affairs. That does not make me the devil incarnate.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes you have killed ……….. in the biblical view …….. your tongue is the sharpest and most deadly weapon you possess ……….

          • This style ten and six

            Why, thank you for that encomium. I am not yet Swiftian but I do try.

          • Amos Moses

            BTW, it is spelled meconium ……….. if you are going to insult …. learn to spell the insult properly ………..

          • This style ten and six

            Encomium. A speech or piece of writing that praises.

            It was not an insult.

          • Amos Moses

            okay ….

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You hurt others by being silent on infanticide against unborn children. You can act nicely in a peacful time, but you will reveal your true horrific self once you seize power over the Christians. Americans do not know much about raw humanity because they were never subdued by brutal atheistic foreign forces. Those who do not value unborn children do not value any human life. Your niceness is durable as the morning mist. Man is sinful. You need God to get saved and be good. Read the Holy Bible and repent of your evil unbelief.

          • This style ten and six

            What can I say! Atheists are not an organised community, they do not belong to any particular political party and do not have a common agenda. They certainly are not a danger to anyone any more than any other group.

            In short atheists are pretty much the same as everyone else except they do not see evidence for the supernatural.

            I think you would be much happier if you could get over this irrational fear that atheists are going to take over the country. Nothing could be further from the truth.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Atheists are fellow humans and they need to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ to get saved. Atheists are sinners, and Jesus saves sinners from sin and sin’s deadly results if they repent. The Word of God is true no matter how humans react. You don’t know what you need and what is best for you. Truth is objective. You’d read the Holy Bible to discover whose world you are living in and who gave you life if any honesty is in you.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            She loves to paint all Atheists with the same broad brush. I triend several times to explain to her that we’re not all like that, but she won’t listen.

  • Dennis Fisher

    This false dichotomy of God OR evolution is evil and damages the Church.

    “Better a millstone…” indeed.

    • Seen From Space

      Heat hear! You’re not an “atheist” because you’re not taken in by pseudoscience and sectarian propaganda.

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    This is very sad for Marvel and DC comics. If life can’t form from miraculous industrial radioactive problems and lab accidents, then all they are left with is baseless fiction. Surely Spiderman should have felt this with his spidey senses! Superman is never going to fly! All we are left with is Iron Man!

  • YaroMan

    Not really an accomplished scientist as the first paragraph suggests. Unless you define “accomplished” as “the rare creationist with an actual relevant degree not from a diploma mill.”

    Of course, a Google search shows that he’s far from notable, is director of some part of the Discovery Institute (Which is not a real scientific institution no matter how much they claim they are since they don’t do actual science. DI is just an apologetics organization.) and that none of his papers are either notable OR approach refuting evolution or supporting intelligent design.

    So right off the bat this article is just an appeal to authority, though credit where credit is due at least it’s not an appeal to a FALSE authority like most creationist articles are.

    ““[My strategy was] to look at the constraints on gene sequences and protein sequences and see if the constraints were loose enough that evolution could work or if they were too tight so that evolution couldn’t work,” Axe said in a recent interview with the Discovery Institute.”

    In a statement to HIS OWN ORGANIZATION (Biologic Institute is just part of DI.), he basically says that he started with his conclusion and worked from there. By what mechanism did he test these constraints? What are the conditions by which what he was testing for be falsified?

    ““I was consistently starting to find that [the constraints on gene and protein sequences] were too tight—that the target that had to be hit for something to work as an enzyme was too small for accidental changes, accidental mutations,” he said.”

    Wow, how did this guy get a PhD when he clearly doesn’t even understand his own field? Evolution doesn’t have “targets” nor is it a series of accidental mutations.

    ““That’s where Darwin went wrong,” Axe stated. “He assumed that inventions could [take place] a little bit at a time.””

    Evolution isn’t “inventions.” I’d wager Darwin never even said anything about it. But actually, yes, invention can be a gradual process. You think someone can just up and create a device on just the first try? Though this is irrelevant to evolution: Making something that works is an iterative process.

    ““It’s easy to fall for the idea that on a scale of eons and on a scale of billions and trillions of organisms, things can happen that are very, very counterintuitive,” he explained. “Well, it turns out, if you do the math, billions of years is not nearly long enough and trillions and trillions of organisms is not nearly enough for the sort of magic to happen that would have to happen for inventions to happen by accident. It’s just not enough.””

    I can easily see how it happens and I’m not even a PhD. You take a population, separate them into two, then gradually change the environment of one population over the course of quite a few generations. Iteratively, BOTH populations will be changed, descending from the common ancestor species into two descended species. The species in the original environment will likely more closely resemble the ancestor species because of far less selection pressure, the other species will be further removed because to continue to survive in the new environment only individuals who could survive in the new environment long enough to reproduce did so, resulting in unfavorable traits for the environment to be weeded out but those better suited for the environment to become more common. Over billions of years this happened, and yes, REAL scientists (Not this guy who left actual scientific study for apologetics.) have demonstrated and observed this and published thousands of papers explaining how they did it!

    Not that people on this site will accept that, because Jesus.

    ““The orthodox position in the academies is that Darwinism is true and everyone who denies it is putting their head in the sand,” he said in an interview with “The Mountain Times.” “It’s not easy to dislodge that, but my plan is to get a huge number of people who are very bright and very capable of articulating their point of view, who get this.””

    In an obscure local newspaper he calls scientific consensus “orthodoxy.” Yeah, no. That’s not even refutation of evolution, it’s being butthurt that the scientific community rejects your claim, AS THEY SHOULD, because your claim is just plain wrong, if not outright fraud.

    By the way, even if somehow you actually debunk evolution (This guy didn’t come close to even offering a problem for evolution, just more of the same Creationist tactics.) you still have to show evidence for Creationism/Intelligent Design. Just refuting your opposed view is NOT evidence for your preferred one. I doubt this is the first time most of the Christians on this site have seen anyone with a clue say that, but “Evolution is false.” is NOT equal to “Creationism is true.” You still have the burden of proof. We’ve met ours for evolution. Not our fault you’d rather support a literal interpretation of a debunked work of fiction over reality.

    • Amos Moses

      Yep …… the world loves its own ………. no surprise there ……… and if your view is opposed to the world …… the vermin gang up on you ………… and the current 336 comments on this story has certainly bought out the vermin ………..

    • Amos Moses

      “Just refuting your opposed view is NOT evidence for your preferred one. I doubt this is the first time most of the Christians on this site have seen anyone with a clue say that, but “Evolution is false.” is NOT equal to “Creationism is true.””

      Yep ……. and “evolution” has no where met its burden to disprove creation ………. it has never refuted creation ………. and at best the only answer the “evolutionists” can come up with is “magic” …… how did the inanimate become animate is a question that they still have not answered …. books do not write themselves …… and neither does DNA, RNA or any of the other complex structures required ….. and they all actually have to be in place SIMULTANEOUSLY for life to even begin ……….. but it was all an “accident” ….. so all you are is an “accident theorist” ………

      • Jalapeno

        “Yep ……. and “evolution” has no where met its burden to disprove creation”

        What standard would you set for that?

        If we managed to get a time machine and watched evolution happening from the beginning, would you think that creationism was false?

        If we found another deity creating evolution from the beginning, would you still believe what you do now?

        • Amos Moses

          Lots of “ifs” ….. show how the inanimate becomes animate ……….. that should be the first step …… but according to “evolutionists” …. that took “millions of years” …….. go ahead ….. i will wait ……… holding my breath ………..

          One day satan told God that he could create life …… God said “Go ahead, i will watch” ….. satan said “all i have to do is take this handful of dirt and …….” ….. God said ” Wait a minute, thats My dirt, go find your own” ………………….

          • Jalapeno

            So..if people come up with a reasonable explanation for biogenesis, you’d agree that evolution is true?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So if the Bible was proven to be true, you’d become a Christian?

          • Jalapeno

            Why didn’t you answer the question?

            But.. No, probably not a Christian but I would at least acknowledge that it was factually true.

            So.. If people come up with a reasonable explanation for biogenesis, you’d agree that evolution is true?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What do you think biogenesis is? You seem to be confused by the term. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            Not at all, I’m basing it on the standard you set.

            Still no answer?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            BIogenesis means “the production of living organisms from other living organisms”.

          • Jalapeno

            Fascinating.

            You said that evolution wasn’t true because life couldn’t come from nothing.. Therefore if it can be shown that life can some with nothing, your opinion of evolution shouldn’t change.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            First of all, that’s not biogenesis. 🙂 Biogenesis supports the Bible, because life must come from life. That life is Jesus Christ.

          • Jalapeno

            If it could be shown that life could come from inorganic material, would you agree with evolution?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know what you’re talking about. 🙂 You’re thinking of abiogenesis, not biogenesis. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            Neat.

            If it could be shown that we have a reasonable explanation of how life came from non life, would you think evolution is true?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s a circular reasoning question, because life cannot come from non-life. 🙂 You don’t know the difference between biogenesis and aboiogenesis. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not circular logic.

            I’m asking “in hypothetical situation A, would B occur”?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s like saying, “If someone could prove that mice could come to life from rags, would you believe it”? 🙂 Abiogenesis is simply a chemical version of the mice/rags theory. 🙂 Nothing new under the sun and all that. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not a hard question.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No kidding. It’s a non-question. It’s like saying, “If I could offer you proof that the Easter Bunny is real and came from a bunch of rags in an old attic, would you believe it?” 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            I’m not asking if you would believe that life came from non life, I’m asking if you would accept the theory of evolution.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Of course not. You have no clue what you’re even talking about. And for the record, the moon isn’t made of cheese either. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            So.. Your statement that evolution can’t be true because life can’t come from non life is kind of pointless, eh?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No, it’s proven even further by the mice/rag theory that was once held by evolutionists as proof of evolution years ago. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            Okay, so you’re saying “A cannot be true because B isn’t true”..but B being true would not make a single difference to you. There’s a bit of an issue with that. Oh well…silly standards don’t apply here, apparently.

            So…what hypothetical situation would make you accept the theory?

            A time machine that showed animals evolving over time?

            More fossils? A better understanding of biology?

            If a deity came down and said that he created the universe and evolution happened on its own…would you accept it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If a premise is false, the conclusion must be false. Logic 101.

          • Jalapeno

            You’re saying that the premise being true would have no impact on your rejection of the conclusion.

            Given..there’s nothing LOGICALLY wrong with that, there are many premises that don’t actually have an impact on the conclusion, they’re just fluff.

            However..you used the premise as a primary part of your argument, so the truth value of that premise really should have an impact on the truth value of the conclusion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m saying unequivocally that the premise is not true and can not be true. Like I said, this theory has been debunked before, even though pseudo scientists pushed it before when they claimed mice came from rags.

          • Jalapeno

            Cool, whatever you say.

            So..why would you make an argument reliant on a premise..but the actual truth value of the premise changing wouldn’t change your position?

            Here’s an example that you’re not so emotionally invested in..a little concept of intellectual honesty.

            I could say that bunnies do not have scales because they are mammals. If someone was able to show that bunnies actually WERE NOT mammals…my reasoning for saying that they did not have scales would no longer hold up. I would have to reconsider my stance on bunnies and scales.

            Sure, they still wouldn’t have scales..and sure..bunnies are still mammals even as I consider the hypothetical idea..but we’re talking about the logic and the honesty involved, as well as a major concept of logic. You ARE well versed in logic 101 concepts, aren’t you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re still rambling on about things of which you know nothing. 🙂

            You probably think ET is real, too. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            Oh?

            Where in your logic studies did you learn that the primary premise being negated wouldn’t have an impact on the truth value of a conclusion?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s like saying, “Where in your math studies did you learn that 1 + 1 = 2?” 🙂 You can’t be for real. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            Cute.

            If you say that “Not B, therefore not A”…

            It doesn’t mean that A is true..but it DOES mean that you no longer have a validation for claiming that A is false.

            Go ahead. I’ll wait for you to explain how I’m wrong..something better than “hahahah you’re wrong because basic facts exist”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re rambling again.

          • Jalapeno

            So..how am I wrong?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re wrong about everything. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            Okay..no actual explanation.

            Got it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already explained it to you many posts ago. 🙂 You kept rambling. I don’t have time – nor the inclination – to give you a free education. 🙂

          • Jalapeno

            Nop..all you said was that the truth value of one thing WAS a certain thing.

            As I demonstrated with the bunny example, having the truth value unequivocally “true” or “false” does not prevent you from considering alternatives.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Look, Giselle, you’re just rambling at this point. It appears you are either trying to just stir up strife on the board, that you are desperate for someone to talk to you, or that you, yourself, are confused. I can’t help you.

          • Jalapeno

            Don’t flatter yourself. I’m not confused, nor do I consider this to be any kind of socialisation.

            I guess you don’t really have anything more than “you’re wrong and I can’t explain why”. Should have guessed that from the start.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I cannot explain any more why living mice can’t come from rags than I can tell you why 1 + 1 doesn’t = 3. You just keep arguing, Giselle, as though dead mice DO come from rags and that 1 + 1 CAN equal 3 contrary to the evidence. Is education that poor in Tennessee? Does the DNC only accept failed science students? You tell me.

          • Jalapeno

            I was talking about critical thinking, not questioning you on your rag stuff.

            I was talking about saying “Not A, therefore not B”…but not thinking about the implications if A was true.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already explained why, if a premise is false, the ensuing conclusion must be false as well. Explaining it 20 x’s to you won’t make you understand it better. I can’t help you.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..I know you said that.

            And I’m saying that, in the HYPOTHETICAL situation that the premise was true, you should reevaluate your take on the conclusion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Again, that doesn’t even make sense, Giselle.

          • Jalapeno

            It makes perfect sense.

            If your argument is that A cannot be true because B is not true…then if you find out that B is true, why would you not reconsider whether A is true?

            I thought you were a big fan of logic.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re not practicing logic. 🙂 A logical argument is built upon premises logically leading to a conclusion. Each premise must be true, and must follow the other, in order for the conclusion to be true.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes..I’m talking about what happens if one of the premises changes.

            If your argument is “Not A, therefore not B”…what happens if your first premise, (the premise claiming that A is not true)..is false?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re just trolling now, and poorly, too. 🙂 I already told you that if a premise is false then the conclusion cannot logically follow the argument. It’s like counting. You can’t decide which order you’ll put the numbers in and still make sense. They’re there for a reason.

            Math isn’t your strong suit.

          • Jalapeno

            So..you’re agreeing?

            If the premise (A is not true) is false…then you can’t make assumptions about B anymore?

          • Michael McElroy

            I already explained why, if a premise is false, the ensuing conclusion must be false as well.

            Each premise must be true, and must follow the other, in order for the conclusion to be true.

            No, no, no, no, no.

            That’s absolutely, completely, 100% wrong. If a premise is false, the ensuing conclusion may not follow from the premises, but that does not make it false in any way, shape, or form.

            Premise 1: If I am male, then I drive a bus.
            Premise 2: I am female.
            Conclusion: I do not drive a bus.

            Premise 2 is false, but I also don’t drive a bus. Because this is the actual true set of premises:

            Premise 1: If I am male or female, then I might drive a bus.
            Premise 2: I am male.
            Premise 3: I do not drive a bus.
            Conclusion: I do not drive a bus.

            I already told you that if a premise is false then the conclusion cannot logically follow the argument.

            No, you said the conclusion must be false. There is a difference between “it doesn’t follow from the premises” and “it is false.” A conclusion which doesn’t follow from the premises can still be true.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m referring to the argument as a whole.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Every Young Earth Creationist I know in the field has a Ph.D. from a secular institution of learning, like Harvard. 🙂

      • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

        Pardon me, but pointing to other believers who do not follow the scientific method is neither proof nor evidence of anything except their refusal to follow the scientific method–which means they are not scientists in a true sense, at least not in the field of evolution.

        Real evolutionary scientists do not begin with a conclusion.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Pardon me, but pointing to those who follow the scientific method and smearing them by falsely claiming they do not follow the scientific method merely because of their faith, is misleading and dishonest.

          Your last statement proves your prejudice and lack of understanding: In order for one to be an evolutionary scientist, one must not only begin with an assumption and a conclusion, but one must suspend logic and reason to do so.

          Have a good day.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Absurd! In order to “prove” intelligent design and especially the biblical creation, you have to find evidence. You do not assume it is true and just argue selected points of evolution.

            If I wanted to destroy the evolutionary theory, I have the freedom to go around the world digging and chipping in Mesozoic formations to find one unquestionably human fossil. Guess what? That sort of chipping and digging has been going on for at least the past 150 years and no such fossil has been found.

            So, smearing creation “scientists?” LOL. To conclude that the biblical creation actually happened, they are clearly not following the scientific method, as I said. Any real scientist does not begin with a conclusion and then never question it. It is not science.

            You must not understand the scientific method. It goes like this:

            1. Define the Problem: The question that you are trying to answer;
            2. Form a Hypothesis: An educated guess to the problem identified;
            3. Research and Collect Data: Observations and Facts;
            4. Experiment (predict what the outcome should say. If the experiment verifies the hypothesis–ALL experiments the scientist can conceive), and then;

            Absurd! In order to “prove” intelligent design and especially the biblical creation, you have to find evidence. You do not assume it is true and just argue selected points of evolution.

            If I wanted to destroy the evolutionary theory, I have the freedom to go around the world digging and chipping in Mesozoic formations to find one unquestionably human fossil. Guess what? That sort of chipping and digging has been going on for at least the past 150 years and no such fossil has been found.

            So, smearing creation “scientists?” LOL. To conclude that the biblical creation actually happened, they are clearly not following the scientific method, as I said. Any real scientist does not begin with a conclusion and then never question it. It is not science.

            You must not understand the scientific method. It goes like this:

            1. Define the Problem: The question that you are trying to answer;
            2. Form a Hypothesis: An educated guess to the problem identified;
            3. Research and Collect Data: Observations and Facts;
            4. Experiment (predict what the outcome should say. If the experiment verifies the hypothesis–ALL experiments the scientist can conceive), then go to step (5).

            If the experiments refute her prediction, then the she throws out the hypothesis for another that fits what the experiments said. That process eventually leads to the most probable correct hypothesis (then on to step [5]).

            5. Conclusion and publication: If experiments verify the hypothesis, then the scientist publishes his hypothesis and the details of his experiments in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

            6. Other scientists, UNCONNECTED to the scientists who developed the hypothesis, will duplicate her experiments and either refute or verify her methodology and conclusions, and then think of other experiments/tests of their own.

            Only after years of such testing and evidence gathering will a hypothesis become a scientific theory. It is called a “theory” because it is always open to evidence that will refute it.

            And, by the way, if the results of experiments and the eventual theory happens to step on someone’s theological toes, it was totally unintended, but scientists cannot change their process or conclusions based on the popularity of a belief.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolution is a conclusion for which there is no evidence.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Quite truly, you need to study the subject with a bit of intellectual honesty and integrity. I cannot argue with abysmal, willful ignorance.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I suppose I have to give back all my degrees. *hangs head in shame* What were they thinking in giving them to me? 🙂

            Here’s a tip for you, Hobbes: The deepest principles can often be expressed in the simplest, most concise terms, like E = mc 2 . When someone rambles on in great detail about something that leads to a conclusion that disproves his argument, as I showed yours did with one precise sentence, then he(you) lose all credibility.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            If all your degrees did not teach you the scientific method and teach you to vet information you were probably taught to believe from tot-hood, then if any of those degrees are in science, yes, you need to give them back.

            You obviously don’t have formal education if freshman informal logic (critical thinking).

            Challenge: Lay out my argument in a syllogism and show me and other readers where my argument is wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you don’t have ANY education. You “studied” philosophy at college. You’re a truck driver. You’re a self-published author. In other words, no credibility. NOTHING you have said is logical. You just word vomited a bunch of terms that you thought would make you look smart. You thought no one would know what you were talking about. You’re like the person who uses Babel to pretend he knows a foreign language. You thought no one here would know the difference. Well, you were wrong, and you’re being called out on it.

            Dr. Douglas Axe is a scientist with a Ph.D. from
            California Institute of Technology and he’s done research for the University of Cambridge. That’s a career a truck driver like you can only dream of.

            As far as your challenge goes, I don’t have time to give you a free education.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            That’s what I thought. You have no idea how to construct a logical syllogism. And you call ME uneducated. LOL!

            Further proof if your lack of education is that you feel that you must condescend with personal attacks (fallacious ad hominem arguments) which reflect your uneducated, puffed up view that all truck drives are uneducated.

            I gave you a challenge. You cannot meet that challenge. Clearly, you have never had even a freshman course in informal logic.

            For your information, my relatively short career as truck driver came after my career as ISO Quality Management implementer and quality assurance manager. I left that high pressure career because I decided that driving would provide the time I needed to pursue what I really wanted to do–write a novel based on biblical literality.

            It’s all right there in my preface free to read online.

            If you wish to match scientist for scientist, I can certainly accommodate, but I know that there is not amount of logic or factual argument that you would accept.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you don’t even know what you asked for. Your lack of education comment is you projecting. I have the education I say I do. You clearly do not.

            You, who have no science education, are on a science thread claiming to know more than the scientist referenced in the article. The game is up.

          • getstryker

            Funny, I think the same thing about folks that buy into evolution . . . ‘abysmal, willful ignorance’

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Yes, my friend. But that’s the usual argument from creationists–just toss back comments, but offer absolutely no facts or counter argument. If you read some of my previous posts, you will see that I back up what I say.

            The person to whom I was answering was a stalker. He was the only debater I’ve blocked because he simply kept saying that I was a liar, but he would never present his reason for thinking so. He just wanted to harass me. His insecurity, vindictiveness and hate runs quite deep.

            I always welcome civil arguments. So, if you disagree with anything I’ve said on this blog, please don’t hesitate to present a counter, logical argument.

          • getstryker

            You state that ‘GUEST’ is “a stalker. He was the only debater I’ve blocked because he simply kept saying that I was a liar, but he would never present his reason for thinking so. He just wanted to harass me. His insecurity, vindictiveness and hate runs quite deep.” – My, my, that must make you sleep well – You have denied someone that questions the very truthfulness of your comments? Interesting, what does that say about your own ‘insecurities?’ I read his comments and agreed with what he said. He was certainly more articulate than I am, quite well versed in his rebuttals to your comments and someone whom I have grown to respect considering the veracity of his position. You defend a lie sir, you don’t believe that now but the evidence you seek is swiftly approaching – either way, whether you or I or GUEST or anyone else has the truth will be apparent soon. Time WILL tell.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            I invite you to read through the “argument.” He claimed that my first post was a lie, insinuating that I claimed to be a philosopher and a scientist. I asked him what I had said that made him think so. He would not say. I asked several times. He would not say but continued to personally attack me. I finally copied my first post, pasted it to a response and asked him to point out the lie. He refused and just repeated the accusation.

            Now, if you wish to take up his accusations, I’ll ask you to act with honesty and integrity (which he refused to do) and point out where I lied or misrepresented myself. Are you an honorable Christian?

          • getstryker

            First, I have already indicated that I am done with any discussion over evolution vs creation with you. Neither of us will change the others opinions. Second, I don’t speak for GUEST – I merely agreed with his position. Third, whether I am an ‘honorable Christian’ is between God and I – You use a childish challenge to ‘bait’ me into some long drawn-out argument neither of us will win? I think not. You have gone to great lengths writing lengthy rebuttals to soothe your ego and justify your position to Guest and now you wish to continue it with me? – personally, I could care less – you argue just for the sake of arguing . . . as I said: we’re done!

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            I don’t doubt that you agreed with his position. So much for intellectual honesty.

            Okay, we are done. I can’t argue with a stone.

        • getstryker

          “Real evolutionary scientists do not begin with a conclusion” . . . Sure they do – they dismiss the idea of a Creator God and then set about formulating theories and such based on coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, we think statements with a ‘definite maybe’ thrown to lend their wild imaginations that ‘air of real scientific authority’ . . . read what your ‘evolutionary scientists’ write, how they write it . . . it all boils down to a ‘WAG.’

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            I know you like to believe that, but, of course, you are quite wrong. It is true, however, that scientists do not insert a god into the mix as creationists do. That is not science. Science is seeking the most plausible answer to the existence of natural phenomena.

            There are over 4,000 religions in the world and most have their own creation myth. Which one most people believe is the one they were taught from tot-hood to belive–and that goes for Christians as well.

            A scientist cannot place a god into the gaps in evolution. Were they to do that, then there would be no need to look further. And most, if not all real scientists welcome the problems and gaps because it prompts more research.

            It seems that you haven’t a clue as to how the scientific method works. Read my post to “Guest” 5 days ago where I lay out the steps of the scientific method. Note the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory and how scientists move from hypothesis (a necessary step to experimentation) to a theory.

          • getstryker

            Oh yes, of course – ‘quite wrong’ . . . and your comment – “A scientist cannot place a god into the gaps in evolution. Were they to do that, then there would be no need to look further.” – Ah yes, so, in other words, If credit was given where credit is due to a Creator God – there would be no ‘evolutionary BS artists (oh, excuse me, I mean ‘evolutionary scientists’) And here’s your comment that wraps up your entire argument: “real scientists welcome the problems and gaps because it prompts more research.” – Oh yes, ‘more research’ – translation: MORE MONEY!!!. ‘Evolution science’ is nothing more than a ‘state religion’ meant to deny a Creator God. I care less how much ‘BS and fancy footwork’ you try to wrap it all up in – it’s ALL still a lie. It makes no difference to me if you or anyone else of your ilk believes it – your scorn, mocking and insistence that you’re correct changes nothing in the end. Time will tell who is right and who is not. – the ‘evidence’ will be plain. We’re done!

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Ah yes, so, in other words, If credit was given where credit is due to a Creator God

            I sorry that it appears you will never understand it. Science works ONLY on natural phenomena. Wherever they find a question in nature, they can’t just ASSUME a got did it. Objectivity in science is critical. If real scientists simply did as you suggest, then we would still be bleeding people, sleeping with the livestock, cooking over dried dung, and believing that sickness is caused by demons.

            That is not a condescension, but a suggestion of where we would be were it not for science breaking loose from religious dogma. In the 21 century, it is astonishing that fundamentalist Christians cannot grasp that simple idea.

            So you are opposed to objective research believing it is wasting money. I am truly sorry for you and all people fear the advance of science–while enjoying the benefits of it in our modern society.

            I think I’ve milked this dead cow long enough. You believe your god gave you a brain, but you refuse to use it.

  • Reason2012

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

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

    (a) *Ignore* that scientific fact

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

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

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

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

  • C_Alan_Nault

    No one prove that God is not real. Every atheist will ask you to prove that he is real and avoid offering any proof that he isn’t real.

    • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

      There is no proof that unicorns are not real, nor that Bertrand Russell’s orbiting teapot is real. That is why it’s not science. A scientific hypothesis must be independently testable and verified or refuted.

      Come to think of it, I came to the conclusion that there were horned elephants in the woods behind my house. I’ve been there and I’ve seen trees laying on the ground, some uprooted and some splintered, and holes in the ground where they’ve stepped in soft soil. Obvious proof of their existence.

      So I endeavored to set out gardenia plants around my yard to keep them away. It worked. No horned elephants have ever set foot in my yard. That’s proof that horned elephants don’t like the smell of gardenias.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Dude, you’re not a scientist, you’re a retired truck driver with a self published book. You don’t know more than actual scientists do. 🙂

        • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

          I had several carriers and formally studied philosophy, paleoanthropology and world religions in college, dude.

          And, actually, if you had any formal education in evolutionary science and especially knew the scientific method, you would not be so eager to condescend to others who know something about it. When you enter a debate, you should really know what you are talking about. You have offered only condescension, but no logical argument and never refuted my statement so which you responded. So, did you learn that with your degrees? Is that the sum total of your knowledge?

          Actually, real scientists follow the scientific method, creation “scientists” do not. If you find one, please let me know.

          And by the way, do you have to be a doctor to know that sickness is not caused by demons?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’ve got no degree. You’re pretending to be a philosopher when the fact is that you graduated with nothing.

            Besides science, I am a logician, with specialties in logic, both applied and symbolic, with a branch of etymology. I began university at the age of 14. The ONLY reason I mention this (and I still haven’t mentioned 2 other branches that I am currently working under) is because you’ve come here to try to FOOL Christians into acting like you know something they don’t. You do not. You are a truck driver who is no smarter (actually, the Bible calls you a fool) than the likes of the ones whom you are debating.

            If you want an education, go get one. I hear it’s free at your age.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            You’ve got no degree. You’re pretending to be a philosopher when the fact is that you graduated with nothing.

            Well, I’m glad that you feel so much better about yourself now. Please note, however, that I never said I was a philosopher and nor did I say anywhere that I had a degree in anything.

            I am open and honest, and try to debate in a civil manner. That is much more than I can say for you. You see, you do not debate the argument, but can only hurl insults at me and all working people who drive trucks. Yet you haven’t the knowledge to debate me. But to your condescension, I’ve met many drivers out there who are more civil and more educated than you.

            Not that I owe you any explanation, but I had three years of college while working full time to support a family. When I was promoted to quality manager and ISO 9000 quality management implementer, I no longer had time for college and hoped that I’d return and finish later. Life, however, often gets in the way.

            So, do you really think that you are a good example of a Christian? Is the way you act the way Jesus would want you to act? You run from debate when you cannot refute an argument?

            And you tell ME to get an education? LOL!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Your first post was an insult. You misrepresented your authority. You were called out on it. Deal with it.

            You’re not a scientist. The Ph. D. subject of the article is. You’re not a philosopher. If you care to read about God and philosophy, try Descartes, Aquinas, or David Berlinski.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Tell me exactly what I said that was a misrepresentation of authority? Lay it out. Show me where I said I was a scientists or a philosopher.

            You can’t do it because you are lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here we go with the false accusations again. You are not the topic of the discussion. The Ph.D. biologist’s dismantling of evolutionary theory is.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Okay, without the last line. I’ll ask very politely; Tell me exactly what I said that was a misrepresentation of authority? Lay it out. Show me where I said I was a scientists or a philosopher.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, are you the subject of this article?

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            No, I am the subject of your illogical and juvenile attacks.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I haven’t attacked you, and you clearly don’t know what logic is. 🙂 Have a good night.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            LOL, still dodging my questions.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m not here to talk about you. You’re boring.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Yes, to a fraud and a coward, I would be.

            So, tell me exactly what I said that was a misrepresentation of authority? Lay it out. Show me where I said I was a scientists or a philosopher.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Unless you have scientific evidence to discuss pertinent to the subject at hand, do not address me.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Running away? I understand. You were not truthful and I called you out. Do you feel better about yourself for your fraudulent claims? I’ve been honest because I have high ethical standards. You should be man/woman enough to admit when you are wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, I’m right here. I just don’t want to talk to you. You lied. You are not a philosopher or a scientist. You are pretending to know more than the Ph.D. biologist who wrote the book.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            I’m asking you a simple question and you are refusing to answer.

            Tell me exactly what I said that was a misrepresentation of authority? Lay it out. Show me where I said I was a scientists or a philosopher. Instead of attacking me, attack my argument.

            The proper thing to do would be to state my argument that led you to that conclusion. My request could not be more simple. If I actually stated what you claim and I lied (about something you are not making clear), then just lay it out and I will apologize.

            If you think my original argument sounded like a scientist or philosopher, then I can not help it if you felt I was claiming to be a scientist or philosopher. But that was your problem, not mine.

            I am well read in the science of evolution and I studied philosophy steadily for three years (to include logic). Therefore, I endeavor to give logical arguments. If you disagree with the argument, then lay out the argument in a logical syllogism and show me.

            My request is not unreasonable. Back up your words like a good Christian of high moral values–such as truthfulness and integrity.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you said it in your first post. Did you edit it? I don’t know. I don’t care enough to look. Being well read (in your opinion) is not the same thing as having a Ph. D. in biology, as the subject of the article has. You think you know more than he does about the topic. You do not. Studying philosophy for 3 years with no degree is not the same as being a logician.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Very well. I will retreive my first post and post it here (anyone can find it easily to ensure I’ve not edited any of it):

            Before folks on this blog get too excited, you might check Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al, a trial where the famous (in fundamentalist circles) scientist, Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box and Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,) was thoroughly discredited by real evolutionary biologists. The trial was presided over by a conservative judge.

            And then there was Kirk Wise, a scientist who wrote:

            . . . if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.”

            Sad.

            Folks, creationism is the opposite of science. Where science begins with a question and works to find the best solution, creationism begins with a solution (God did it) and under no circumstances will that solution (conclusion) ever be questioned. That is not science because it is not the scientific method and therefore does not belong in science classes.

            Now I’ve made it very easy for you. Please point out where I said I was a philosopher or a scientist.

            What likely happened is that you looked at my profile and/or looked me up on the Internet and saw that I wrote that I had studied philosophy, paleoanthropology and world religions at VCU and wrote a novel.

            Had I wished to deceive, I would have not said “studied.”

            Somehow, you got the idea that I was claiming to be a philosopher and/or a scientist. And certainly you never saw anywhere where I said I had a PhD. But then you come back and call me a liar.

            Do I get an apology such as I would give you if I was wrong?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So in that entire diatribe you still don’t have anything to say about the actual article? 🙂

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Point out where I claimed to be a philosopher or a scientist. That is what you said I lied about. You still can’t bring yourself to be honest, can you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Point out where you said anything accurate about science. 🙂

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            You are the coward who challenged me. It is up to you to refute what I said. That is the HONEST, honorable and educated thing to do.

            But cowards hide behind the word “guest” and make claims and attacks feeling secure in their anonymity. You are a coward and anyone who reads with reason and a bit of education can see it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I haven’t challenged you – I’ve proven you to be a fraud. Do you have any scientific evidence to offer to the discussion? If not – why are you here?

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            You are a liar.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Says the person who can’t respond intelligently to the subject at hand.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        Actually, scientists have proved that a horned equus animal could not exist.

        • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

          Really? Please give me references to the objective research that “proved” horned elephants do not exist. I’m very interested.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Ummm..you can’t read. That is your problem.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            The problem is that some of you folks make assertions but then refuse to show the source. That is intellectual dishonesty. I will always show my source–and if I forget, I will gladly give it upon request.

            If you are not deceiving, then name your source. That is a very simple request. There are a great number of objective science sites. Name it.

  • Kevan Massey

    Amazing. Even when you have a PhD scientist that has researched this for 20 years or more, the indoctrinated atheists still say that “science” disproves creationism. Most, if not all, of these posts are by arm chair evolutionists with no letters behind their names, but think they know more. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      It’s hilarious, isn’t it? We’ve got a retired truck driver, a couple of people with no high school diplomas, and a Muslim whose book tells her the earth is flat, and their alts, all disputing the work of a real scientist. It’s comedy gold! 🙂

      • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

        And a guest who will not face up to the fact that his attack on me was, itself a lie, and cannot refute an argument from the truck driver. Is anyone else on this blog a truck driver? This person is telling you that because you drive, or have driven a truck, you are uneducated.

        For you information, guest (always hiding behind anonymity), I would love for you to lay out your “many degrees” that you claim you have.

        And, by the way, putting out the argument all truck drivers are uneducated is called a non sequitur. So, I challenge you to reveal your real name (as I’ve done for years) and be honest about your “degrees.” If you can’t do it, you, sir, are a fraud.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Dude, I proved you were not a scientist nor a philosopher and I am right. My degrees or your lack thereof are not the subject here. Quit trying to personalize it. The subject is the Ph. D. biologist who dismantles evolution in his new book. Have you anything scientific, factual, and informed to offer on the subject, or are you just here to bluster?

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            Unbelievable. You are a fraud and devoid of ethics. I pitty you.

    • Seen From Space

      Researched for 20 years and still no peer reviewed paper to show for it? Just a book published by a sectarian think tank. That’s armchair “science” for you.

      No-one here is saying science “disproves” anything. Proof exists only in logic and mathematics. Only creationists equate faith with denial of scientific reality. Most other people do not, including me. Atheists do not own Darwin. Creationism does NOT own Jesus. Please widen your perspective.

      • Kevan Massey

        Only creationists equate faith with denial of scientific reality.

        After 5 years of studying science, biology, botany and ecological studies, I have found that it takes more faith to believe in Darwin than it takes to believe in Jesus Christ or UFOs. Sorry. Science and evolution are their own religion and absolutley nothing you say can convince me otherwise. By the way, how many papers have you published on this?

        • Seen From Space

          Studying where, and to what level? Who in your faculty is teaching you that it’s all a “religion”? I’m not a career scientist, so I don’t publish papers. We all have a right to expect the likes of Axe to do so however. He knows the routine. ID is touted as this great new paradigm, but it’s had zero impact on the way nature is studied. Not because it’s unorthodox and the mainstream can’t stomach it, but because it’s sloppy. If you want to turn science on its head, you gotta go to peer review and let everyone look at your data, your assumptions and your workings. How else can they replicate your work and verify it or otherwise? Wonder why it’s not going to happen!

          Please, you hold Axe’s feet to the fire, and all those Flood Geologists. Why aren’t you pressing them to publish outside their own cosy sectarian journals? Have you ANY idea of the critical scrutiny that papers on real science are subjected to?! And you’re happy to give Axe a blank cheque! Excuse the mixed metaphors.

    • Edward MacGuire

      There are about 80000 biological science PhD’s and post docs in the U.S. so the writings of 1 of them in a non-peer reviewed document is of minor interest. How many peer-reviewed papers has this man published? How many citations have they received?

      • Kevan Massey

        By the same token, how many peer reviewed papers have you written? Do you have a PhD? Thought so. Anyone posting on this site that doesn’t at least have a PhD in the same field should just wrap it up and go home. That includes me, so I’ll see ya. When you spend 20 years of your life doing any one thing, anything at all. Call me.

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    Before folks on this blog get too excited, you might check Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al, a trial where the famous (in fundamentalist circles) scientist, Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box and Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,) was thoroughly discredited by real evolutionary biologists. The trial was presided over by a conservative judge.

    And then there was Kirk Wise, a scientist who wrote:

    . . . if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.”

    Sad.

    Folks, creationism is the opposite of science. Where science begins with a question and works to find the best solution, creationism begins with a solution (God did it) and under no circumstances will that solution (conclusion) ever be questioned. That is not science because it is not the scientific method and therefore does not belong in science classes.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Dude, you’re not a scientist. You’re a retired truck driver who wrote a self-published book. What makes you think you know more than scientists do? 🙂

      • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

        I had several carriers and formally studied philosophy, paleoanthropology and world religions in college, dude.

        And, actually, if you had any formal education in evolutionary science and especially knew the scientific method, you would not be so eager to condescend to others who know something about it. When you enter a debate, you should really know what you are talking about. You have offered only condescension, but no logical argument and never refuted my statement so which you responded. So, did you learn that with your degrees? Is that the sum total of your knowledge?

        Actually, real scientists follow the scientific method, creation “scientists” do not. If you find one, please let me know.

        And by the way, do you have to be a doctor to know that sickness is not caused by demons?

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          You keep repeating yourself. It doesn’t make your comments true. It just proves you’re an irritating blowhard. You have no degree, science or otherwise. You are not qualified to critique those who do.

          There are plenty of Creationists scientists who have real degrees and who make real discoveries. Past ones? Newton, Pasteur, Faraday (a contemporary of Darwin), etc. There are plenty of modern ones, like Dr. Damadian (inventor of the MRI), or Dr. Pennington, the Creatonist who is the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear, or Joe Sebeny who is a rocket scientist and a Creationist.

          You do NOT know what you are talking about, and if you ever studied science at a higher level (you haven’t even studied it at a lower level), you’d know that evolutionists doubt evolution. It happens ALL THE TIME, and that’s because there is no EVIDENCE for it and it has never been PROVEN.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            It appears that you have only personal attacks to mask your self consciousness about a poor education in science (or none at all). You must use them in order for you to feel better about yourself. That’s sad.

            I hate to break it to you, but Newton was alive well before science broke free from the strong arm of the Church and made real progress through reason, unhindered by religion.

            And I note with interest that you did not name Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics. He was a Augustinian friar who solved the main problem with Darwinian evolution–how traits are passed on from parents to offspring. That, of course wasn’t his intention, and he was relegated to obscurity until a grad student came across his writings around the turn of the century, and recognized immediately the significance of Mendel’s work.

            Virtually all scientists pre 20th century were religious. Scientific knowledge was paltry then and the idea of a creator was the only answer.

            Louis Pasteur, according to Brendon Barnett (May 31, 2011), Louis Pasteur: A Religious Man? Pasteur Brewing. Retrieved 11 August 2012 wrote that “Louis Pasteur did not deny religion, but was compelled to say that, ‘religion has no more place in science than science has in religion.’

            “The role of religion in his mind was clear: ‘In each one of us there are two men, the scientist and the man of faith or of doubt. These two spheres are separate, and woe to those who want to make them encroach upon one another in the present state of our knowledge.'”

            Michael Faraday died just 8 years after Darwin published on the Origin of Species. And by the way, you failed to mention that Darwin, himself, was studying to be a preacher before he sailed on the Beagle. As I mentioned, most Western scientists were religious prior to the 20th century.

            Even today there are scientists in various fields who have not had formal education in evolutionary biology. It also is true that these people practice the scientific method in their field of work.

            Now, I’ve answered your argument, now prove that you know more by elucidating where I am wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you’re the one who made personal attacks, and the long piece of word vomit that you wrote is illogical and incorrect.

            Faraday was a contemporary of Darwin’s. He did not uphold evolution, which is an OLD theory based upon racism. Dr. Damadian, a Young Earth Creationist and the inventor of the MRI, is alive and well now. So Is Dr. Ken Cumming, Dr. Edward A. Boudreaux, Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, who is the leading
            expert on sickle-cell anemia, etc. etc.

            Your cut-and-paste job concerning Pasteur is the only source for that quote which many contend was not attributed to him. There are many, many more confirmed quotes from Pasteur that show he was a man of faith, rejected evolution and Darwinism, and believed in the Creator. He died with his wife’s hand in one, and a crucifix in the other.

            We’ve all gone through secular education, we’ve all been exposed to evolution and evolutionary biology, and we all reject it.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            This is amazing. You claim to be a logician and claim I am lying about my education (which is in the open for anyone to read), but for a logician, you demonstrate no logic at all.

            You said my arguments did not lead to my conclusion. I asked you in a very civil way to give me a logical syllogism that states my premises and show why my conclusion did not follow. You couldn’t do it.

            Your comments about evolution demonstrate your abysmal lack of understanding of evolution. I’ve laid out why many scientists are Christian–and even Muslim and other faiths. You ignored it by just posting more scientists in various fields.

            I submit that you are a deceiver. You’ve never had a course in logic, formal or informal. You prove it by continuing to use personal attacks and when I point them out, your come back with an infantile “NO, you make personal attacks.” (Obviously you don’t recall your first post to me, telling me that since I was once a truck driver and self published a book, implying that I was not educated.).

            So, yes. I’ve given up arguing because you will not respond in kind. You accuse me of claiming to be a philosopher when I never did. Yet you claim to be a logician, but do not use logic and don’t even sound like someone who has a college degree (you claimed “many degrees).

            What a wonderful example of a fundamentalist Christian you are. Give it up. You’re simply repeating yourself–same tired, fallacious arguments. You are not a logician, you are a fraud.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you are not the issue here. Stop personalizing everything. Did you come here to discuss the issues or to try to sell your self-published book?

            Did you read the book by the Ph.D. biologist who dismantles evolution? Do you have any SCIENTIFIC points to contend with the article?

            The fact remains that this Ph. D. biologist, and other biologists and scientists from many other fields, know there is no scientific basis for evolution and they are not afraid to proclaim it.

  • hoss6556

    Dr. Douglas Axe hasn’t published any paper in a peer reviewed journal that contradicts evolution. If he wanted his ideas to be taken seriously, he should have published them in a scientific journal. Instead, it seems as if he just wanted to write a book based upon his personal rationalization of his acceptance of creationism and rejection of evolutionary science.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Why?

  • Edward MacGuire

    “…not nearly enough for the sort of magic to happen that would have to happen for inventions to happen by accident”

    Denigrating magic on the one hand while proposing it on the other seems a rather strange strategy to me.

    • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

      Super observation. Wish I’d thought of it. Axe, in this article, provides very little real information (little or none needed to make money off his book). He claims that the “constraints” on genes and proteins are too tight for evolution to happen even over a billion years. However, I did a few seconds of googling and found this in an intro to the book, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th edition:

      Gene sequences are often far more tightly conserved than is overall genome structure. As discussed in Chapter 4, features of genome organization such as genome size, number of chromosomes, order of genes along chromosomes, abundance and size of introns, and amount of repetitive DNA are found to differ greatly among organisms, as does the actual number of genes.

      The number of genes is only very roughly correlated with the phenotypic complexity of an organism. Thus, for example, current estimates of gene number are 6,000 for the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, 18,000 for the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, 13,000 for Drosophila melanogaster, and 30,000 for humans (see Table 1-1). As we shall soon see, much of the increase in gene number with increasing biological complexity involves the expansion of families of closely related genes, an observation that establishes gene duplication and divergence as major evolutionary processes. Indeed, it is likely that all present-day genes are descendants—via the processes of duplication, divergence, and reassortment of gene segments—of a few ancestral genes that existed in early life forms.

      I am not a scientist, but it sounds like this is a refutation of Axe. I await real scientific critiques of Axe’s book from objective scientists and objective science writers.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        What you said doesn’t even make sense. You shouldn’t comment on the book without having read it.

        • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

          You are a fraud.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Stop falsely accusing posters here because you’ve been exposed. Now do you have something informed to say about the article’s subject? Didn’t think so.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            You are a coward!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here we go again. Happy trails to you.

          • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

            goodbye, fraud.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Atheists are bitter.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    C-14 in dinosaurs is actually easy to understand. For one, the bones were preserved in shellac and other preservatives, which would alter the age of the material being tested. Also, coal and other material that had been tested had been contaminated either by careless human handling and chemical introduction, so there is no contradiction in C-14 being found in dinosaur bones does not mean that they are not 65 million years old.