Sketches on Atheism

Creationists Online

*A snapshot taken from a Creationist Facebook page the other day. The comments went on and on, but this brief window into creationist lunacy is reason enough to know why you cannot let religion anywhere near education.

NO PROOF FOR APE TO MAN EVOLUTION. BONES HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE OF A TRUE APE, OR A MAN

The evolutionists claim that man came from apes, & have collected fossil “evidence,” to prove it, right? Wrong! The fossil evidence that they have are either man or ape, not an intermediate species.There is no common ancestor of both man & ape (missing link). Some of the fossils in which they use for example as possible ancestors of man include: Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Dryopithecus,Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus, etc. The “pithecus” stands for “ape”. Therefore, these fossils are of the ape family. These creatures lived about 14 million years ago (according to evolution). The most important of these is Ramapithecus. The total evidence of this creature consists of only several teeth & jaw fragments. 

So in the end we have a lot of human bones, and chimp bones, but NOTHING in between. Where is the evolution?

proof of man

 

620Like ·  · Share

Top Comments

588 people like this.

Zac Babin Evolution disproves itself.

Like · Reply · 31 · 7 January at 12:37 via mobile

Victoria Blair The funniest thing to watch are these nature programs where they talk about million this and a million that. I watched one where they said a blue whale evolved from a hippopotamus!

Like · Reply · 27 · 7 January at 12:33 via mobile

Matthew Young Andrew Bell. Any good scientist knows that micro evolution is true. Chimps to man is not micro evolution. It is macro and it is something there is no evidence on in historical science nor have we observed it happening. The birds being slightly different is micro evolution. Variation, mutation, adaption within the SAME species. They are all still the same bird.
Why can’t you atheists use your head?

Like · Reply · 11 · 7 January at 12:56 via mobile

 Rick Miesse Atheists despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)

Like · 5 · 7 January at 13:40

Donna Lamberti Why would there still be monkeys?? Did they just say let the evolving process stop lol. I have never seen or anyone in my family or word get passed from generation to generation that anyone has seen an ape evolve into man… It is a religion in itself and of the devil.

Like · Reply · 19 · 7 January at 12:28 via mobile

 Zachary MrSunshine Vincent Consider this; If the British came to America and Colonized, Why are there still British? Well, that’s because not every Brit came to America.

Like · 4 · 7 January at 12:45

Trung Kojima Try living for a few million years then.

Like · 1 · 7 January at 12:51

Dave Campbell Adaptation is NOT Evolution! People the trolls are here to anger you please don’t get angry instead join me today in praying for them. I would suggest posting your prayers for them here. The following is my prayer.
Lord I pray that you will interrupt the lives of these evolutionist this week in such a way that they will have no choice but to acknowledge truth. we know we will all face you on Judgement day please give them a chance to repent before it is to late.

Evolutionist love when you pray for them!
Have a blessed day friends!

Like · Reply · 7 · 7 January at 13:13 via mobile

Shaun Escoffery Evolution is a belief system!

Like · Reply · 8 · 7 January at 12:39 via mobile

Pat Bailey It takes more faith to believe I’m evolution than in God. Believers can start with faith the size of a mustard seed to start with, then it grows immeasurably by the grace of God, through our Lord and savior Jesus Christ…. You need faith the size of Noahs ark( which has been factually located near Mt Ararat) to believe in evolution, to start out with. The more you honestly study evolution the more you question it’s basis of truth and the more you realize there is a creator… Unless you are too prideful… The first lie Satan used, was ” ye can be as gods” and this is what evolution teachs, that we are evolving and becoming better and better with time. Yet it has been the opposite…. I wish we could evolve past cancer and all sickness lol

Like · Reply · 6 · 7 January at 12:55 via mobile

Mike Mendoza I know where you can find fossils of missing links! In the textbooks!

Like · Reply · 6 · 7 January at 17:33 via mobile

Zac Babin Putting fingers in ears and rocking back and forward. “My teacher said billions of years.”

Like · Reply · 5 · 7 January at 13:39 via mobile

Jimmy Davidson People that don’t want to accept the Bible and The Lord Jesus tend stretch the truth as much as they can to make themselves feel comfortable… Thus we find evolutionists trying their hardest to fit in their beliefs that we came from monkeys… Not too bright!

Like · Reply · 5 · 7 January at 23:47 via mobile

Paul Dunn I wonder why did the existing apes etc not evolve? (According to the evolutionists)

Like · Reply · 6 · 7 January at 16:55

Zac Babin If you truly study evolution, you would know we don’t come from apes. It’s a common ancestor that no one can find.

Like · Reply · 5 · 7 January at 12:34 via mobile

 Rick Miesse Yeah zac, evolutionists claim we ARE apes. Which is comical.

Like · 1 · 7 January at 13:31

Thomas Skehan It’s good to know that my great,great,great grandfather wasn’t an ape!! Never believed that for sure. Teach a young man,or woman they come from animals,and they’ll live like one;teach a young man,or woman they have a creator with moral laws to live by and you have a better race of people.

Like · Reply · 5 · 7 January at 16:01 via mobile · Edited

Brent Engelbrecht I honestly CAN NOT understand how people can believe the NONSENSE of evolution, yet they want to laugh and joke and scorn us who believe in a living, creative, loving God-and they dare call themselves “intellectual and informed”. Creation can’t be proven, granted, but “evidence” of God can be seen, experienced, heard, felt & with testimonies from east to west, north to south, coupled with His word the Bible, makes Him, for me at least, undeniable! Praise You Jesus! Love this site.

Like · Reply · 5 · 7 January at 14:25

Zac Babin And wait…. As they frantically search google for answers.

Like · Reply · 4 · 7 January at 13:38 via mobile

Michael Ahio Proverbs tells us plenty about how to handle fools and folly.. So let the fool say there is no God and to the ones who have “ears” let them hear!

Like · Reply · 4 · 7 January at 13:28

Zac Babin I need evidence of one, just one animal evolving to another species. Not kind to kind like dogs.

Like · Reply · 4 · 7 January at 13:23 via mobile

 John Prince Here’s my evidence of evolution…..a moth became a moth so my great great granpa is a monkey…..sarcasm button off….ARE YOU SERIOUS?…..OH, PS Zac I can prove Jordan Jacksons grasp on the English language hasn’t evolved past 2nd grade yet….

Like · 1 · 7 January at 16:09 · Edited

Ashley Denise Reece Eric, yes, we all passed the same science classes….in high school. After that, science, let alone biology, is not mandatory. And high school science barely scratched the surface on evolution.

Like · Reply · 3 · 7 January at 15:17 via mobile

John Morrison Evolutionists claim that over time things get bigger, better, faster and smarter. The physical record shows, however, that plants and animals in the past were bigger than they are today. Consider the cockroach, dragonfly and Chambered Nautilus. Today, cockroaches grow up to 2 3/4 inches long, but in the fossil record they are often up to 18 inches long. Today, we have dragonflies that are up to six inches across in wingspan, but in the fossil record we find them with wingspans of up to 50 inches across. Today, chambered nautiluses grow to be 10 ½ inches in diameter, but in the fossil record we find them up to eight feet in diameter. So, things aren’t getting bigger, better, faster and smarter. They are getting smaller, worse, slower and dumber.

Like · Reply · 3 · 7 January at 13:08 via mobile

Clayton Embry Everyone will bow before the Creator. This includes you evolutionists. I pray that you will in this lifetime because if you wait till after this life , it will be to late. Mark my words.

Like · Reply · 4 · 7 January at 20:26 via mobile

Keith Layton When different dogs breed all sorts of things change in them physically and mentally. Size, shape, color, intelligence. Every dog is a domesticated wolf in a sense and look at the differences. Compare a pug or chihuahua to a German Shepherd. Those differences were created by breeding.

Like · Reply · 3 · 7 January at 13:54 via mobile

Marc Egan That’s sorted then ? Still think I’m an alien

Like · Reply · 4 · 7 January at 12:40 via mobile

Donna Lamberti My wet vac has 4 wheels it doesn’t mean it was once a car.. Make sense here… We have a common design that works.

Like · Reply · 7 · 7 January at 12:49 via mobile

Ted Koch The picture of the progression from ape to man was featured in, and continues to be featured in school textbooks. It is false it is an artist illustration with no fossils to back it up.

Like · Reply · 2 · 7 January at 21:12 via mobile

Jose Lopez They discovered a 200thousand yr old human bone.I believe in evolution and we r part ape we r not apes

Like · Reply · 2 · 7 January at 12:35 via mobile

 John Prince Did they find one that was time and date stamped or did they just make the declaration that it was 200k and you took them at FAITH on their word. There are fossilized foot and hand prints identical to modern humans in a strata that according to science is “millions” of years old….que science telling us thats impossible…..because it doesn’t fit their thoery!

Like · 3 · 7 January at 13:27

Rick Miesse Jose if you are part ape why not petition for a human exhibit at your local zoo? Why would you have a problem with that?

Like · 2 · 7 January at 14:11

Robert Mackey Is it crazy to believe in Santa Clause?

Like · Reply · 2 · 7 January at 23:40 via mobile

Michael Ahio Ive had it with these so called atheists, they think theyre so smart let their folly envolope them, the aggresive ones fire shots at us because they hate God. Let them fall for thier garbage so they can love themselves more and parade around thinkn highly

Like · Reply · 2 · 7 January at 13:24

 Michael Ahio yeah… we just magically evolved through a random blind guided process into the complex beings we are today through enormous odds…. yeah right.. why anybody is dumb enough to fall for that garbage. go walk with your ape buddies and live life pretending your smarter than everybody

Like · 2 · 7 January at 17:18

Michael Ahio Only idiots fall for this type of garbage.. Universe came from nothing , evolution a blind guiding process.. Pfft! Rubbish, we magically came into existance? Naive

Like · Reply · 3 · 7 January at 13:05

 Delilah Miranda God isn’t bound by time, He created time. So go take your “which came first the chicken or the egg” talk to a more gullible forum. He is the beginning and the end. The alpha and the omega. And whether you believe it or not one day EVERY knee will bow and tongue will confess Jesus is Lord, including yours.

Like · 3 · 7 January at 17:54

Dave Allen Rawling The scientific community are having to accept it. There is no proof for the evolution theory. The smarter we get the dumber it sounds.

Like · Reply · 3 · 7 January at 12:40 via mobile

Eric McMillion And most time the pieces of bone and jaw they find are 1000s of miles apart in different countrys and they’ll saw pieces down to make them fit like piltdown man human head and monkey jaw

Like · Reply · 6 · 7 January at 12:36 via mobile

Trung Kojima Great! Submit your discovery and win a Nobel prize then.

Like · Reply · 7 · 7 January at 12:45

 

Delilah Miranda Just like Obama’s nobel peace prize whilst making war and using predator drones? Mans acceptance or recognition does not prove anything. Stop going with what our corrupt school systems have brainwashed you into believing and use logic and a little critical thinking.

Like · 4 · 7 January at 17:59

Trung Kojima Great! Let’s give ourselves a prize made by ourselves. xD

Like · 7 January at 18:03

 

Donna Lamberti After 150 years of searching present living forms and the fossil record, no evidence of a fine gradation of species from ape to man has ever been found.

Like · Reply · 5 · 7 January at 12:56 via mobile

Donna Lamberti We don’t have a common ancestor we have a common design!

Like · Reply · 5 · 7 January at 12:42 via mobile

 Delilah Miranda No we came from an asteroid from mars like the new evolutionists theory states. You guys change theories as often as the wind blows. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He isn’t bound by time, He created it. He didn’t come into existence He is the beginning and the end.

Like · 5 · 7 January at 18:05

Donna Lamberti Funny how they believe Darwin without physical proof lol.

Like · Reply · 5 · 7 January at 12:29 via mobile

 Claudia Koppova And Darwin wasn’t even an Atheist.. ::P

Like · 3 · 7 January at 12:35

Viki Fehr Yeah, he showed the birds adapted not evolved, they didn’t change what they were, they changed beak size. How is that proof or even slight evidence? The birds did not become something new, they stayed birds.

Like · 4 · 7 January at 13:11

Lorraine Badorek I believe in God’s perfect design. We still have apes, so to believe in evolution…why are there no apes in the evolving stage of becoming man?

Like · Reply · 1 · 8 January at 12:26

T.c. Craig Plenty of wolves walk the earth. Everyone understands that modern dogs evolved from wolves.

Like · Reply · 1 · 7 January at 15:44 via mobile

 John Prince So, you believe a dog bringing fourth dogs is evidence that with enough breeding we can change small dogs into gerbils and large dogs into horses??? Because MOST PEOPLE understand wolf, coyote, chihuahua and great pyrenees are types of dogs….if however you are stating dogs make dogs, I agree

Like · 7 January at 16:55

Carel Scheepers So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27 KJV) – end of story….

Like · Reply · 1 · 8 January at 17:22 via mobile

Howard Jack Dunn I love science – when it improves the lives of people, and helps us recover from illness – but when science tries to do what God does, or even explain God – they fail miserably, and discredit themselves.

Like · Reply · 1 · 7 January at 22:51

Casey Craft Evolution is dumb and has no backing. Its peoples last chess piece to not believe in God

Like · Reply · 1 · 7 January at 13:05 via mobile

Dona Lamberti We eagerly await that day when people will throw off this pernicious lie of, as Romans 1 describes, exalting what has been created and will instead return at last to acknowledge and worship a loving Creator!

Like · Reply · 3 · 7 January at 12:59 via mobile

Rick Miesse Bloody mosquito fossil poses huge problem for evolutionary dating

Patty A Bell I find debates of this nature to be pointless, because both sides are set on what they think/believe, and have their own proofs, or lack thereof, on which they base their conclusions. It only causes strife, and I simply do not see the value of arguing with people to the point of antagonizing each other.
Christ’s teachings were about how to treat each other, and how we are to be saved. should not our focus, as Christians be more on that? Just my opinion, of course.

Like · Reply · 3 · 8 January at 16:10 via mobile

  • 52 of 219

 

Advertisements

146 thoughts on “Creationists Online

  1. The comments started out being amusing… but quickly became depressing. Those smarty pants really believe that there are universities stuffed to the gills with scientists who are methodically collecting bits of old bone from all over the planet to put them into some sort of Frankenstein skeleton, to trick the kids.

    Like

      • Any one who accepts the “General Theory of Evolution” does so upon the basis of faith rather that fact.

        Writing as an evolutionist, G. A. Kerkut lists the major assumptions of evolution. These are the basic theories an evolutionist “takes for granted” or “has faith” to be true. All of the “molecules-to-man science” is built upon these assumptions.

        1. The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.

        2. The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

        3. The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.

        4. The fourth assumption is that protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).

        5. The fifth assumption is that various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

        6. The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

        7. The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibia, the amphibia to reptiles and the reptiles to birds and mammals.

        G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), chapter 2 p. 6.

        What Dr. Kerkut has listed as “assumptions” is the whole of evolutionary teaching. In other words, there is no factual (experimentally testable and reproducible) science which supports evolution. The process of moving from non-living things to the first living reproducing cell, to fish, to ape-like, to man, to everything in between, is all an assumption.

        Dr. Kerkut clearly states the evolutionary assumption that all life is related to that first cell. However, through the use of phase-electron microscopes scientists have discovered that there are consistent differences in cellular substance in various kinds of animals. When studied microscopically, the living things of the evolutionary tree do not appear to be related to each other at all.

        Then there is the claim that chemical evolution is impossible, as presented by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1984), and this claim has yet to be refuted. Random chemical reactions do not produce life! Dennis Petersen in his informative book, Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, quotes Dr. Henry Morris who says it this way:

        “Unknown chemicals in the primordial past…through…
        Unknown processes which no longer exist…produced…
        Unknown life forms which are not to be found…but could through…
        Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life…in an…
        Unknown atmospheric composition..in an…
        Unknown oceanic soup complex…at an…
        Unknown time and place.”

        Prove any of these unknowns of evolution with experimentally testable science and the Nobel Science prize will be yours!

        A good read is the History of Evolutionary Theory.
        http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_1.htm

        Like

      • What on earth are you babbling about? Evolution is a fact. It occurs. How it occurs has several theories. Darwin suggested natural selection.

        If you want to learn anything about evolution, stop reading creationists who have an agenda other than fining out how reality operates and start reading highly respected evolutionary biologists (meaning highly respected by their peers)!

        All the rest of what you posted is simply mind-numbing blather, and you would know this if you took some time and learned why your contrary beliefs about evolution are not justified. Evolution, for example, tells us exactly nothing about origins. Stop spouting ignorance and start learning.

        Like

      • Post some facts like I did. “Several theories”?

        Maybe start with the first assumption. Oh right, there are “several theories”.

        Evolution takes faith in the whole process, start to finish.

        Like

      • bobbierileyjr opines:

        Any one who accepts the “General Theory of Evolution” does so upon the basis of faith rather that fact.

        Evolution: The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. (Source)

        Or as Evolution 101 puts it:

        “Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.”

        Where does the faith (pretending to know things you don’t know) come into play?

        Like

      • This may shatter your faith in natural selection…

        “If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M. Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]

        “Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation … Natural Selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than improve it … Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); “Adaptation.” Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]

        “Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]

        “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]

        Like

      • Hello Ron, pleasure.

        The first link is purely the definition of evolution, hardly presents proof of the concept.

        The second link gives the definition, again, and the explanation. In the third paragraph I read, “The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor”. This is one of the 7 assumptions above. There is no proof, only an assumption we must have faith in, that is, all you see now came about from one cell, or even one molecule.

        Like

      • One would think that for anyone to label anything I’ve said as claptrap they would have some kind of proof to refute any of the 7 faith-based assumptions necessary to accept the Theory of Evolution. Do you kill the messenger because you don’t like the message?

        I don’t get it Tildeb. I never once mentioned Creationism in this post, nor have I quoted a Creationist. I’ve only quoted Evolutionary scientist about their concerns. Study the history of evolution and you will see their concern about how modern science got into this problem in the first place. Namely, the theory requires huge assumptions there is no proof for.

        Like

      • You demonstrate your creationist credentials by using creationist language, creationist quote mining, creationist ‘understanding’ of evolution, creationist arguments long countered, creationist ignorance of the topic, and creationist unwillingness to learn. What you’ve presented really is absolute bunk but you’re unwilling to learn why. And you’re unwilling because you have motive. That motive is creationist belief. You want o support your creationist belief by denying any concern for what’s true. And if you don;t care about what’s true, then you have no business pretending you do. Why on earth should anyone concerned about understanding how reality works listen to a word you say when you demonstrate your ignorance and wear it as a badge of honour? Why not learn about why evolution is a fact and learn how different theories mutually support each other? Why not gain a level of understanding about how life changes over time to enrich your knowledge base rather that try to argue that this knowledge that informs modern biology and that works to produce therapies, technologies, and applications that work for everyone everywhere all the time might have merit you have missed along the way? My concern is why you feel empowered to celebrate an astounding level of ignorance equivalent to insisting that North America is actually six meters wide? The arrogance you present is also astounding, in that you honestly think your contrary opinion to tens of thousands of working evolutionary biologists and the products we have accrued over time based on this knowledge is somehow equivalent because you can Google ancient articles that you assume supports your ignorance. Like me, you’re not that smart. And you are intentionally missing out on probably the most important human understanding ever produced. Such ignorance in today’s online world is a unnecessary travesty of biblical proportions.

        No, I’m not going to try to teach you why every point you’ve raised here is wrong. You can figure this out as you learn about why evolution is true. But I also know you don;t care enough about what;’s true to even attempt a good beginning. And that’s because you’re a creationist who assumes it is pious to remain so ignorant. And that’s very sad.

        Like

      • Wow. Are you in attack mode now? It’s hard to admit your beloved faith in evolution is found to be a lie.

        Richard Lewontin, a well-known geneticist and evolutionist from Harvard University, confesses that he is a materialist first, and a scientist second:

        “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori (from the beginning) adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine [intervention]… “The Demon-Haunted World,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28.

        The British zoologist D. M. S. Watson, himself an evolutionist, also supplies my answer:

        “The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation is clearly incredible.” “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 [sic Vol. 124] (1929), p. 233.

        Every living cell is the result of the division of another, earlier cell. No one on Earth, not even in the most advanced laboratories, has ever managed to combine inanimate substances and produce a living cell.

        The theory of evolution, however, maintains that the living cell—which cannot be replicated as the result of human intelligence, science and technology—assembled itself under the conditions on the primeval Earth. If it was easy enough to come about by chance why can’t scientist replicate it?

        I still don’t why you attack me when all I’ve done is quote scientist, most of who are non-creationist? I thought your were one of the smartest guys on this blog.

        Prof. Cemal Yıldırım, a Turkish evolutionist, is Professor of Philosophy at Middle East Technical University and visiting scholar at California State University in Northridge:

        “No scientist, whether be Darwinist or neo-Darwinist, can suggest the notion that the theory of evolution is proven. [1] That’s right, evolution theory is not proven.” Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik [“The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry”], Bilgi Publishing, January 1989, pp. 56-57. [1] Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason, Boston: Gambit, 1971, p. 147
        ^^^
        Dr. Lewis Thomas, the author of Lives of a Cell:

        “Biology needs a better word than error for the driving force in evolution. . . . I cannot make my peace with the randomness doctrine; I cannot abide the notion of purposelessness and blind chance in nature. And yet I do not know what to put in its place for the quieting of my mind.” “On the Uncertainty of Science,” Key Reporter, Vol. 46 (Autumn 1980), p. 2.
        ^^^
        Dr. Robert Milikan is a Nobel Prize winner and renowned evolutionist:

        “The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.” SBS Vital Topics, David B. Loughran, April 1996, Stewarton Bible School, Stewarton, Scotland, URL:http://www.rmplc.co.uk/eduweb/ sites/sbs777/vital/evolutio.htm
        ^^^
        John Horgan is a writer for Scientific American magazine:

        “DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.” “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, Vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119.
        ^^^
        Francis Crick is the Nobel Prize-winning evolutionist geneticist who, together with James Watson, discovered DNA:

        “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88.
        ^^^
        Paul Auger is an evolutionist and French scientist:

        “It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.” De La Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.

        I have over 100 of these from scientist in every major discipline and they all say much the same thing. Evolution is an assumption with no proof.

        Like

      • bobbierileyjr observes:

        The first link is purely the definition of evolution.

        Yes. Establishing a clear definition of what’s being discussed is the prerequisite to every meaningful discussion in that it avoids misunderstandings and keeps everyone on the same page.

        As you’ll note, the definition I provided outlines what’s being studied: the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations. Nothing more; nothing less. It does not address the origins of the universe, nor the the origins of lifer — just genetic change over time.

        So given that you’ve raised no objections to that definition, I’ll repeat my initial question:

        Where does faith come into play?

        Like

      • The theory of evolution functions more like an ideology, as Sir Arthur Keith admits in the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin’s book, Origin of Species: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.”

        Perhaps I am guilty of coming on too strong in declaring evolution is a lie and that it stands solely on assumptions. I should have started with the fact there is certainly debate within the scientific community about the current theory and there are specific unproven details about evolution.

        As time goes on perhaps we will learn the real truth, or perhaps not. Perhaps ancient astronauts will return and declare, “Yes, it was us who made you. We are the Gods your ancient ancestors wrote about”. I’m open to the idea, just like I’m open to the idea of Creationism, or evolution, I just need more proof. The bottom line, in my opinion, given what is know as fact, is that evolution is a fantastic idea just as Creationism is, just as ‘aliens did it’ is.

        Although nothing I’ve written so far as any proven scientific counter, besides more assumptions, lets get more current.

        Debate bubbles over the origin of life. Feb. 2012

        “How life began is one of nature’s enduring mysteries. Fossil and biological clues have led scientists to estimate that cells originated on this planet about four billion years ago, but exactly what catalysed their emergence has remained elusive.”

        http://www.nature.com/news/debate-bubbles-over-the-origin-of-life-1.10024

        The next article, Feb 2012, uses assumption phrases such as; “are believed to have evolved”, “likely developed”, “somehow”, “scientists suspect”, “that’s the ultimate mystery”.

        http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46467829/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.Ut1AuvvnZkg

        In his path-breaking book Icons of Evolution, biologist Jonathan Wells exposed how many textbooks keep recycling inaccurate evidences for chemical and biological evolution (the “icons”) long after their pull date.

        http://www.iconsofevolution.com/

        Feb. 3, 2010 – “For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a ‘primordial soup’ of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the ‘soup’ theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.”

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

        “It’s time for a little reality check here: origin-of-life theorists need to explain how a myriad of complex proteins and features arose and self-assembled into a self-replicating life-form by unguided processes, but they are still scraping for mechanisms to explain how an inert primordial soup of organic molecules could have arisen in the first place.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/more_news_sourc056801.html#sthash.qFCwAowH.dpuf

        Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread (“sweep”) through a population and stay (become “fixed”).

        “Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years.” –Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6019/920.abstract

        Thank you John for the platform, and to you Ron and Tildeb. You gentlemen have been fair, to a point. I look forward to offering a different perspective in future articles.

        Bobbie J

        Like

      • “I should have started with the fact there is certainly debate within the scientific community about the current theory”

        Bobbie, I’ll write this slowly because it’s clear you can’t think fast: There is NO DEBATE about the fact of evolution. None. Zero. Zip.

        [Laurence Moran] “Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.”

        Like

      • BRJ states, “I should have started with the fact there is certainly debate within the scientific community about the current theory.”

        If by ‘theory’ you are referring to what is called the modern synthesis, then there is no debate in the scientific community. None whatsoever. The only debate is foisted by creationists. That’s it. That’s the sum total of ‘scientific debate’: religion. Please remember, there are far more scientists who support the modern synthesis named ‘Steve’ than all other scientists who support creationism. Yes, you will always be able to find a few biologists who are so religious that they try to fit the square peg of creationism into the round hole of evolutionary biology, but this does not mean there is any meaningful scientific debate. There simply isn’t. Evolution is a fact; its mechanism(s) have some legitimate debate over particular squabbles, by far fewer in comparison to, say, theoretical physics or quantum theory. Because theories are explanations, there will always be challenges to the theory of evolution and this is good, this is rigorous, this is healthy. But don’t assume this means that there exists a serious scientific position contrary to it… or it would never have been raised to the highest possible level of confidence it now enjoys. There simply is no contrary evidence that cannot be successfully incorporated into the explanation, which has already dealt with every challenge presented. We know evolution is true because every line of inquiry supports it (all the ‘hard’ sciences) not just individually (which is powerful evidence in its own right) but offers seamless mutual and interconnected support (which is overwhelming evidence adduced from reality for evidence that didn’t have to be this way if not true but is, in fact, this way). Creationists have no explanation for this seamless fit and fail to account for why creationist claims continue to come up empty of evidence when reality adjudicates them; instead, they get busy reinterpreting scripture in the light of knowledge gained from evolutionary biology and population genetics and try to change terms while introducing new ones (like the micro-macro debacle) all in the service of beliefs that are not supported by evidence adduced from reality.

        So when you suggest that there is some kind of compatible and equivalent position in science contrary to evolution, you are simply wrong. No such debate exists except in the minds and hearts of creationists wh9o wish it were so.

        Like

      • Thanks. Your quote proves my point.

        They maintain an “out”, or “escape route”, if you will.

        Read your quote very carefully. Notice on the one hand, “Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.”, yet in the same breath, “biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution”.

        Well, you can’t have it both ways John. You can’t declare a fact then use assumptions to back up the claim. Or declare a fact then admit you are uncertain of the exact “mechanisms” of how you arrived at your conclusion.

        Like

      • See Bobbie, here’s where I begin to lose interest. I’m challenging you to defend you’re opening remark:

        “Any one who accepts the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ does so upon the basis of faith rather that fact.”

        And in a subsequent comment you reiterated your position:

        “Evolution takes faith in the whole process, start to finish.”

        Having already established what the ToE describes (the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations) and what it does not (the origins of the universe and life), it now behooves you to choose one of the following options:

        1) explain where faith enters into the equation;
        2) concede that your remark has no foundation in reality; or
        3) continue ignoring by requests.

        Which shall it be?

        Like

      • “…the “mechanisms,” NOT the fact of evolution. It seems you’re having a great deal of trouble understanding this distinction.”

        Come on John, I know your not that naive.

        Again, your quote states, “biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution”. To me “less certain” is not the same as “we are certain”. All the quotes I “mined” all say pretty much the same thing as your quote, that is, there is no exact solid proof.

        I understand the distinction, that is, on the one hand they believe it as fact, yet on the other they are not certain how it came to be, so we must take it on faith until they can be more certain, or hopefully, be exactly certain.

        I’ll formulate my response Ron shortly, I am not ignoring you.

        Like

      • No, you do not understand the distinction, that part is perfectly clear, and you have demonstrated why Bill Nye should not bother debating Ken Ham. Willful ignorance cannot be overcome with rational debate.

        Like

      • But there’s an important distinction you’re simply not grasping and it’s not a question of John’s naivety but your own repeated misunderstanding.

        Again, evolution is a fact. It happens all the time. This is demonstrable, testable, verifiable, and ubiquitous. There is no debate about this. Even the majority of creationists admit to the reality of evolution… by re-terming it ‘micro-evolution’. There is no faith whatsoever in use here.

        No we move to explanations about evolution. There are mutually supporting explanations for how this fact – evolution – occurs. How it occurs are explained by various ‘mechanisms’, namely mutation, migration, genetic drift, and, of course, natural selection. The only debate in real science is which one, which combination, which mechanism or mechanisms does what to produce this change to life over time.

        Once you grasp this essential difference, you can then go back and start to see how so many of your quotes similarly fail to support your creationist denials. Again, faith of the religious kind plays no part here. Some people give more weight to certain explanations because they argue that reality provides better evidence for this mechanism over that, for these mechanisms rather than those. This quibbling in no way, shape, or fashion, undermines the fact that reality provides overwhelming evidence that life changes over time. Evolution happens. There is no rational debate in the scientific community about this fact, namely, evolution occurs.

        So when creationists use arguments about mechanisms within the scientific community to paint a false picture that scientists don;t ‘believe’ in evolution, they are breaking a commandment and intentionally lying. And people do this for what they assume are pious reasons. Some of these people are scientists! But that doesn’t give any credence at all to the mistaken thinking that evolution is therefore in doubt.

        Any questions?

        Like

      • Perhaps you can explain it John. How exactly can evolution be fact if the mechanisms proving evolution are “less certain”. You say I don’t understand the distinction, please explain it.

        1. Evolution is fact.
        2. The mechanisms to prove our fact are uncertain.
        3. Have faith until science finds the proof.

        Just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t make it true, right?

        OK Ron. Over and over I’ve said it takes faith to believe in evolution because, just like in John’s quote, most scientist believe it as fact yet are not certain exactly how the mechanisms work. This is a glaring contradiction, you can not state something as fact then say, “just trust me” or “have faith” until we find out the exact mechanisms to prove our fact. There is a lot of speculation going on. Sure they have discovered a lot and some discoveries my tend to point to an evolutionary process, but the remaining assumptions overwhelmingly swing the pendulum to the “unproven”.

        The basic philosophy of evolution is that gradual change occurs over millions of years to evolve one species into another. This mutation occurs at the genetic level. In order for evolution to be possible, new information must be added to the gene code that creates new traits and eventually changes the species into a new species. This must be done without damage to the species. All mutations must be positive mutations or they will begin to destroy the species. The burden of proof rests upon evolutionists to show with observable science that positive mutations can and do occur.

        Each time a cell multiplies, each strand of DNA must be duplicated into two exact copies. Any errors in this copy becomes a mutation in the cell. Mutations are plainly observed in science and this problem has never been in dispute. The dispute is over positive mutations which is not observed in science, but is necessary for the evolution model.

        Microevolution is a fact of science. Microevolution is simply the rearranging of genetic information that is already present. A child may be born with blond, brown, red, or black hair. Hair could be curly, straight or a combination of the two. However, hair is still hair and no new information has been added to the genes. Microevolution can also be a loss of information. We often see evolutionists point to things like cave fish that have no eyes and claim this is evidence of evolution in action. However, evolution requires new information, but what is observed is a loss of information or a damaging of information. Lost information only gives evolution a greater obstacle to overcome and sends the species in the opposite direction than it should be going to fit the evolutionary model. In every case of microevolution that evolutionists attempt to claim for evidence, the trait is still the same trait and the species is still the same species.

        For the sake of the argument lets say it takes 6 million years for a species to mutate into another unique species. For this to happen the mutation rate would need to be 1 new pairs of DNA per month to achieve evolution’s goal. We should still see man and all other species visibly transforming and observable in science. Negative mutations cause disease in the species, but we need positive mutations without having diseased ones tagging along.

        Positive mutations are not observed in science. Evolution requires up to 10 positive mutations a month to progress from our theoretical evolutionary ancestor to modern man. This mutation rate is not limited to man, but we should see the same rate in all living organisms. The mutations needed are not the rearranging of information, but the addition of new information.

        When evolution’s leading propagator, Richard Dawkins was asked to give one example of a positive mutation or evolutionary process in action as observed by science, he could not name one. Pro-evolutionary ‘Atomic Scientists’ stated:

        “It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing — good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)

        Sources:
        http://humanorigins.si.edu/
        http://atheistforums.org/thread-21220.html
        http://www.examiner.com/article/genetics-science-against-evolution
        http://confessionsofevolutionists.com/chapters.htm

        While putting this together I found something I find very funny.

        “The last common ancestor of Man and Ape was not a knuckle-walking, tree-swinging hominid resembling today’s chimpanzee.”

        How do they justify this statement? They found a single bone thought to be 6 million years old, that’s how.

        http://phys.org/news/2013-12-human-ancestor-less-chimp-like-thought.html

        Like

      • Micro-evolution? B’wahahahaha. Creationist jargon. Interestingly, by even using this made up term you’re accepting the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), but then rather oddly refusing to acknowledge the inevitable consequences of what you’ve already accepted. Your erroneous position is best summarised by the fine lads over at the Sensuous Curmudgeon: I believe in individual steps, but not a whole flight of stairs.”

        Like

      • “Throughout most of the 20th century, researchers developing the synthetic theory of evolution primarily focused on microevolution, which is slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. Until the 1970’s, it was generally thought that these changes from generation to generation indicated that past species evolved gradually into other species over millions of years.

        Beginning in the early 1970’s, this model was challenged by Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, and a few other leading paleontologists. They asserted that there is sufficient fossil evidence to show that some species remained essentially the same for millions of years and then underwent short periods of very rapid, major change. Gould suggested that a more accurate model in such species lines would be punctuated equilibrium.”

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

        Notice words and phrases such as “it was generally thought”, and “they asserted”, and “suggested that”. One theory is advanced, then another when that fails, then another, then another, all the while we see phrase after phrase implying speculation.

        Some people are like Slinkies – not really good for anything, but you still can’t help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. Anonymous

        Like

      • Bobbie,

        Where do you see the words “belief,” “just trust me” and “have faith” mentioned in John’s quote? And why would uncertainty over the exact mechanisms at play undermine the ToE’s credibility? By way of analogy, one doesn’t need a comprehensive knowledge of fluid dynamics to go boating. People sailed ships for centuries before Archimedes formulated the principle explaining how buoyancy worked. Or as the linked article to John’s quote so eloquently puts it:

        “Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.”

        Like

      • I don’t see those words Ron. They are inferred from the contradiction in the writers statement.

        Having any “uncertainty” about our stated fact must require some form of faith to believe in said fact. If it isn’t 100% verifiable, testable, reproducible then if must require a little faith to accept it as fact, or until is it 100% verifiable.

        Your analogy doesn’t fit our discussion. Boating is a fact of everyday life. People who don’t know the extent of the “uncertainty” about evolution like to say it’s fact and it happens everyday all around us. What do they mean by that? They mean that every living thing on the plant is in a state of constant evolution into new species, it just happens so slow you can’t see it.

        Gravity doesn’t quit fit either. We feel the effects of gravity everyday. Basically, Newton’s laws describe the effects of gravity rather than the nature of gravity, and hold true on a meso-scopic scale. Einstien attempts to describe gravity as a component of the universe, and describes it as an interaction of mass and space-time.

        Another example of faith follows…

        The article John quoted from, and the entire web site, is not impartial on the topic.

        Reading the last paragraph we find:

        “So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.”

        The first sentence:
        1. The evidence is NOT enormous.
        2. BUT, if our “enormous” evidence becomes disproved the writer would doubt his existence.
        3. It’s acknowledged there is order in the universe, yet we are supposed to believe that we are here from random chance. That random mutations accidentally created order, or if you will, a blueprint code of instructions that makes a cat a cat, a horse a horse and a bird a bird, everything after its own kind.

        The second sentence:
        1. It’s acknowledged that in an “absolute sense” evolution is not a fact. This is code, just like John’s quote from the same article, that you have to have faith. There is not another theory besides creationism, of ancient astronauts, and most scientist will not consider these.
        2. The writer contradicts himself, just like John’s quote. He grants us that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, then that evolution is no more a fact than us reading these words. Which is it? It can’t be both.

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

        Like

  2. Science is a LIE. Prove to me that 1 + 1 = 2 and DON’T give me a scientific answer. Quote GOD. Ha! You can’t, you silly atheists!

    Admit it John, you are cornered, these people have just PROVEN that you are either a superstitious naked ape (and excused for your ignorance) or you are an scriptorily uninstructed man but whichever it is: thou shalt never EVOLVE into hippo.

    Like

  3. The thinking evident in that thread is disturbing, not due to its content, but due to its form. When I read something like this I feel like I understand what Jung meant when he said he wasn’t interested in whether Alien Visitors from Space were real, but why people might think that Alien Visitors from Space were real. There are so many things expressed in the thread which supersede the topic. By example, the commenters have shown that they can quite happily ignore the theory of evolution and still do their jobs, use their smart phones, participate in politics, etc. So why are they so concerned? Some express fear of disorder following on a faltering belief in essentialism. There is a normative impulse in the statements about bowing before the creator in the end times. There is identification of the Other (the smarty-pants who want to lord it over us regular, decent folk).
    The enduring question is: how do we effectively oppose those destructive aspects of our social nature without manifesting the same qualities ourselves? How does one credit Patty while discrediting Dona?

    Like

    • Oh, nicely put! There was about another 15 pages of comments (housing some real mind-bending pearlers of uncut absurdity) but brevity dictated keeping this relatively short. It’s the “willful” part of the willful ignorance that disturbs me the most. Ignorance in and by itself is not a crime, it simply means “we don’t know,” but when a person deliberately goes out of their way to fashion a reality so astoundingly contradictory to the actual real world then once simple ignorance becomes a socially dangerous thing. If these creationists weren’t trying to meddle in education systems then this would all be funny, a circus sideshow, but unfortunately that’s not the case, meaning rationally minded folk have to stand up and (regretfully) defend sanity.

      Like

    • I once had a job taking orders for theater tickets over the phone. Unsurprisingly, many of my coworkers were struggling actors, struggling writers, etc. Generally, that means they were smarter than was necessary for the job and the job was well below the educational level of most of them. The incredible idiocy of the people at the other end of the line was mind boggling. I can’t even describe it. We used to wonder how they had credit cards. Most of us didn’t because we couldn’t qualify. These were mostly Broadway shows, so they weren’t cheap tickets either.

      I guess that’s a long way of saying I haven’t overestimated the intelligence of the functioning public since I was about twenty.

      Like

      • Here are some actual complaints filed with Thomas Cook Travel

        “On my holiday to Goa in India , I was disgusted to find that almost every restaurant served curry. I don’t like spicy food.”

        “The beach was too sandy. We had to clean everything when we returned to our room.”

        “We found the sand was not like the sand in the brochure. Your brochure shows the sand as white but it was more yellow.”

        “They should not allow topless sunbathing on the beach. It was very distracting for my husband who just wanted to relax.”

        “We went on holiday to Spain and had a problem with the taxi drivers as they were all Spanish.”

        “The roads were uneven and bumpy, so we could not read the local guide book during the bus ride to the resort. Because of this, we were unaware of many things that would have made our holiday more fun.”

        “The brochure stated: ‘No hairdressers at the resort’. We’re trainee hairdressers and we think they knew and made us wait longer for service.”

        “I was bitten by a mosquito. The brochure did not mention mosquitoes.”

        “It is your duty as a tour operator to advise us of noisy or unruly guests before we travel.”

        Like

      • Og God(s) … I’d love a chance to reply officially to those. (I wouldn’t last long in the job, but without once being abusive I’d have a real ball for the duration. ‘Twas ever thus …)

        Like

  4. If you ever dare to venture into one of these comment sections be sure to wear your flame retardant attire. The best response that you can give to these people is the same you give to climate deniers. It goes something like this.

    “It’s true, science doesn’t have any absolute evidence that man evolved from apes yet we have an abundant amount of physical data that strongly suggests this is highly likely. That’s why we call evolution a theory rather than a fact. But we have no evidence that man was mysteriously made from clay either so if you have some physical evidence that confirms this then we’re willing to weigh this data.”

    It’s not going to change any “true believers” perception but it will have them either walking away from the conversation or tripping all over themselves to sound intelligent as they try and come up with a rational response.

    Like

  5. Lorraine Badorek’s comment is the typical response from the creationist these days: I believe in God’s perfect design. We still have apes, so to believe in evolution…why are there no apes in the evolving stage of becoming man?

    Stick around for a few thousand years Lorraine and you could well see this evolution. Did you think it happened within a few centuries?

    Like

    • It’s that line of thinking that makes my brain want to faint! Is it truly possible these people think it happens in one generation? One colossal birth defect and POW! A Giraffe! 😦

      Like

  6. I started reading the FB comments, which seemed really comical at first, but eventually I had to stop because they really believe what they’re saying….(sigh!) And they want to teach that stuff in schools?? Unfortunately for creationists, while all other species are evolving, they are not. I’m sure they feel safe knowing that.

    Like

  7. We really, really need to mount an education campaign. I don’t care about the true believers, but this stuff trickles into the general population. This is probably more important than the atheist billboards. I’m not against them, but I think there’s better use for the money here.

    Like

  8. Reading the comments, something just crossed my mind. What do these people think is the motivation that scientists have for making up evolution? Why would they do it at all?

    Like

  9. This is horribly depressing, John. It’s obvious that much of their mindset comes from a complete misunderstanding of what a transitional fossil is. When I finally came out of Christianity and decided to learn more about evolution, I think it was a Dawkins book that pointed out that every life form is “transitional.” No animal ever gave birth to a different species of animal in a single generation. So if we could line up every specimen in a line of descent, each one would be the same species as the ones next to it. But from one section of the line to another section of the line, you would see a change in species.

    The idea really clicked into place for me when I realized that. And it explains why so many of these folks keep screaming that we have no transitional fossils when the rest of us know that we have no other kind. It’s totally lost in translation.

    Like

  10. The article was scary enough. But it’s some of the commenters that scare me even more. Making sure I lock my doors from now on. I am definitely, positively, absolutely sure some of them are in my neighborhood. 😦

    Like

  11. What I find funny is one of them (Matt Young) even broaches the subject of evolution on a micro scale by noting adaptation, variation and mutation. But then he goes back to say that macro evolution does not happen. There’s some serious thinking there. And then some random comment on how “evolutionists claim things get bigger, better and faster over time.” Wh-what? Where on earth did your read that, dude? It is truly disturbing to read these. I would agree with S.B. Raven, evolution cannot be fast enough to get rid of a serious social cyst on society. Oh, the humanity!

    Like

    • Of course, “macro” and “micro” is not even taught in biology; they’re meaningless terms invented by the rather odd people like those at the Discovery Institute: the epicenter of creation madness. They really hate being called out on it, but if you ever get the chance ask them to explain what, precisely, this magic wall is? It can be good for some laughs.

      Like

  12. I have been ” chatting with our friend Mark Hamilton over the past couple of days; it has been quite educational and forced me to read and learn ( in manner of speaking) all sorts of stuff pertaining to salinity, sediments and stuff.

    He is completely oblivious to evidence that contradicts his YEC worldview to the point that he tacitly agreed with the dating of the Atlantic ,plus minus 130,000,000 million years but claimed the sediment deposits he was referring to were those of the Pacific, citing lack of evidence for a 3 billion year old ocean. And he failed completely to pick up the fact that even the Atlantic scenario sort of missed his YEC by just a few years.

    We are currently on to dinosaurs ( including the cave paintings in France etc) and I am waiting for the barrage of disinformation pertaining to fossil caches that are sans any other examples of animal life.
    And yes, he does consider we all lived together and sees nothing wrong in ‘science’ text books depicting people riding tame dinosaurs like Triceratops!

    How is it even possible to reason with folk like this?
    How did people like Nate and Hope shrug this off and people like Mark Hamilton still think that a deity inspired authorship of that smelly little rag, the bible, and caused a global flood?

    And they still manage to hold jobs that involve science and engineering?

    I am at a loss.

    Good post, by the way.

    Like

      • I read it…and some of the comments. It degenerates pretty quickly, as do so many such arguments.

        Maybe the first question that should be asked is : How and at what age did you come by
        your worldview?

        Like

      • Damn you guys to perdition and back~!
        Don’t you think I have better things to do that spend the rest of my life following all these links? That takes care of tonight’s reading for a start … mutter mutter mutter … and what’s ‘YEC’? Huh? Or can’t you dum afeist tipes even spel ‘YUK’?

        Like

      • No way~! The earth may have been created young but I can’t spare the time (I have to go back up on the roof. Loose nails have been pounded but there’s still leaves in them thar gutters, and with all the Acts Of God lately I’m taking no chances).

        Like

      • Nearer My God To Thee …

        I think they sang this as the Titanic was going down (didn’t do them much good either). Luckily I’m afraid of heights and have a strong grip—who needs God?

        Like

      • Mark gives the game he’s playing away:

        I don’t believe in God because I am a YEC: I’m a YEC because I believe in God. What I mean by that is that even if you somehow convinced me not to be a YEC, I’d still be a Christian. Because of this I would still be incredibly skeptical about secular theories on the orgins of life and the Earth itself. As I’ve written about before, I believe God created everything and secular science begins with the assumption that no god had anything to do with it. Thus the theories will always be intrinsicly (sic) flawed (snip)

        By accepting only data that supports his belief, Mark deludes himself. He’s not ready to allow reality and contrary data to have any meaningful weight with him. He discards such contrary data by categorizing it as ‘secular’. He doesn’t realize why this method is doomed to fool him.

        Mark, I predict, doesn’t call the technology for his cell phone secular technology, or the pharmaceutical interventions he uses as secular medicine, or the operating system on his computer a secular application. He reserves that term as a derogatory one to invalidate the same method of inquiry used to inform chemistry, the same method of inquiry used to inform biology, the same method of inquiry used to inform physics he takes for granted and trusts with his life to suddenly and magically become “intrinsically flawed” only when it conflicts with his religious beliefs. This is the category mistake he will make forever – and willingly so – regardless of how much evidence adduced from reality is brought to bear against his creationist beliefs.

        This method of Mark’s reveals a gross transparency of intellectual foolishness and hypocrisy and a lack of integrity in the name of piety. This is why creationism is always parented not by the same knowledge we put to practical effect in all other areas of life but by religion. It takes religion to elevate unjustified belief to be a virtue and have otherwise intelligent people buy into playing this stupid game.

        Like

      • Tildeb, there simply aren’t the appropriate adjectives in the English language to describe your conspicuously brilliant and terrifyingly accurate observational skills. Your penmanship leaves me in awe.

        Like

    • So the guy uses lack of evidence for ancient oceans to argue with the age of earth or what? I don’t understand where he went wrong. He must know that the ocean floor constantly recycles itself and is therefore much younger than the oldest continental rocks. Or maybe he skipped that class.

      Like

  13. Interesting comment about bugs getting smaller.
    I read some very interesting stuff about the atmospheric oxygen content ( or something) in the good ol’ days that accounted for big bugs.

    Glad we don’t have such bloody big roaches running around these days. EeeK!

    Like

    • Oxygen started out very low, then slowly rose, then spiked up (the catastrophe John mentioned), then for tens of millions of years went up and down a little. The Carboniferous (big bug time) was when it spiked up quite a bit higher than today. It’s been stable for a long period now.

      Like

  14. That’s a whole load of crazy assembled into one corner of the web.

    However, I think this entry sums it up quite nicely:

    Biblical Creation
    January 13 at 10:52am

    Update: Due to lack of interest and too much going on, I have decided to close down our sister page “God Created Science”.

    Like

      • Well, with comments like:

        ” I don’t need proof, I believe what the Word says”;

        ” I don’t need a single shred of evidence to believe in the Lord I just do …all you ..speculators keep on speculating like a fool often does.”;

        “because GOD says so.” and

        “I have one good proof, I was lost and now I am found !”

        … empirical evidence and the scientific method become somewhat superfluous, don’t they? 🙂

        Like

    • Oh dear, just found this cracker of an entry.

      [INSERT PICTURE OF LEAF INSECT HERE] “One look at this incredible insect and you can tell it didn’t come about by chance. It looks just like green leaves down to the tiniest details. It could only have come about by an Intelligent Creator”

      comment by Rose Angelo: Unbelievable!!! Thank you, Biblical Creation, for making, over and over, such a strong case for God, OUR CREATOR!!!!

      Like

  15. It’s an easy enough dichotomy to resolve. No fossils of missing link, ergo no evolution.
    So God, gods, or divinities made man. QED

    No fossils of God or gods, ergo no divinities … bugger ….

    Like

  16. That’s blitzed one of ’em (Curmudgeon).

    Read just enough to raise the observation that in the ‘civilised’ world — only in America could such drivelous trivia be an issue.

    Like

  17. A) They confound a belief in what science can tell us with faith; B) They think that you either believe in a literal interpretation of the bible or you don’t believe in God. That is, you either follow our brand of Christianity or you’re an atheist, no middle ground.
    C) They’ve been misled to believe that Darwin came up with evolution, when in fact it’s a theory (natural selection) to explain evolution. They think evolution is a theory, when in truth it’s an observed fact that was discovered before Darwin. Evolution is simply change through time. Applied to this topic it’s the change of life through time from simple to more diverse/complex. D) They think there are no transitional fossils. There are more and more all the time. They are rare because of the punctuated nature of evolution and adaptation, but they are there. See the recent discovery of the transitional fish/amphibian that was found on Ellesmere Island in Canada.

    Like

    • E) You’re a champion! 🙂

      One must also remember the extreme rarity of organisms becoming fossilised. I have seen a figure guesstimating 0.0001%, but I can’t speak to its accuracy.

      Like

      • That sounds about right. And add the fact that only a small % of fossils are discovered before they are carried away/disintegrated by erosion. For a long time there was little or no experimentation done on fossilization (because of the time-frames involved), but now there are several ongoing, long-term studies.

        Like

  18. I’ve been reading Jason Godesky’s “The Thirty Theses. The following is from the footnotes of THESIS #6: HUMANS ARE STILL PLEISTOCENE ANIMALS.

    It seemed relevant to me, to the micro/macro evolution bit.

    “Footnotes
    1 At the University of Pittsburgh, I had the great fortune to take one of Dr. Jeffrey H. Schwartz’s workshop courses, where we had the opportunity to examine many specimens of H. erectus closely. Schwartz demonstrated to my satisfaction that H. erectus is, in fact, at least a dozen distinct human species. Why, then, have they been lumped together? As Schwartz was quoted by the BBC, “Palaeoanthropologists often have this assumption that every hominid found from that time period is a H. erectus. They group hominids not on the basis of what they look like, but the time when they lived, which is totally unfounded. There is a tradition of confusing diversity with variation.” So, the myth of “evolution as progress,” as discussed and dismissed in thesis #2, led paleoanthropologists to divide human evolution into stages in a story of progress to our final, ideal form. Then, fossils were fit into a given stage not because of morphological differences, but based on their dating and how they would fit into our progression. In fact, as we know, evolution engenders diversity, not progress–so the more complicated, diverse history laid out by the actual fossil evidence is far more realistic than the picture of lineal progress painted previously.”

    Tallyho!

    Like

    • Richard, so good to hear from you! Interesting quote, and true to the bone. It certainly rings true when we consider we recently shared the earth with another human species, the Denisovans… yet how many people today know this?

      Hope all is faring well with you.

      Like

      • I imagine you’ve already seen this?

        “This is indicative of the state of evolutionary paleoanthropology as well as evolutionary paleogenetics. The picture, which appeared so clear just a few years ago, is suddenly garbled with new facts. The creationist interpretation, however, is the same as always. All people in the world descend from Noah and his family, who lived on the earth in the first centuries after the Flood. Neanderthals and Denisovans came from this population. How and when they split off is a matter of conjecture, but, since we know they share genes with modern people it is clear they both should be brought fully into the human family tree.”

        http://creation.com/denisovan

        There’s just no way to get through to such people.

        Like

  19. In my experience, explaining science to a fundamentalist is like trying to explain it to a rock – and just as successful. Their brains are warped, or, perhaps, evolved into a type of brain that is very different from one that can understand and deal with rational thought.
    –sigh —

    Like

    • What I find most baffling is that they concede this thing they call “micro evolution” (a term creationists invented) happens, but not “macro” evolution (another term they invented), yet never explain what the magic boundary is separating the two. Like you said, “like talking to a rock.”

      Like

  20. One person commented (to the original FB posting) that “the more you honestly study evolution …” I can’t help but ask how many people (who don’t believe in it) have actually studied the subject?

    Like

      • I find this to be true with most believers. They simply can’t get beyond what they have been taught is “truth.” (And I say this because I’ve been there, done that.)

        There’s just no reasoning with them because they deflect any presented “facts” as though they came straight from the devil. It’s a frustrating experience.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s