From Evolution to the Empty Tomb: An Apologetic “Best-Of”

Question from Kristi:
Science supports the idea that universe starts with simple organisms to more complex organisms, so how then can science explain algae forming humans? Humans have different features, fingerprints, colors, etc. so how then could a human go from an ape to a complex individual? How do scientists explain Biblical archaeological evidence such as the empty tomb or eyewitness accounts?

Answer by SmartLX:
You answer your first two questions yourself: Science supports the idea that simple organisms can develop into more complex organisms through the mechanism of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Humans had very early ancestors which weren’t actually algae but were of a similar size and complexity, and the fact that complexity often carries benefits exerted a pressure on all life to become more complex over time, and we’re talking a LOT of time. The individual features like fingerprints developed long before humans did, because other primates have them too. We just inherited them.

There is no archaeological evidence of the empty tomb because that would imply something had been dug up since. There is only the accounts in the Gospels and a few other accounts which may simply be parroting the Gospels. As for eyewitness accounts, the story is always different about whether the writer is the one who saw something and how long afterward it was written, but a lawyer will tell you eyewitness accounts are unreliable at the best of times, and a scientist will tell you eyewitness accounts count for nothing at all. Scientists don’t really bother to explain these things because they consider there to be nothing to explain, so far at least.

48 thoughts on “From Evolution to the Empty Tomb: An Apologetic “Best-Of””

  1. witnesses are actually worthless if they have any emotional connection to the fact and people they witnessed, and they cannot but have them. only a machine can be a fairly good witness. a camera. cos they have no emotions to the fact they are witnessing.
    not only that. witnesses lie for all sorts of reasons. also, the number of witnesses has no weight.
    things of the past are hard to prove.
    this is why a judge’s job is one of the hardest possible.
    my dad was a high court judge.

    1. Witnesses have no weight? The very fact that a witness is accepted in court, says that witnesses have weight. And when there are at least two, then their testimonies carry even more weight. When the testimonies corroborate each other it is accepted as fact unless someone can prove that there was some kind of coercion going on. The more witnesses there are, the higher the possibility that the truth will come out. That is one of the reasons the Bible is accepted as Gods word because of all the different copies that have been discovered. More than from any other writings that have been discovered. All saying almost the same thing from so long ago. It would be a monumental task to do today what some have suggested that the Bible writers way back when. All of the authors some how communicated over time and space effecting the greatest hoax of all time. All to make fools of all the world in the future. When two witnesses testimonies are given, one of the things that is looked at is, what the two witnesses have in common. Then what the two could gain from lying together. The veracity of each witness is considered. All of the testimonies are then sifted through to gain an insight of what the truth is. The same would be done if someone came forward with a picture or video. That person would be considered a witnesses. And that person’s life would be turned upside down to see if the evidence may or may not have been manufactured. Which is one reason much of the theory of evolution has very little traction today. Not only is there very little evidence, But it has been shown that evidence has been madeup, convoluted and fudged to put the theory of evolution in a better light. It on its own, can not stand. Those proponents who would say and do anything to be right, have built the foundation of evolution with hearsays and we believe’s that they think much of the they said happened, they have forgotten that there is no evidence to prove it. It is as if they said that the evidence is in the evidence room but when they go to dig it out the box is empty.
      Kristen asks “can science explain algae forming humans?”. To which SmartLX matter of factly responds “Science supports the idea that simple organisms can develop into more complex organisms”. You probably write this without gagging, having allowed this to escape your lips forsook long much like a smoker trying to take their first draw on a cigarette. The first few times the body voices it’s disapproval, but eventually it learns to accept the foolishness and resigns itself to a fate worse then death. So to the Atheists first time at looking at the so called evidence of evolution. The mind begins to ask how is all this possible. And it begins to voice its reason for not wanting to accept it,which is “no one has ever found any kind of proof that a simple organism has ever developed into a more complex organism. The theory is one imagined up in the contorted, illogical mind of someone who lost their ability to rationalize anymore. Their brains have been exposed to being forced to accept lies for so long that they are powerless on their own, to accept what is true. They have the testimony of history showing that each organism always only produces that same organism. They exhibit no changes of what they have been for what ever period of time the Atheists wishes to impose. And to get around this “no change” pitfall, they claim “not enough time has passed”. So they get out their textures and they collect “their” bacteria and fruitfulness and they poke and prod, they snip and snatch, they hem and haw, but in the end they still end up saying “not enough time has gone by”. Sure they now point to the adaptation process and claim “evolution”, but they need to now explain why they are trying to get away from their previous fanciful reason for seeing no change in species. The “not enough time has passed” reason. And so (here we go again), more made up imaginary, fast talking, smoke and mirrors, convoluted reasoning. And now they want to say that the adaptation is the new evolution. It doesn’t matter the fact that rhetoric species is not becoming another species. It doesn’t matter as to the fact that they have not even begun to understand how that species so readily is able to adapt in one direction and then when necessary, returns to the way it originally was. It doesn’t even faze them knowing that the adaptation appears to be already writen within the DNA programming of each species. No, all they see is the theory that is now showing their infatuation with. They push their infatuation to become a lust of believing their own lies. But just like a person who has become sick of their insanity they sometimes come down to earth and realize their insanity. Sometimes they settle for indifference and mediocrity. But others have gone on to seek the truth and that is why they become believers in intelligent design. Believers in God.

      1. Gerald, I think you have mixed together two separate things. Does eyewitness testimony get accepted in court? Absolutely, no disagreement there. Does the fact that eyewitness testimony is accepted in court mean that eyewitness testimony is credible and above reproach? Absolutely not. I have mentioned to you in previous topics on this website the studies done on the validity and reliability of human eyewitness accounts. For example I have often written about the classroom setting where someone runs in and steals something off the teacher’s desk and runs back out. The resulting “testimony” by the students will have a myriad of descriptions of the thief, including different races, heights, and even genders. Traumatic stress also greatly affects memory (and the killing of a religious leader you’ve been following, and the fear that you might be next, would certainly qualify for that). Time affects memory. You can verify all these things I am stating too by the way, you do not need to take my word for it.

        Of course, the whole notion of a believer such as yourself wanting to make the Bible credible because of eyewitness testimony is laughable to me, because you just as easily dismiss claims by Muslims of Mohamed flying to heaven on a winged horse, or Jesus appearing to Mormon founder Joe Smith and associate Sidney Rigdon, or Buddha traveling to other galaxies, or talking animals in Native American or Egyptian mythology, or people who claim being kidnapped by aliens. In other words, eyewitness testimony doesn’t count as nearly important in supernatural tales unless it supports YOUR supernatural tale.

        In fact, even talking about eyewitness accounts as it relates to the resurrection is pointless, isn’t it? There are ZERO eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. Everything you read by Paul/Saul, and Matt and Mark and Luke and John, and in Acts, is someone telling you what someone told them. Since you talked about a court of law, let’s point out that third party telling is called heresay, and it NOT admissible in a court of law. The Bible is full of heresay, not eyewitness testimony.

        1. Of these claims are dismissed. There is nothing to use as a standard to test them, other then, just like Evolution, someone says it is so. What a Christians holds to, is something that is backed up by the Bible, that has withered the storms of attack and come up smelling like roses. Unlike the claims you mentioned and Evolution that has repeatedly been shown to be wrong, and needing correction.

      2. As a separate post, I’d like to address your statements regarding the so called consistency between different books of the NT. As has been pointed out to you previously, theistic scholars generally agree that around half the NT was penned by Paul/Saul. John was written 70 years after the death of Jesus, and that same writer probably wrote Revelations. Matt and Luke were copied off of Mark. The whole concept you put forth of independent writings for each book of the NT simply isn’t true. Add to that the fact that the Bible is the most edited, altered, and modified book in history according to Biblical scholars (pointed out to you many times before) and the claim of consistency and independent writings gets thrown out the window pretty easily…

        1. Tim, you do not take into consideration that although the Bible is translated, or has had different versions of it written, no other book in history has been under a magnifying glass as much as the Bible. No other book, has the volume of copies as does the Bible that make it so easily screened for inconsistencies. And by it having so many different authors, yes, even though we claim that it came from God, they are still considered the authors, and as such for these different authors to maintain the same thread, not having to have had dealings with one another, nor the possibility to read each others work, and to keep that harmonic flow of different themes and still maintaining the all encompassing theme is, especially considering the time frame, a miracle in itself. Of course we are talking about mainly the Old Testament. But later on for the New Testament to pick up so fluidly and complement the Old Testament is another miracle. You don’t see it, because you haven’t studied, it except for derision. But just look how other Atheists, for just that purpose, but also to prove to themselves that they aren’t wrong, all of a sudden did an about face and accepted that very book, the Bible as being God’s testament to mankind. If you are any kind of true Atheists you have had to read about these famous pioneers for the Atheistic community. But you don’t stop to ask why! And I ask myself why you don’t? What do you have to fear to look deeper than you are normally doing? To actually put your neat, formulated, assumed thoughts and permit yourself the leeway to accept the possibility that what you have heard, about the Bible is not true. The possibly there is more to it then you first believed. I mean, my wife married me, even though my first impression to her was not a very pleasant one. But after some time with me her opinion changed and, (well it’s been 31 years this year) so although first impressions are the best to make, sometimes we have to look past our stereotypes and see what actually is there. What actually is true.
          Tim. Stop a minute. Ask yourself, Why are there so many cultures believe in gods? Consider the possibility that the old saying that “where there’s smoke, there’ fire”. How is it that gods are a prevailing theme throughout the world? Now, consider the possibility that, there is one true God, and the world did fall into sin. And if that God is as loving as the Christians say He is, He will not just step aside and let it go. But due to the fact that the real, just as any saying is passed along, down through the ages, but the real God was lost sight of. So phonies are put in place by an enemy who hates the true God. That is how the different religions, got set up. Sure there are those who took advantage of the vacuum. Just like in todays Middle East, but and sure some humans took advantage of peoples beliefs, to extort and control, for their evil purposes. But the true God wasn’t finished with us. So He chose someone to represent Him. He started working with one nation. He got them to see that there is only one real God. It wasn’t hard. They already knew that there was, they just didn’t know where He was. So after He showed or spoke to them, they found out that they had been going down the wrong path and they got on the right one. And that is how Christianity got to be where it is. Because Christ needed to come and reset up what Israel had lost again. This time not so much as not worshipping the true God, but getting His image back in line. Because this time instead of making people start to believe in other gods, he was able to make Israel believe that the true God had certain idiosyncrasies that were not really His. So Jesus came down to set the record striate. He showed them that God was not this angry being that others had made Him out to be. Jesus told them that He had been sent by God and that what Jesus was doing was what God wanted Him to do, to show us His love. And He showed it all the way to the cross. I know I have left quiet a few holes in all of this. But, you don’t know the real God. You haven’t given Him the opportunity to allow you to meet Him. There have been others who were just like you. And they one by one, when they did what I’m asking you to do, they met Jesus, God, the Savior. Why doesn’t He just show himself you ask? Well He can’t. Because He is thinking about our well being. He told Moses that no one could see His face and live. Meaning that right now due to our exposure to sin, He would be like a lethal dose of radiation. And so we must get to know Him and little by little He changes us, until the day when He remakes us and then we can see Him face to face. And there is another reason. He is just. There have been accusations made against Him by the devil, who used to be in His care, but who later on became did-satisfied. So he started a rebellion and all this mess started. But the question raised could not be simply swept aside. They had to be answered. But what is a creation compared to a Creator. So if we see God in all his splendor, and we see all that He can do. Why would we ever decide to believe the creation, no matter how beautiful he was? Because he would always just be a creation. And just like there are yes people now, there would be yes people if He would come right out and say, “ok here I am” people would without a doubt, follow Him. Look at all the football stars and movie stars. All the rich and famous. How many people are with them who simply hooked their wagons on as shooting star just for the ride, but who when the road got rough, they found another ride? So our true character must be permitted to develop. Those who would rather do right and those who would rather do wrong. The Bible says in Malachi 3:10, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in Mine house, and put Me to the proof now herewith,” saith the Lord of hosts, “if I will not open to you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” This is God telling to put our trust in His ability to provide for Him. He asks us to provide to help those less fortunate then other. And He says that He promises to provide for us if we trust Him. He says, “prove Me now” or in this version, “put Me to the proof”. That is what it has been all this time. God showing us that we can trust Him. Not what the devil has been saying behind the scene. He can’t come out and directly win our favor. Because if he does then we would know that there is a devil, and we would also realize that there is God. So he would stand a chance of losing his followers or possible followers. So he works behind the scene. Making people think there is no god, because why would a real god do all of this to us. Or why would a real god permit so much suffering. But God can not just step in and make everything “hunky-dory”. How would we see the devils true character, or how would we develop our character if God always makes it all right. Prevented every disaster. Healed every sickness. How would we be able to learn the importance of time, and discipline, and obedience? They must be developed, not forced fed. We need to allow our children to develop their character. So does God. But there are the times when He does, step in. Just enough to permit us reason to ask why is the outcome of this circumstance different from all the other ones with the same factors? So with the few miracles, and there are more than you know, and with all the other factors, which is why so many other Atheists have become Christians, God is trying to get us to come to Him.
          Tim I know this is a big step. But make it in small baby ones. God has promised to reveal Himself, if we would but ask. Just like He asked us in the text above, He has made this promise in other places of the Bible. Just go and talk to Him as you would a friend. Open His word, and let Him do what He is asking you to let Him do. Others have done it and they were surprised. You will be too.

          1. Gerald writes: [Tim, you do not take into consideration that although the Bible is translated, or has had different versions of it written, no other book in history has been under a magnifying glass as much as the Bible. No other book, has the volume of copies as does the Bible that make it so easily screened for inconsistencies. And by it having so many different authors, yes, even though we claim that it came from God, they are still considered the authors]

            The Bible comes from a god you claim, and yet it is full of inconsistencies, irrational contradictions, and blatant falsehoods. What the hell kind of god (claimed to be perfect, all knowing, all powerful , etc) puts out a document like that? A god that can supposedly create a universe, but can’t put together a book that makes sense…

            [and as such for these different authors to maintain the same thread, not having to have had dealings with one another, nor the possibility to read each others work, and to keep that harmonic flow of different themes and still maintaining the all encompassing theme is, especially considering the time frame, a miracle in itself.]

            You are grossly misinformed. They had every possibility to read the work of the preceding authors because they wrote it years later than traditionally claimed, and referenced each others work. Theist scholars agree on these points. I’ve told you all this before. I’ve asked you to verify this yourself, and read the works of these scholars to learn how they unravel these things. Why are you still maintaining this ignorant stance? Books like the gospels were not written at the same time and were not written without knowledge of other books of the Bible. Please stop perpetrating these lies of yours…

            [Of course we are talking about mainly the Old Testament.]

            The entire Bible was written later than claimed by mostly people unknown who could reference earlier works as well as history itself. The OT and NT are guilty of this.

            [But later on for the New Testament to pick up so fluidly and complement the Old Testament is another miracle.]

            It’s a miracle that people read the OT, and then wrote the NT so that it complimented the OT? That has to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. You must think it is a miracle that the Godfather II picked up so fluidly and complements the first Godfather movie…

            Not that the NT is all that fluid with the OT. In the OT you can still see the personality of the Semitic god of war (Yahweh) that the Christian god came from, but by the NT your god does a 180 and is the nicest guy on the cosmic block. I think your god is schizophrenic.

            [You don’t see it, because you haven’t studied, it except for derision.]

            I’ve studied it a great deal. That’s how I came to be an atheist actually, by reading and looking into the Bible.

            [But just look how other Atheists, for just that purpose, but also to prove to themselves that they aren’t wrong, all of a sudden did an about face and accepted that very book, the Bible as being God’s testament to mankind.]

            You like to claim this from time to time, but we never see this magical list of all these atheists that did an about face. Would that list be forthcoming in the near future by chance?

            [If you are any kind of true Atheists you have had to read about these famous pioneers for the Atheistic community.]

            There is no “Atheistic community”, Gerald. It isn’t a club or an organization. One way to tell is simply by asking you who is the leader of the atheists. There isn’t one? Doesn’t sound like a community to me. There are people who lack beliefs in leprechauns. Who are the pioneers and leaders of the Don’t Believe in Leprechaunists? How about the Don’t Believe in Santa Clausists? It’s obviously pretty stupid to think there is a community for people that lack belief in leprechauns, correct? Then why do you cultists always think atheists belong to some community because we lack belief in gods?

            [But you don’t stop to ask why! And I ask myself why you don’t? What do you have to fear to look deeper than you are normally doing?]

            Preacher Gerald, it is with all respect that I tell you that you are deluding yourself. You think you can sit there and tell me that I have to “look deeper” while you continually avoid researching anything you’ve been told for years at this website. You’ve been given links, titles of books, journals, etc that would assist you in increasing your knowledge about the universe, and you’ve continually ignored it. You tell me to “look deeper” when you can’t even comprehend that the Bible writers wrote their material by referencing the works of others, years later than cultists tell you they did. You don’t “look deeper” into the history of the Bible because you fear what you will find. You don’t “look deeper” into science because you fear what you will find. Intellectual cowardice is no way to live, but you’ve become so convinced of your own delusion that you can’t break out of your pattern of confirmation bias and neophobia. You mind is so dependent of the mental crutch of religion that you have become chained to it.

            [Tim. Stop a minute. Ask yourself, Why are there so many cultures believe in gods?]

            It’s a coping mechanism. It became an easy way to answer unknown questions, including questions about death. Politically it became a great way to control the masses. It’s the same reason why so many cultures believed in dragons. They needed an explanation for fossils, and that’s the story they came up with. It’s the same reason cultures have ghosts and UFOs and all kinds of different beliefs. They couldn’t answer questions, but they wanted answers. So they invite something that quelled the angst in their mind so they didn’t have to deal with the stress of things like death.

            [Now, consider the possibility that, there is one true God…]

            Thanks for the preaching and advice. Let me give you some. It’s time to grow up and be a man and face your fears. It’s time to start investigating the things we’ve been telling you about, and educate yourself about the data and evidence that has shown god stories to be nothing more than mythical nonsense. Who knows, it may even strengthen your faith. But stop being so fearful to look into it…

            1. And I have truthfully gone and mused through some of the articles. But I found as I have made it a point to shout out on the internet, that all that is being said is what someone is thinking happened about a long time ago. You say that Evolution is or was possible because millions and millions of years made the possibility a reality. This is claimed. But where is the physical proof that shows that time on this scale or any scale can make insanity, sane. No one has repeated any kind of experiment that shows that time made the impossible happen over millions and millions of years. I have stated this and you shoot back look at this site and you will see. If you know of where some research team performed an experiment that specifically shows that time made Evolution possible lets bring it out in the open. Don’t just sit there and tell people that it happened because millions and millions of time has gone by and that’s how you know it happened. You don’t have this as proof for anything more then that someone said that it could be possible. You are deluding yourself by believing you know what you are talking about and yet you don’t understand that Evolutions basic foundation has been cut from underneath it, because of unfounded statements that have been tossed out as proof but offers nothing with substance to back it up.
              This statement shows how ignorant you are willing to remain. “It’s a coping mechanism” this is how you responded to the fact that all cultures have in their history things about gods. You brush this fact off, as if it holds no significance. So either you are so young and very naïve, or you don’t actually understand what evidence is. And I’m telling you that when a culture makes up something and it comes to light, then it is a pleasantry. When just two make claims then it draws some attention. but when all cultures over all the planet make roughly the same claim, then it is evidence to do research about. Not to ignore. Especially when you take if from the Atheists point of view, that man just happened by accident. If such is the case, just why would man even think abstractly in this way. Why would cultures toss their children off of cliffs, to please a concept of god, that really shouldn’t occur to accidentally, randomly formed accidents. And for the very simple reason that you don’t want to be proven wrong, you ignore evidence that in a court of law would have either been used to convict or clear the person on trial. Depending on your point of view. And there is so much preponderance of evidence that when looked at all together, simple proves that God is. And when you look at all the stuff that the Atheist brings as evidence for Evolution, and against the possibility of God, then that raises the proof that God is, to God definitely is.

              1. Gerald writes: [But I found as I have made it a point to shout out on the internet, that all that is being said is what someone is thinking happened about a long time ago. You say that Evolution is or was possible because millions and millions of years made the possibility a reality. This is claimed. But where is the physical proof that shows that time on this scale or any scale can make insanity, sane. No one has repeated any kind of experiment that shows that time made the impossible happen over millions and millions of years.]

                If I may be technical here, no one has ever said that time made the possibility of evolution a reality. Evolution HAS happened over long time periods. Time is not a reason for that. Genetic mutation, genetic drift, migration, natural selection, etc are the reasons why populations of animals evolve. The time part just shows how long it has been happening in all living things.

                As for the dating of these things, there are multiple ways to make those determinations. In geology, radiometric dating is used. Radioactive decay has a very steady rate, and when a radioactive isotope gives off its radioactive particles it turns into a more stable form. Uranium eventually becomes lead for example. Since the rate of decay is known, we can determine how long a piece of uranium in a rock has been there based on the ratio of the parent material (the radioactive uranium) to the daughter material (the lead it turns into after its radioactivity is all used up). Some samples have multiple radioactive isotopes in them, and each one is tested. When the dates agree based on the steady decay rate of each isotope, it serves as a greater confirmation of the age of the rock it was found in.

                Some cultists will claim that we can’t know that the radioactive decay rate has stayed the same for such a long time. That’s actually not true. First we will look at it from a common sense point of view. If the rate changed, it could have been slower in the past just as easily as faster. If it was slower that means that the Earth and the universe are even OLDER. But that obviously doesn’t help the creationist argument, so they never mention that. But it is 50% of the possible change, and that should be noted. The other 50% would be that radioactive decay was faster. In order for the young Earth creationist model to be valid, the radioactive decay would have needed to be tens of thousands of times faster than it is today. That’s a problem. You increase the radioactivity of what currently comes out of the Earth right now times tens of thousands, and this planet would be a radioactive wasteland. No life could exist.

                Plus, there are shorter lived isotopes, like carbon-14, that we should not be able to date to, say, 15,000 years ago. If the radioactive decay rate was tens of thousands of times faster, that carbon-14 would have decayed in a matter of weeks. It would be impossible for it to exist right now because it would have completely decayed away. Yet we find it all over the place. The creationist claim makes no sense.

                Let’s also look at it mathematically. Radioactive decay is a non-linear process. That means that the radioactivity of something does not decrease in a straight line. Radioactive decay will decrease by ½ over 1 time period. It decreases by another ½ over another time period. It decreases by ½ over a third time period. So it goes from 100% to 50% at 1 time period, 50% to 25% at 2 time periods, and 25% to 12.5% after three time periods. Graph that and you get a parabola (a curve). We have thousands of samples of rock with multiple radioactive isotopes in them that date the same. Those samples go from less than a million years old to hundreds of millions of years old to a billion years old. If the decay rate had changed at some point, all those samples would not agree over all those time periods. We would be able to see a sudden point in time where the isotopes no longer line up with each other if decay rates changed. We don’t. It’s mathematically impossible that decay rates have changed at some point, based on all the data.

                We’ve dated the iridium band found all over the globe that came from the Chicxulub meteorite (the one that killed the dinosaurs) with 10 different isotopes, and they all date to around 65 million years ago. Changing decay rates would make the agreement of all 10 different elemental isotopes impossible.

                So while time doesn’t make evolution happen, we know evolution happens over time, and we know the time periods are quite accurate.

                [If you know of where some research team performed an experiment that specifically shows that time made Evolution possible lets bring it out in the open.]

                I can’t offer you what doesn’t exist, because no one claims that. I’m afraid you have misunderstood.

                [You are deluding yourself by believing you know what you are talking about and yet you don’t understand that Evolutions basic foundation has been cut from underneath it, because of unfounded statements that have been tossed out as proof but offers nothing with substance to back it up.]

                Once again Gerald, you continue to display a real lack of understanding about anything scientific. You still fail to understand the theory of evolution. All I can do is implore you, for the hundredth time, to get yourself educated on the topic. Nothing has been undercut because you haven’t raised a valid point.

                [It’s a coping mechanism” this is how you responded to the fact that all cultures have in their history things about gods. You brush this fact off, as if it holds no significance. So either you are so young and very naïve, or you don’t actually understand what evidence is. And I’m telling you that when a culture makes up something and it comes to light, then it is a pleasantry. When just two make claims then it draws some attention. but when all cultures over all the planet make roughly the same claim, then it is evidence to do research about. Not to ignore.]

                Gerald, what evidence? A lot of cultures have god stories is proof that a lot of cultures have god stories. It doesn’t prove that gods exist. There is no empirical data or evidence of gods or the supernatural. There are plenty of CLAIMS of them, but no actual proof. You don’t know what evidence is, that’s the problem.

                A lot of cultures have stories of dragons. Should we be researching dragons, Gerald? A lot of cultures have stories of mermaids. Should we be researching mermaids, Gerald? Where is your demand for attention to those myths? Oh, you didn’t mention the other myths (even though I mentioned them in my previous post) because you don’t believe in that crap. You haven’t invested your entire life and some of your income in dragons or mermaids or Big Foot, so that stuff you ignore even though they are no different in frequency than god stories. Just another double standard that you employ, preacher Gerald…

                [Especially when you take if from the Atheists point of view, that man just happened by accident. If such is the case, just why would man even think abstractly in this way.]

                I’ve already explained this to you. Coping mechanism. Need for answers. Scared of reality.

                [Why would cultures toss their children off of cliffs, to please a concept of god, that really shouldn’t occur to accidentally, randomly formed accidents.]

                They do it because they are idiots. They actually think they are pleasing some supernatural critter. This just proves my point I made elsewhere about religion causing all manner of desires in people to do what they think is good and the right thing…

                [And for the very simple reason that you don’t want to be proven wrong, you ignore evidence that in a court of law would have either been used to convict or clear the person on trial.]

                Since you can’t seem to prove me wrong, or to be more accurate you can’t seem to prove that gods are real, I don’t have much to worry about as far as my ego goes.

                You could take 100 people’s eyewitness accounts in a court of law saying the defendant did the crime. You take one piece of empirical evidence that shows the defendant didn’t, and that defendant won’t be convicted. Because EMPIRICAL evidence means so much more than the words of human beings. One glove that didn’t fit was all it took to get OJ Simpson off the hook. That one piece of empirical evidence defeated all kinds of eyewitnesses stating that he threatened his wife. Methinks you never understood what empirical means…

                You also need to need to understand that eyewitness claims about mundane, everyday things are more believable. Someone claims that a defendant killed a person? It’s plausible, because we all know people kill other people all the time. We know that can happen. Give me a person claiming that Muhammed flew up to heaven on a winged horse? There is no evidence for winged horses, or heaven, or gods, so that claim isn’t plausible and requires empirical data to support it. Your god claims, preacher Gerald, aren’t plausible, because there is no evidence for them. And we already know, of course, that you don’t have any evidence either…

    2. “Science supports the idea that simple organisms can develop into more complex organisms through the mechanism of Darwinian evolution by natural selection” Permit me to use this post to say something about what SmartLx has posted. It seems he deliberately is not allowing others, or just me, to respond to the errors that he is spewing. “Science supports the idea that simple organisms can develop into more complex organisms through the mechanism of Darwinian evolution by natural selection”. SmartLx, says that science supports the idea, but they only support it by saying, “this we do believe” no one has ever , produced a simple organism that has become a more complex one. This is just something that they say believed happened, but no one has reproduced this belief in a laboratory. We see each of the simple organisms always reproducing only the same one celled organisms. And the more complex organisms producing the same more complex organisms. This is what has been observed from as far back as we can know. And this is what science should be using as a foundation to extrapolate possibilities of what will happen in the future, or what happed in the past. Not to push a theory that contradicts what observance has told us without fail.
      ” Humans had very early ancestors which weren’t actually algae but were of a similar size and complexity,” Look at this malarkey. This is being postulated without even proof available to make it possible. It is all here say. Now, there may have been algae, mixed in with the dust or dirt that God used to form Adam. But it the algae was there it wasn’t as an ancestor, but as building material. And Adam came out from under the hands of God, fully Adam, all man. And didn’t have anyone to call Father but God himself. Anyone who suggests anything else is not dealing with all of the intelligence that God created them with. They have been compromised in their ability to think logically and rationally.

      1. That brings up an interesting question, Gerald. What evidence WOULD you accept that evolution by natural selection has occurred and is an entirely natural phenomenon?

        1. I am glad you asked. Although I have already posted this. Please give me evidence that includes what man has observed for over the 6000 years plus, multiplied by over each organism, simple and complex, that without question have shown that life comes from life. This is what science should be remembering that should cause them to reject what you just claimed the supported “Science supports the idea that simple organisms can develop into more complex organisms”. How can science support something that has never before seen happening. We have been around all these years and we have only seen all organisms simple and complex only reproduce themselves. This is a pattern that can be followed from day one till today, and this can make us certain without a doubt that we have no reason to believe this pattern is going to change in another 6000 plus years. And if this is true for the future, the why should we question what brought us to our present day form of observance. That what has happened in the past is what determined what the pattern of the present is, and what will be the pattern of the future. So use this as a foundation of something that made things as they are today. Excluding the evidence of what we have observed negates any other theory that excludes this as evidence. This is an assumption that if built upon, already causes any thing else to crumble as not possible. Read this site.
          “https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/how_many_scientists_reject_darwinism.html”

          1. That is quite the impressive list….of guys who died in the 1800s (and earlier) and most of whom didn’t even know about the theory of evolution. Did YOU read that site? Apparently not. What good did you think it would do to give us a list of people who by and large didn’t agree with evolution because they died before the theory was published?

            The evidence you ask for? It exists. Billions of such facts exist. Data that shows all life is related, data that shows how populations of living things changed over time, data that shows evolution in action in live studies of many succeeding generations of creatures like fruit flies and bacterium. All this has, of course, been pointed out to you for quite a while now. Instead of checking out the journals and books that have been recommended to you, or seeking out professors at local universities, you give us a list of dead guys who by and large didn’t know the theory of evolution would exist one day…

            Fabulous.

  2. Kristi – As LX already pointed out, there is already plenty of material at this website that answers your questions about evolution. There is even more information contained in the comment sections of those topics too. There are also a lot of websites that be found with a simple google search of evolution that could have also answered your query.

    To go ahead and answer your question anyway, I will point you to the field of genetics as evidence that all life is related on Earth, including humans and algae. All living things share some of the same DNA. The more DNA they share, the closer they are related. We share a lot of DNA with the rest of the apes, hence they are man’s closest living relatives. We share less with cats and dogs, and even less with reptiles, and even less with algae. But some of our DNA is the same with all those creatures. You and I even have shared DNA with oak trees. This information, by the way, was discovered long after the realization via the fossil record, morphology, geology, and paleontology that all of life came from a very simple common ancestor a long time ago. Genetics is actually a totally independent confirmation of the tree of life.

    As to your tomb question, others have already answered that, so I’ll leave it be.

    1. Of course all on this planet are related. Everything was made from the same building blocks. But nothing morphed from one specie to another. But everything created all at once as they are. This is why many of the Evolutionists have denounced the evidence that some were claiming that was found to support Evolution, and the instead said that as the looked at the same evidence it looks to support the biblical claim that all was created at one time and to each kind. We share atoms and electrons. Also. But not all of the atoms and electrons and such have life. The point is none of the species appear as any other species. No morphing species is seen becoming another. We see that what we observe contradicts what the Atheist is claiming to have happened,

  3. (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html)

    “To ChristianAnswers.Net HOMETo ChristianAnswers.Net DIRECTORY
    Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?

    See this page in: Hungarian, Spanish

    Photo copyrighted. Courtesy of Films for Christ.
    Chimpanzee
    Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?

    The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

    Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

    Photo copyrighted.
    If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).

    Photo copyrighted
    If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on Earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!

    We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

    Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

    Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.
    What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

    Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

    Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error – averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

    Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.
    What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].

    Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

    There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

    There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

    These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

    The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

    Notes and References

    However, Jeffrey Swartz, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Pittsburg, maintains that man is closer to orangutans in gross morphology. Acts and Facts, 16 (5):5, 1987. Return to text
    Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987, J. Molec. Evol. 26:99-121). The resulting hybrid duplex material is then separated from single-strand DNA remaining and heated in 2 to 3 degree increments from 55o to 95o C, and the amount of DNA separating at each temperature is measured and totaled, comparing it to human-human DNA re-formed as duplex. If 90% of the human DNA is recovered with heating from the human-chimp hybrid, compared to the human-human DNA, then there is said to be 90% normalized percentage hybridization. Return to text
    Sarich et al. 1989. Cladistics 5:3-32. Return to text
    Ibid. Return to text
    Molecular homology studies could be quite useful to creationists in determining what were the original created ‘kinds’ and what has happened since to generate new species within each kind. For example, the varieties / species of finch on the Galapagos Islands obviously derived from an original small number that made it to the islands. Recombination of the genes in the original migrants and natural selection could account for the varieties of finch on the islands today – just as all the breeds of dogs in the world today were artificially bred from an original wild dog/wolf kind not long ago. It is interesting that molecular homology studies have been most consistent when applied within what are probably biblical kinds and contradict the major predictions of evolution regarding the relationships between the major groups such as phyla and classes (see ref. [6] regarding the latter). Return to text
    Michael Denton, 1985. Evolution: Theory in Crisis. (Burnett Books, London). Return to text
    Haldane’s Dilemma recognizes the problem for evolutionists of getting genetic changes in higher organisms, especially those which have long generation times. Due to the cost of substitution (death of the unfit) of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7×1011 years of human-like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs. Or in 10 million years (twice the time since the chimp/human common ancestor is alleged to have lived), only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference. There has simply been insufficient time for ape-like creatures to turn into humans. And this understates the problem by assuming perfect efficiency of natural selection and ignoring deleterious processes like inbreeding and genetic drift, as well as problems posed by pleiotropy (one gene controlling more than one characteristic) and polygeny (more than one gene controlling one characteristic)—most real genes. See W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215-217. Return to text
    Author: Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D., Supplied by Creation Ministries International

    Copyright © 1997, 1999, 2001, Creation Ministries International, All Rights Reserved – except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

    ChristianAnswers.Net
    Christian Answers Network
    PO Box 1167
    Marysville WA 98270-1167 Submit your Questions

    Creation SuperLibrary.com Christian Answers home page
    home pagedirectory
    Christian Answers Network HOMEPAGE and DIRECTORY
    Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional”

    Now. Please don’t just say not so and run back to the same “but evolution is true” spiel. Explain to me how these arguments do not apply to why we should not believe in Evolution.

    1. Gerald writes: “Now. Please don’t just say not so and run back to the same “but evolution is true” spiel. Explain to me how these arguments do not apply to why we should not believe in Evolution.”

      So you cut and paste an article from some website, and then demand that I do a detailed analysis of it and explain to you the problems with it? Maybe you should do your own research. I have serious doubts, given your statements in the past, that you even fully understand everything discussed in the article. I know for a fact that you didn’t fact check any of it. The first thing I did after reading it was check on the sequencing of the chimp genome, because the article keeps claiming a proper comparison has not been made between human and chimp DNA and in fact they state “Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.” The last copyright of the article was 2001. So I checked the chimp genome project. Guess what? It was finished in 2005…

      So a comparison between full sets of human and chimp DNA has been done, and human and chimp DNA are still closely related (96%). From the wiki article on the chimp genome project: “Gene duplications are a major source of differences between human and chimp genetic material, with about 2.7 percent of the genome now representing differences having been produced by gene duplications or deletions”. As is typical for the creationist nonsense that you find at the websites you like to visit, they don’t update their articles. They also don’t talk about other similarities in the DNA of the two species, like the ERVs in each genome being found in the same place of each species’ DNA.

      So this article, written longer than 16 years ago and last copyrighted 16 years ago, is out of date and does not contain accurate information. Once again I’ve had to fact check the pseudo-science garbage you pull from the website of your creationist masters, and have found it to be rot. When you going to wake up and realize that the people who are trying to support god claims have to lie to you in order to bolster your belief system? You’d think at some point you’d wonder why that is….

      1. Talk, talk and more talk, but you or SmartLx fail to respond to my reasons that prove that Evolution is a base less theory made up of here says and nothing more. Show me why you have reason to believe that life came from non life or from nothing. Point to research that duplicated the process where life came not as we observed, but from nothing or non life. Point me to research that the Atheist has been able to show how a brand new life was able to fend for itself, surviving, millions of years, until it some how learned to morph into other organism. Where is the research where we have organisms are morphing. Show how this vast amount of time made it possible for this new life to have the mechanisms to analyze and fashion itself to become what it needs to be to become ever other living organism. Also explain why, even though there have gone by all these millions of years and the morphing has begun, why aren’t we seeing these same morphings going on today? What has stopped this one bacteria, or virus from doing what it has learned to do, even though all the other organism are always doing what they have learned to do?

  4. Wow quoting Jeffrey Schwartz a proponent of mind-body dualism and intelligent design proponent is really great Gerald McDonald:

    “Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. is an American psychiatrist and researcher in the field of neuroplasticity and its application to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).[1][2] He is a proponent of mind/body dualism and appeared in the 2008 Film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, in which he told interviewer Ben Stein that science should not be separated from religion.[2][3][4][5]”

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_M._Schwartz

    Also using Creation Ministry is way off its a extreme pro-religious organization they do not want truth. They already have it and they do not care:

    “BASICS
    The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
    The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
    The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.”

    Source: http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

    So your post is useless if not then breeding and other experiments done in Experimental evolution would be nonsense and would not work. Take for example breeding of dogs its evolution in action even when its artificial done by humans but it shows that a organism can change over time.

    As for memories they are unreliable as hell and the more you age the more its worse. I know this from even personal experience with friends when we recall our “old times”.

    Thanks for reading this for those who are interested and I wish you a nice day.

    1. You truly are missing the point. And you are not realizing that your post supports creation.
      I am talking about the fact that even with all the breeding control, all that is being born from the controlled animals, flowers, bacteria, flies, or whatever, remain whatever it is that is being controlled. They are not morphing into another species. The algae is not becoming flies or tadpoles. They aren’t even regressing into a previous species, (like someone would know what it could have been before what it is now). And even though there has beven tons and tons of fossils unearthe, yet the Evolutionist still cannot show one fossil that can be used showing a morphing from one species to another.
      Now back to my first question of the many I have. Why do we not seeing the whatever started the morphing, or evolution, still going through first steps of evolution. We know that all the other simple organisms that are around today, (and there is no reason to suspect that the original life that showed up at the beginning, is no longer around), are carrying on doing what they do day after day. So why do we not see the same original “whatevers” working their magic as they first did when they first arrived?

      1. Gerald writes: [You truly are missing the point.]

        I see the pot has called the kettle black. Let’s find out why…

        [I am talking about the fact that even with all the breeding control, all that is being born from the controlled animals, flowers, bacteria, flies, or whatever, remain whatever it is that is being controlled. They are not morphing into another species.]

        Yes actually, they are. All populations of living things are changing over time. It doesn’t happen fast enough in your lifetime for you to be able to see it, but it’s happening all the same. But we don’t have to study living things, because we have snapshots of previous living things encased in the geological record, which show us the changes that animals went through over time.

        [And even though there has beven tons and tons of fossils unearthe, yet the Evolutionist still cannot show one fossil that can be used showing a morphing from one species to another.]

        A blatant lie. You bear false witness, Christian. I thought that was a no-no, but apparently it is OK when attempting to prop up your god creature.

        There are billions of fossils, and many lineages that show a progression from one species to another have been found and displayed in museums and books throughout the world. Go to your local university library and read for yourself.

        [Why do we not seeing the whatever started the morphing, or evolution, still going through first steps of evolution.]

        Because at least a portion of their population evolved into a new species. The rest either went extinct, or evolved into a separate species and continued to survive to this day. Since all life shares common DNA we know that all life came from a common ancestor.

  5. Come off it. You are talking as if there is no doubt to what you are saying. The only relation we share with apes or rocks, flowers or dirt is that God created everything. Science deals with observation, not speculation. There has never been any observed evolving of algea to anything else. Algae has only sprouted more algae. Bacteria has only developed more bacteria. Chimps always have baby chimps. And gorillas, gorillas. That is what science should be stating as fact. And leave the speculation in the speculation collumn. There aren’t even any fossils that support one species morphing into another species. All you have are assumptions without any supporting evidence. Even many of the scientists looking to prove evolution claim that there is no evidence supporting evolution. All of this adds to at the very least, a part stating that it all is pure speculation not fact.

    1. Gerald writes: [You are talking as if there is no doubt to what you are saying. The only relation we share with apes or rocks, flowers or dirt is that God created everything.]

      The fact that you wrote those two sentences back to back without seeing the irony tickles my funny bone.

      [Science deals with observation, not speculation.]

      Yet you speculate god. Fascinating dichotomy.

      [There has never been any observed evolving of algea to anything else. Algae has only sprouted more algae. Bacteria has only developed more bacteria. Chimps always have baby chimps. And gorillas, gorillas. That is what science should be stating as fact.]

      Sure there has. We’ve observed it via the fossil record. We’ve observed it in genetics. We’ve observed it studying the morphology of living things. Fact is, we’ve observed it everywhere.

      We all realize of course that you, the preacher Gerald, don’t agree. You can’t give anyone here even one decent reason why the lineage of fossils showing how whales went from land animals back to the seas is wrong. You cannot offer one piece of data or find one error in the morphological or geological or paleontological or genetic facts gathered to date to counter the conclusions. You can’t show any error in any experiment. All you can do is cry “algae only creates algae in my lifetime” and refuse to expand your intellect to even try to understand the scientific work going on around you. You are on your own island, surrounded by the sea of knowledge, but too afraid to get wet.

      1. “You can’t give anyone here even one decent reason why the lineage of fossils showing how whales went from land animals back to the seas is wrong” You see how blind you are allowing yourself to be. Just where has it been proven, that whales went from land animals back to the sea? There are no kind of fossil records that show any kind of transition from one species, or organism to something that looks different. Even other evolutionists have said as much and they even stated that those who say that they have found such fossils are either lying or they have prefabricated evidence to erroneously support their theory.

        1. Gerald writes: [Just where has it been proven, that whales went from land animals back to the sea? There are no kind of fossil records that show any kind of transition from one species, or organism to something that looks different.]

          Of course there is. I’ve posted book titles that do a great job of a detailed breakdown of lineages, and also posted articles , including this simplified one:
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

          You of course can’t be bothered to read them. Why you choose not to read and discuss them I can’t say, but you should. It can’t hurt you to understand more of the information from my side of the discussion.

          [Even other evolutionists have said as much and they even stated that those who say that they have found such fossils are either lying or they have prefabricated evidence to erroneously support their theory.]

          You talking about the occasional quote mine that you throw out there for us? You know, the ones that I patiently research and show how they were taken out of context, and how the websites your creationist masters run have lied and misled you? You never seem to respond to those posts either now that I think about it…

          And I see you’ve thrown in a conspiracy theory for good measure. Nothing like the baseless charge of conspiracy to try to muddy the waters, eh preacher Gerald? 150 years worth of countless man hours of work, billions of fossils, untold numbers of sequenced genomes of living things, hundreds of thousands of geological cores, all faked JUST to try to trick you into not believing in your god. Not even the Christian god, because some sects like Catholicism accept the theory of evolution. No no, it’s just your particular flavor of fundie god that everyone is after.

          What’s really funny about this whole thing is that the theory of evolution doesn’t even comment on the supernatural. It actually says nothing about gods or belief systems. The only reason that irrational cultists like yourself get so worked up about it is because it disagrees with the childish notion that the planet is only 6,000 years old and all animals just appeared from nowhere, fully formed. So all the Westboro types like yourself can do is cry conspiracy and stick your head in the sand…

  6. ” All living things share some of the same DNA”. Sure we share some of the same DNA. The Designer that made everything made the DNA. He knew how to use it. But He created all species, all organisms, simple and complex. Weaving DNA in different sequences to create each organism. A car shares some of the same parts a bicycle has, that share some of the same parts with a 747. That doesn’t mean that as all the parts the parts for a bicycle were in somebodies back yard someone tripped and was, boom, bang, out pops a car and then the jet. The same designs were useful for different species. And since no evolution has ever been observed, despite the fact that the believers of evolution claim that evolution needs to have many years to go by for something to evolve. Yet since they say evolution is happening, then we should be seeing get things evolving day after day. Since evolution has started, time has reached the point to have something evolving. But we still so not have anything supporting these claims from the Evolutionists.

    1. You should prove the designer exists, before crediting it with creating stuff. You love putting that cart before the horse though, don’t you. The reason for that is simple though – you have no evidence for your flavor of god. Never did, or you would have posted it last year when you were asked for it…

      But why should you change now. It’s so much easier to make it up as you go along, and make speculative claims that your god shared some of the same DNA for all living things. Why provide data and evidence for your statements when you can just wave that magic supernatural wand about and make claims you couldn’t substantiate if your life depended on it…

      1. We actually don’t have to prove anything. Just with the simple fact that Evolution has nothing to support it, being made up of pure illogical reasoning. That leaves as the only possible reason for our existence and everything else, is God.

        1. I apologize, but that is absolutely hilarious. There is no proof for evolution (so you say) so that means the god concept wins by default. Turn your garbage logic around then. There is no proof for gods or the supernatural, therefore the theory of evolution wins by default. See how easy that is!

          There are, to no one’s surprise, multiple problems with your post. For one thing, evolution is the best theory based on the evidence, but it is not the only theory. If evolution were shown to be incorrect tomorrow, that doesn’t rule out a natural explanation. It just means we don’t have the right one yet. If there is an “either/or” scenario, it would be at the supernatural verses natural level of explanations. There are multiple supernatural possibilities too. Hindu, Zoroastrianism, Egyptian, and other creation stories exist as well. If the Christian version isn’t true (and it isn’t) that doesn’t automatically rule out other mythological possibilities automatically, just like ruling out evolution doesn’t rule out other natural explanations.

          The fact that you continue avoiding admitting to everyone that there is no evidence for your supernatural tale is intellectually shameful, but that’s your choice. You also continue avoiding the local university library too. That’s also your choice, albeit a foolish one…

          1. “I apologize, but that is absolutely hilarious” There’s no need to apologize. But he who laughs,….. So I wouldn’t do so, so often. And I not laughing at your ignorance. Willingly or other wise.
            “There is no proof for evolution (so you say) so that means the god concept wins by default”. By default, yes hands down. Unless the Atheist cares to invent another lame unproven, evidence less theory, that has only here say as any kind of way that the Evolutionist claims to be evidence, but fail to show in any way that what they are proposing has in any way, any chance of it be possible.

          2. “For one thing, evolution is the best theory based on the evidence” Evolution is baseless. Because it contradicts what we have been observing for more than 6000 years.” Let me remind you that Life has only been observed coming from life. And any other possible way the life came to be, as long as it takes into account what has been observed for the last 6000 or more years, then that theory too would be more probable then the theory of Evolution. See if you have ever heard of this quote. “”once is chance, twice is coincidence, third time is a pattern”. So since we know that life has always and only been seen of coming from another form of life, with some level of intelligence, then that rules out completely the theory of Evolution. And to make it doubly ruled out, is the fact that no where has anyone ever seen one new species coming from a different species. Each species has only and always produced its own kind. And this too has been observed for more than 6000 years. And we do not have any reason to toss out all those previous years of observances to follow a theory that refuses to acknowledges where the evidence actually leads. Nor should we, without any evidence to the contrary, go off on a tangent on a fools errand, just because they don’t like the obvious answer. No, we don’t need to disprove the theory of Evolution. By the way that the Evolutionists have failed to dot their “i’s” and cross their “t’s”, in support of this really “not a theory”, theory. Their faith in the theory of Evolution doesn’t hold water. They look at the same evidence that the Creationists look at and they ignore the evidence of all the years of observances that has piled up and they derive some assumption that contradicts the evidence. But the theory of Intelligent design embraces the evidence of all the years of observances, that life always only comes from life, and the 6000 plus years of evidence where it has only been seen that each organism, simple or complex, has only always produced their own kind from each species. Plus the sub theory that is supposed to make the main theory more plausible, the exorbitant amount of time theory that supposedly imbues the first ever appearing life, with the capabilities to survive long lengths of time without sustenance, and with the ability to change its appearance to become anything and everything that it needs to become in order to survive. And as true to the form of evolution, there is no proof to show that time can effect this change. this theory also has never been duplicated to give credence to this sub theory. Please wake up you all. Your ship is sinking.

  7. Once again, if there are similarities it is only because the design was good enough to use for more than one species. Look at what you are saying, even though there are so many similarities it is obvious that it takes more then just DNA similarities to make each species. Everything was designed to be what they are. And even though the scientists have been monkeying around with the DNA and yet whatever they do, species remains the same species. .

    1. Gerald writes: [Everything was designed to be what they are.]

      Right. That’s why cave fish have eyes that don’t work anymore.

      Your rationalizing knows no end…

      1. “”Evolution HAS happened over long time periods.”
        Evolution HAS happened over long time periods. Time is not a reason for that. Genetic mutation, genetic drift, migration, natural selection, etc are the reasons why populations of animals evolve. The time part just shows how long it has been happening in all living things”
        Once again. There is no factual evidence supporting these statements. There is only “we believe this to be” No one has shown that Genetic mutation, and genetic drift, or the rest of this quote has made any of the different species. And if evolution was how things came about why haven’t the eyes of the cavefish evolved to being able to be useful in the dark? Or why didn’t the fish evolve our of the cave?

        1. I have a lot to catch up on, but I can cover this one. Cavefish haven’t left the caves because they can survive just fine in there and there is no need to migrate. Improvements to their eyes are useless in darkness and therefore confer no benefit to survival, and conversely a decline in eye size and quality does not make survival more difficult, so deleterious mutations are allowed to compound until the eyes are useless and vestigial. No one ever said that the effects of natural selection are always beneficial to every part of an animal.

          Speciation by natural selection has occurred in full view many times.

  8. “It doesn’t happen fast enough in your lifetime for you to be able to see it” Where is the proof to that statement. You say that it happens so imperceptibly, that no one notices it. Even that is not true. I used to have a 27 inch waist line and little by little it went up to a 36. Then at 38 I said enough is enough. Now I’m back down at a 34. (I think). But in any case, I noticed the increased the waist line after a while. But even if that was the case in the beginning when Evolution first began to take place. Those millions of years have added up long ago. And what ever change that is supposed to have been taking place we should be able to see the end result by now. And that is where the absence of transitional fossils contradict your theory of evolution. Even some of the same evolutionists have stated that there have been no findings of transitional fossils that support the theory of Evolution. And don’t forget what else doesn’t support the theory of Evolution. And that is what each human being has been observing ever since we walked upon the face of the earth. And that is we have only observed each species producing their own species all the time, with out question. And that is what Evolution is supposed to have said to cause to happen in the beginning. It was said to have been the reason that all the different species arrived upon the earth. But that is not what is seen over and over again whenever another virus is produced. Or whenever bacteria produces other bacteria. Or when any other kind of organism reproduces, it only reproduces another of its kind. And that is just what the Bible has said. So evolution does not have a leg to stand on. It not only ignores the very tool that science depends upon to determine whether an assumption has merit or not, which is the tool of observation, but it continues to build upon this fact less theory, building a foundation less structure of assumptions that has no actual evidence to support its claims.

  9. “If the Christian version isn’t true (and it isn’t)”. Now, please do not get beside yourself, but there are plennnnnnnnnnty, of other Atheists, of Scientists, of Evolutionists, who have admitted that even though the believe that God can not be proven, neither can He be disproven. You are not always talking science this and science that, any you go off the science wall making statements that force people to come to the conclusion that you really don’t care about what is right or wrong. True or false. You just don’t want God to be true.

    1. Gerald, I have mentioned enough times in the past that I cannot say, with 100% certainty, that no gods exist. There could be some kind of god creature that is real, despite the lack of evidence for one. As it relates however specifically to the Biblical god, that being does not exist. The claimed properties of the Bible god make it impossible to be real. For example, it is claimed that it has always existed. An always existing being cannot reach the point in it’s existence where it created anything, that is illogical. It’s claimed that it is perfect. It can’t create an imperfect universe with imperfect beings in it and still be perfect, so that is more false logic. It’s all knowing and all powerful? Then it can’t change the future because it already knows what the future holds, so then it can’t be all powerful because it can’t change the future. More false logic. The Biblical god is full of these inconsistencies. One only need to read the Bible to see that the Christian/Jewish god being can’t exist as stated. These irrational inconsistencies have been pointed out to before by the way, too bad you weren’t paying attention then.

      [You are not always talking science this and science that, any you go off the science wall making statements that force people to come to the conclusion that you really don’t care about what is right or wrong. True or false.]

      Everything I’ve said is still logically sound, Gerald. I don’t need the scientific method to show that the Bible gives a contradicting list of characteristics for the Christian god. Simple common sense is the only tool required for that exercise.

      By the way, how you went from scientific inquiry to what “is right and wrong” is beyond me. There’s no connection between those two topics that I’m aware of.

      [You just don’t want God to be true.]

      All this time at this website, and you’ve learned nothing. This has nothing to do with what I want. This has everything to do with what is empirically provable and the conclusions that can be reached as a result of that. There’s no evidence for gods, and in particular the Christian god creature cannot possibly exist given the list of characteristics attributed to it that contradict each other.

      I’d love to live forever, or at least live a lot longer than I’m going to, but I don’t get to pick that. The universe could care less what I want.

  10. “The Bible comes from a god you claim, and yet it is full of inconsistencies, irrational contradictions, and blatant falsehoods. What the hell kind of god (claimed to be perfect, all knowing, all powerful , etc) puts out a document like that? A god that can supposedly create a universe, but can’t put together a book that makes sense”. Tim this post of yours shows that either you are grossly misinformed, or that you just like to spread lies. You should know that thousands of individual have made the claims you just made. And you should also know that these people have either died and were buried or they died and they ended up accepting Jesus as their Savior. The Bible full of inconsistencies. If that were true do you really think that the Bible would hold the preeminence that it holds. And you do realize that the Bible does encourages people to live lives that are beneficial to themselves and to those around them. The Bible tells us that God loved us so much that He willingly gave His life to save ours. And that those who receive that fact, need to be willing to give the ultimate to others also. Tell me how all the time and money used to try to prove that the Bible is not what many claim to be. All the high blood pressure that many Atheists suffer because people say that there is no God. Why do they go to such extremes, when in all reality the Bible only improves the lives of all who embrace its teachings. Yes there are fanatics. Those who do not fully understand what the Bible is all about. But they are not out to kill others to blow someone up. These people are few and far in between. The majority of the people all want to be better individuals. And since God can not be proven at least by what some people would like as proof. But He can not be disproven. And there have been, there are now, hundreds of thousands of people who testify that they know that God is. They have or had met Him in person. So it really is ridiculous for any one to pitch a fit because people say that they believe that God is. If the Atheist would go after the easter bunny or santa clause with the vengeance that they go after Christ and the Bible people would consider them a little touched, don’t you think?

    1. Gerald writes: [Tim this post of yours shows that either you are grossly misinformed, or that you just like to spread lies. You should know that thousands of individual have made the claims you just made. And you should also know that these people have either died and were buried or they died and they ended up accepting Jesus as their Savior.]

      Please notice that preacher Gerald has once again appealed to nameless groups of people who supposedly found his flavor of god. We have no list of names of course, just a baseless assertion that this is the case, which can only be taken as a fabrication on his part without that list of names. I have detailed out multiple times some of the outrageous contradictions of characteristics of his god creature (such as being all knowing and all powerful at the same time, and being perfect and creating imperfect beings, and being all good and making beings capable of evil, to name a few). He can’t challenge those details, and he doesn’t try. He never tries to, because he knows he can’t. So instead he claims mythical groups of people made these claims and found his flavor of divine critter.

      [The Bible full of inconsistencies. If that were true do you really think that the Bible would hold the preeminence that it holds.]

      Obviously. Because the inconsistencies are in there (you can look them up yourself!), and yet people don’t even realize it, or they ignore it due to confirmation bias. It’s always amazing how many people don’t know that Mark has a huge addition to it that doesn’t show up in the earliest copies of the Bible. Just because people ignore the inconsistencies does not mean the inconsistencies don’t exist. Again, look them up yourself. Think about them and solve the problem. You can’t, no one can, because they are conflicting claims…

      [And you do realize that the Bible does encourages people to live lives that are beneficial to themselves and to those around them.]

      So does “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”. That people find good advice or information in a book doesn’t prove the supernatural or god beings exist. False leap of logic on your part.

      [The Bible tells us that God loved us so much that He willingly gave His life to save ours. And that those who receive that fact, need to be willing to give the ultimate to others also.]

      It also tells us that plants came before the Sun. Seriously, how many times do you need to be reminded of this? The Bible says all sorts of crap, but that does not make it true. There is no evidence of gods, or that a god died. The Bible is full of supernatural claims that have no empirical data backing it up. Requests for data have been ignored time and again by you and every other cultist that haunts these threads. Your baseless assertions don’t mean more just because they came from a book credited to a god…

      [Tell me how all the time and money used to try to prove that the Bible is not what many claim to be.]

      I have no way of knowing this information. I’m willing to bet you don’t either. I imagine you would like to count all the money spent on things like genetic research though. Problem is, that money is not spent to disprove gods or the Bible. That money is spent to understand how things work and the universe around us. The fact that, in the course of those investigations, it turns out that true reality does not match what the Bible claims, is an unintended consequence. But that doesn’t mean that time and money was spent trying to prove the Bible is wrong. The Bible proves itself wrong as science progresses.

      Compare that to the amount of money that believers toss on the collection plate on a weekly basis, and the renting of billboards that say “Jesus” along the highways of America, or the Bibles placed in every hotel room on the continent, etc and I’d say there is even more money being spent to attempt to reinforce the indoctrination of religion on the masses…

      [All the high blood pressure that many Atheists suffer because people say that there is no God.]

      You got a study that shows that atheists are more likely to have high blood pressure than cultists? No, of course not. Stop making blanket assertions that you cannot support with data. Your hyperbole will be called out every time until you learn to stick to factual statements in your posts.

      [Why do they go to such extremes, when in all reality the Bible only improves the lives of all who embrace its teachings. Yes there are fanatics. Those who do not fully understand what the Bible is all about. But they are not out to kill others to blow someone up. These people are few and far in between. The majority of the people all want to be better individuals.]

      Such a lovely rationalization. The Bible improves the lives of all who embrace its teachings….but those people that use it to justify stuff that isn’t nice, well that doesn’t count. They aren’t actually using the Bible, they just THINK they are using the Bible.

      Give me a break. Tell all the slaves in America who listened to the people justify their slavery through the Bible how it only improves the lives of those who “embrace it”. All those people who hate gays for being gay, quoting Leviticus instead of the Golden Rule when they try to deny them equal access under the law, are really improving lives, aren’t they? The Spanish conquistadors that made sure to baptize the Aztec babies before smashing their heads in so that they would go to heaven really did some life improvement, wouldn’t you say?

      Your double standard has been caught. The Bible inspires all manner of actions by people, and they all think they are using it correctly too, and think they are being good people. Maybe if the Bible didn’t read like it was inspired by a schizophrenic craving attention and admiration, it would work better…

      [And since God can not be proven at least by what some people would like as proof. But He can not be disproven.]

      Be exact here. There is absolutely zero empirical data that proves that gods exist. And I agree that gods, in the generic sense, cannot be disproven. That is true. The Bible god specifically, with all its glorious illogical contradictions, can definitely be considered false.

      [And there have been, there are now, hundreds of thousands of people who testify that they know that God is.]

      Hundreds of thousands of people testify via signature that their tax return is above reproach too, and yet the IRS still audits loads of people and catches them in lies. The claims of people don’t prove a thing, and you know it.

      [So it really is ridiculous for any one to pitch a fit because people say that they believe that God is. If the Atheist would go after the easter bunny or santa clause with the vengeance that they go after Christ and the Bible people would consider them a little touched, don’t you think?]

      I would think they are touched, because people don’t ignore the facts of reality and ignore proven scientific theories like evolution because they believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. But then Santa believers aren’t threatened by good science, are they?

      Meanwhile god believers like you, preacher, purposefully try to dumb down the masses because verified science disagrees with your schizophrenic inspired book, and you can’t handle that kind of threat to your coping mechanism that keeps reality and the truth of the cosmos at bay in your corrupted intellect…

  11. Tim. You are asserting things to God that He has no control over. He is all knowing. That is how He was able to tell us which nations would come to power hundreds of years before it happened. All knowing which is how the nation of Israel knew how to prevent the spread of infection, hundreds of years before isolation and hand washing were instituted as preventive care in the medical fields. And these are just a few of what the Bible has to offer. And I can see by your increase of animosity that your blood pressure is edging up. What’s the matter, I’m just telling you the truth. You don’t need to take it personally. And God did create everything perfect. Man became imperfect when he sinned. And are you capable of evil? Yes. But you are also capable of good. It is entirely up to you. to each of us. Why do you keep putting on God. The Bible did not tell the early Christians to do what they did. It does not tell anyone to beat their wives or children. It does not tell anyone to rape women and children. It does not tell men to have sex with animals or with other men. These individuals do these things because of the perverse desires in their hearts. No one should mistreat anyone, and that includes anybody that is sinful. And we all are sinful. Not just the homosexual. To use someone’s sinful habits as an excuse to beat and abuse them. Young or old. But sin is still sin. You can not sin against someone who sins. But both sinful actions remain sinful. But God is not the one who is committing the actions of those who are claiming to follow Him. They misrepresent Him.

  12. Who says that dragons never existed. We have bugs that shoot fire. Why couldn’t there have been dragons. Many animals are extinct and one of them could have been dragons and maybe even the unicorn. Who knows. They can not be completely dismissed as never ever having been here. But we do know for sure that life has always come from life. And since life has come from life, then it didn’t come from nothing, or from inorganic material. So life came from God.

    1. We’ve been through this at least once before. We know for sure that life did come from non-life at least once, because there was a time when there was no life. You think God created it, we think that rather than come from nothing it emerged from the abundant organic materials we see all around us. We don’t know how, but a complex process we don’t understand occurring just once is easier to accept than the existence of a god merely to explain it away.

  13. These people knew about Evolution. Even though it wasn’t published. Evolution had been circulating for years. And this along with Spontaneous Generation have been bed fellows for years also. But Spontaneous Generation had been dismissed as should have been Evolution, but unfortunately most of the Atheists aren’t as well disciplined in logic as they should be or else they would see that Evolutions first premise is built around the resurrection of Spontaneous Generation, because in order for life to come from non life so that the Atheists can say that that life made it possible for all other species to live, implies that life comes from non life or nothing. So lay off the booze and allow your brain to heal so that you can begin to recognize when something is not logical.
    And please all you have to do is follow the bread crumbs, and you will see, that the laws that build and maintain the foundations of society, have been taken from the Bible. The greatest and most beloved songs have been written because of what the Bible has taught. More people have overcome habits and begun to live decent lives all because of what they have discovered while reading the Bible. No one has ever made this claim while reading any other book. You need to go back to shore because you are out of your depth talking about the Bible, or else you would know that the Bible is second to no other book in this world. And if you did know this you wouldn’t touch the subject that you are so unmasterfully trying to smear and blemish. The Bible is the true word of God. It has survived the onslaughts of men better than you or I. And it has remained the tried and true foundation of the Christian church for thousands of years and will do so until it’s Savior returns to take it home to His Father. This is a battle you and every other Atheists will lose, in the end. One way or another everyone will bow the knee and proclaim the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. So it would be better for you to get to know Him now. Today. This very second. Before it is too late.

    1. Gerald writes: [These people knew about Evolution. Even though it wasn’t published. Evolution had been circulating for years.]

      Oh they did? Awesome, prove that is true. I can’t wait to see your evidence of your claim…

      [And this along with Spontaneous Generation have been bed fellows for years also. But Spontaneous Generation had been dismissed as should have been Evolution, but unfortunately most of the Atheists aren’t as well disciplined in logic as they should be or else they would see that Evolutions first premise is built around the resurrection of Spontaneous Generation, because in order for life to come from non life so that the Atheists can say that that life made it possible for all other species to live, implies that life comes from non life or nothing. So lay off the booze and allow your brain to heal so that you can begin to recognize when something is not logical.]

      Lay off the booze? Getting a mite testy this morning, aren’t we. What’s wrong, your fairy tale story starting to crumble in your mind?

      Life does come from non-life, preacher Gerald. Every single atom in your body is NOT ALIVE. You are entirely made up of non-living pieces. Every single living thing is made up of non-living pieces. Even the Bible mythology states living things came from non-living material. It’s too bad you can’t accept the truth that is even stated in the Bible (not that they had a clue about it when they wrote it).

      The rest of your post ends with your typical proselytizing full of baseless claims. But I did manage to extract a few nuggets worth commenting on:

      [that the laws that build and maintain the foundations of society, have been taken from the Bible.]

      Not in Japan. Or Korea. Or China. Or India. Or etc etc etc. Christianity doesn’t even make up a third of the world’s believers, so it’s moronic to think the laws of the world come from the Bible. Facts seem to defeat your comments every time.

      [The greatest and most beloved songs have been written because of what the Bible has taught.]

      The most well known song in the world is “It’s A Small World”. Facts seem to defeat your comments every time.

      [More people have overcome habits and begun to live decent lives all because of what they have discovered while reading the Bible.]

      More people have also justified starving or killing their children, or justified slavery, or justified war, or justified withholding rights to women, or justified the slaughter of native Americans, or justified Inquisitions, or justified etc etc etc all because of what they have discovered while reading the Bible. Facts seem to defeat your comments every time.

      [You need to go back to shore because you are out of your depth talking about the Bible, or else you would know that the Bible is second to no other book in this world.]

      Yet you are the one that doesn’t know the history of the book, and the history of the Semitic god Yahweh before the Jews adopted it, and doesn’t know the various Codex have shown the Bible to be the most edited book in history. You don’t know the books that were omitted from the Bible, and the internal struggle in Christianity to make the Bible read a certain way. I’ve never met a cultist who knew the Bible as well as me, including you preacher Gerald…

      [know Him now. Today. This very second. Before it is too late.]

      I’ve committed the unpardonable sin so many times I’ve lost count, so according to your book it’s too late. I’m faced with eternal damnation, and it doesn’t bother me in the least. That’s how little your mythology concerns me…

  14. I have more than once posted back to you about the lies that the Atheist community is trying to perpetrate about the fruit flies and bacteria research that they are trying to say has made inroads into proving evolution. The first thing that has been shown, is that the fruit flies are still fruit flies and the bacteria are still bacteria. The look like fruit flies and bacteria. All except for where they have become less then what they were, due to the over manipulation performed by the researchers. And this has been posted by other researchers who looked at the evidence. So you need to go back and change your opinion of Evolution. And discover that God not only can not be ruled out completely, but that He is the one that sustains all life and provides the forces to keep all atoms and suns and planets it orbit. Ha, what a great and marvelous God I serve. And you should too.

    1. Yes you have, and then it was explained to you that you are utterly wrong. And wrong about multiple things. First, there is no “atheist community”. Second, the majority of scientists in the U.S. are religious and/or believe in a personal god, so any claim that atheists are trying to mislead the public is ludicrous and paranoid. Third, a change from one species to another does prove evolutionary theory, because the theory only states that populations of groups of living things change over time. That enough time hasn’t occurred for these live studies to go as far as you want doesn’t invalidate the theory. It’s your continued ignorance of the theory that prevents you from understanding this.

      Once again we will also note Preacher Gerald’s failure to admit that his creationist websites have lied to him again. He does not offer any explanation for his list of dead guys that by and large did not even have a chance to study the theory of evolution because they died before they could examine it, or explain why he didn’t due his own due diligence about the claims that he posted.

  15. You are not seriously trying to say that there have never been Atheists or Evolutionists who have never tried to invent evidence, and twist evidence to prove what they claimed, are you? I’m pretty sure that you have been exposed to society to realize that there are good and bad in every aspect of our communities. There are some good and bad Christians. Now, the Christians who are bad, that could be only be because they are human and they like everyone else mess up. But so do the good Christians. But there have been Atheists who are human and they recognized this. They knew that they could be wrong and make mistakes. And they were willing to admit they were wrong. And then There were the “bad” Evolutionists who were so human that they refused to admit they could be wrong. And they did anything they could to make what they believed to appear right. That is the reason that even though their own colleagues have told them that they were wrong. They were told by them that they either made up the evidence or they have misread the evidence.
    “Henry Fairfield Osborn, American scientist, and president of the American Natural History Museum for 25 years.  Discovered what he claimed was western ape, “Nebraska Man” , based on a find in Nebraska in 1917.  In 1922, after 5-years of research,  the Western world’s ape man was hailed as breakthrough discovery. 
        The Illustrated London News was so impressed with the discovery, they imagined a day in the life of Nebraska Man for the world to see. The evidence for Nebraska Man was used by evolutionists in the famous Scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925.  The evidence for “Evolution” was affirmed.  What was the find?  It was a tooth, the tooth of an extinct pig!.
    Many people put their “Faith” in this fake evidence of Evolution. They believed science was based on FACT and not FAITH.  Truth is the claims of the tooth were fiction. FAKE EVIDENCE”.
    From ( http://www.truthnet.org/index.php/atheisma/103-nebraska-man-fake-evidence-of-evolution)
    “#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.
    #2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…
    “Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”
    #3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…
    “I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
    #4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…
    “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
    From; (http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults)
    Tim please note that your claim that “enough time has not gone by for these live studies to be done”, is bunk. You have now what some major Evolutionists, even Charles Darwin, who found themselves speechless because even after having dug up tons of fossils they still could not find the transition fossils to support the theory of evolution. And we are not talking about years and years ago. We are talking about up until recently, when these evolutionists made these comments. And we don’t even need their comments. They are icing in the cake. The evidence of logic that I have laid out and that you and SmartLx, have both been dancing around and shying away from contesting is the foundation of why Evolution has nothing to support your claims. Life does not come from non life. We have seen this for over 6000 years. And along with that is that each species always produces their own kind. We have used the observational method that science claims to be what it uses to test theories. And if the Evolutionist can not show how in their view life came from non life or from nothing, or how what they claim that one species produced all the other species, yet there are no species doing so today, then what they are doing is contradicting the tool of what science says is how science works. And therefore contradicts what science says is correct. And there are other things that cast doubt on the Evolutionists claims. Read this about living fossils.
    “What Else “Living Fossils” Reveal
    by
    Eric Lyons, M.Min.(apologeticspress.org/article/2294)
    There are only claims stating that this or that happened but they never have actually demonstrated how what they claimed is actually possible. They never refute the claims that cast doubt on their claims. And they never even get their own fellow evolutionists who openly said that their claims about what they said was evidence evolution, was not evidence for evolution but instead they said that it supported what the Bible narration for how life started. The theory of Evolution, is fighting a war on more than one front. The Creationist, is hammering on the front. Some of the more honest Evolutionists are battling from inside the ranks. Fossil records which actually are supporting what the Bible says is how it really was is coming up from beneath the theory of evolutionist ranks. And logic from on high is dropping from up above, showing that there are holes in the logic of the theory of the evolutionist. This is a war that they can not win, because all they have are “this is what we believe” with no support to substantiate their claims.
    Permit me if you will, to put another nail into the coffin of the theory of evolution. The fact that the Atheist has yet to find the fossils that show how one species was captured in the earth transitioning from one species to another, is a big let down for the Evolutionist, Atheist. So much so that they are now claiming that Evolution is actually the ability of species, within their own kind to adapt from one compromising situation to another. They forget, or may they hope that what they used to be their theory of evolution when they claimed that one species made all the other species, would be forgotten, and that their claim that this was made possible through the enormous amount of time that somehow gave the One species the ability to do all its morphing. So the evolutionists are hoping no one asks why the change in their theory. And they are hoping no one realizes that since they are shying away from the other theory, that it makes the whole theory null and void.

    Though the term “living fossil” sounds paradoxical, the expression is used widely to refer to living plants or animals which match fossils that evolutionists believe to be millions of years old. Plants and animals on the list of living fossils include cycads, horsetails, whisk ferns, dragonflies, opossums, crocodiles, tuataras, frilled sharks, horseshoe “crabs,” etc. Living fossils are an embarrassment to evolutionary theory for several reasons (see Butt, 2006). For one, “living fossils” show how various animals have remained virtually unchanged over long periods of time (allegedly millions of years). Dragonflies in the 21st century, though several inches smaller than their fossil counterparts, are still dragonflies. The horseshoe crab living today appears essentially the same as horseshoe crabs of “350 million years ago.” The existence of living fossils goes hand in hand with what Genesis 1 has taught for millennia: animals reproduce after their own kind.
    Evolutionists seemingly overlook another major point when it comes to living fossils and the fossil record: plants and animals can live long periods of time (allegedly millions of years) without leaving behind fossil evidence. According to evolutionists, Gingko trees were thriving 240 million years ago, before dinosaurs evolved (see Krock, 2003). Interestingly, Gingko fossils are absent in rock layers reportedly representing many millions of years, yet they are alive today (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Consequently, simply because they are absent in certain rock strata does not mean they were non-existent during the alleged millions of years it took those layers of rock to form.
    Consider also the living fossil known as the coelacanth. From 1839 (when fossil coelacanths were first discovered—Perkins, 2001) to 1938, evolutionists alleged that this fish was the missing link in the evolution of fish to amphibians (“Diver Finds…,” n.d.). Supposedly, coelacanths had existed “for nearly 400 million years” (“Diver Finds…”). Evolutionists firmly believed that “the coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago [about the same time dinosaurs died out—EL] because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this” (Hodge, 2006, p. 183). Science News declared that coelacanths “disappeared from the fossil record 75 million years ago” (Perkins, 2001, emp. added). In 1938, however, a living coelacanth was brought to shore in South Africa. It was caught in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar, and since that time more than 200 other specimens have been sighted or caught (see “Coelacanth,” n.d.).
    Evolutionists admit that the fossil record of the past “70 million years” shows no evidence of coelacanths. Yet, we know they lived during these alleged “70 million years,” because they are still alive today. Like Gingko trees, coelacanths’ absence in certain rock strata does not mean they were not living during the alleged millions of years it took the rock layers to form; it simply means that they were not buried and fossilized in those layers of rock.”
    Which is probably why Tim is trying to distract from the real stuff, by suggesting that I don’t study more about evolution. And he is right. I stopped when I realized that the theory of evolution is built around here say. And that is disregards basic rules of observation and refuses logical reasoning that is needed to understand what is logical and illogical. If we have never seen life come from nothing or from non life at any time. And if each species today is only producing their own species. And this pattern has been repeating itself for over the past 6000 years plus, why would any one expect that pattern to change in the future, at least if there is not an interference of an intelligence of some kind. We should not expect that pattern to change. And if that is the case, why would anyone but someone insane, expect that the same expectations would be logical to accept for the time before the years that we have been able to observe. It is more logical to assume that what we have seen happening is what occurred before and what will occur in the future.
    Tim come in from out of the rain. Dry off and accept that what you believe is not so. God is our creator and He loves us. You don’t need to be afraid of Him.

Comments are closed.