Hey, ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye: Come Out of the Ark and Face the Flood of Evidence Against Darwinism

Bill Nye speaks at Decoding Science 2014 hosted by the University of Missouri

By Douglas Axe Published on August 1, 2016

Bill Nye, host of the popular 1990s kids’ program Bill Nye the Science Guy, has become a celebrity spokesman for science. Nye’s hero status got a major boost in 2014 when he debated young earth creationist Ken Ham. I couldn’t bear to watch, knowing their shared tendency to replace scientific argument with appeals to authority (a form of Biblical authority for Ham and the authority of scientific consensus for Nye). Several million people did watch, though, and millions more have since then.

Nye has been back in the headlines recently after paying a visit to Ham’s new Ark Encounter theme park, promoted as a full-size replica of Noah’s ark. Reporters ate it up.

I’m sure that kind of publicity is hard for either man to resist, but shouldn’t Nye at least try to resist it? If he’s really a science guy, shouldn’t he pay less attention to jousting with Ham and more attention to the weighty scientific case against Darwin’s account of life? After all, how serious can he really be about Darwinian evolution if he ignores all the research that shows it doesn’t do nearly what is advertised?

Despite our different takes on Darwinism, Nye and I have quite a bit in common. We’re both engineering-trained science guys with a strong interest in the big question of where we humans came from. Nye gave us his answer to that big question in his book Undeniable, and — by coincidence — the recently released book that gives my answer is also titled Undeniable.

Undeniable Differences

The fact that our two Undeniables reach opposite conclusions — his portraying Darwin’s story as “the most reasonable creation story that humans have ever found” while mine claims that story has completely unraveled — means our differences are significant as well. What most puzzles me is not that we disagree on the origins question, but that we have such sharply contrasting takes on the role of engineering for settling that question.Undeniable book cover jpg

From the exquisite molecular machines operating inside every cell on up to whole organisms, living things don’t just look like ingenious designs — they are ingenious designs. We all have this intuition in our childhood, and while intuitions aren’t always trustworthy, this design intuition turns out to be solid. As I show in my book, our design intuition is firmly supported by what I call “common science” — the combination of observation, questioning and deduction that we all engage in naturally. The same instantaneous reasoning that tells us origami cranes can’t happen by accident tells us real cranes can’t either — not even in billions of years. And when we examine that conclusion carefully, we find that it holds.

So if kids get this, how can kids who grow up to become engineers miss it — even to the point of strenuously denying it? Nye is a perfect case in point. As a former Boeing engineer, he describes in his book the considerable effort that went into developing those turned-up tips on the ends of aircraft wings, called winglets. In the testing stages, winglets did more harm than good until the concept went through many rounds of revision. But after “countless hours of research and development” a beneficial winglet design finally emerged, after which these perfected winglets quickly became a standard feature of commercial jets.

Barn owls have winglets too, but in this case Nye assures us “there is no evidence that they were deliberately designed.” Natural selection caused owl winglets to be invented by accident, Nye assures us. Humans design in a top-down way, where the low-level details are worked out in order to meet the top-level objective, but according to Nye, “nature works the other way around.”

Hmmm. Why would an engineer be so quick to dismiss the lessons learned from engineering? If engineered aircraft winglets were at first worse than useless — “a waste of time and energy” — why be so quick to assume that a mindless and ruthlessly cost-cutting process like natural selection would be able to get over that hump? Engineers benefit from clear goals, dedicated research budgets, and the patience and foresight to stick with something that isn’t working at all, sensing that it will work. Those key ingredients of invention are completely absent from Darwin’s recipe for innovation.

Darwin’s Mechanism Can’t See Ahead

According to Darwin, evolution invents remarkable things like wings and eyes and brains bit by tiny bit — one little change at a time. That part of his idea might sound reasonable to us because we build things bit by bit as well. Essays are composed one letter at a time. Software code is written one instruction at a time. Buildings go up one brick at a time.

But Darwin’s theory runs into trouble when we consider our own inventive activities more closely. Whether essays or software or buildings, we never start a project without having thought about the objective. We always have a plan in mind, and while this plan may be revised as we work, we’re always working toward something. These plans of ours enable us to evaluate our work all along the way. Are we making good progress? If the answer is yes — judged with respect to the plan — then we’re motivated to double or efforts in anticipation of seeing the fruit of our labors. In this way we invest in our creations — pouring into them with the hope of future benefit.

Darwin’s blind evolutionary process has no way to do this. It has no ability to plan or to hope. Natural selection can’t labor in anticipation of future benefit. Instead, it goes with whatever works best now. The patience and foresight and insight we know to be absolutely essential for invention are completely absent from evolution. If things can’t be improved immediately, then they won’t be improved at all. We can dream up fanciful stories where amazing things happen though little Darwinian improvements, but the sober reality is that they are nothing more than that: fanciful stories.

Charles Darwin, to his credit, recognized the problem long before we had discovered DNA and long before mathematicians had crunched the numbers. It’s the key problem he set out to solve. His solution: These biological novelties arose one tiny random variation at a time, with natural selection tending to seize and pass on the useful variations so that they accumulate over thousands and millions of generations until something as blingy as the eye could emerge.

But Darwin’s solution comes at a price. The Darwinian pathway must proceed by a series of tiny, functional variations. Each new step needs to be functional. The Darwinian process can’t look ahead and say, “Hey, this variation doesn’t help Species G a bit right now. But when I get it put together with a few hundred or thousand other random variations, then it will give the little fellow a real boost, so I’m going to keep this presently useless variation on hand till then.” The Darwinian mechanism can’t look ahead like an intelligent agent can. It can only judge the present step in the process.

Trouble on the Darwinian Path

This is where Nye runs into trouble. If I were to challenge him to come up with actual evidence for his evolutionary interpretation — a series of mutations that improves bird wing structure one tiny, beneficial step at a time — I’m pretty sure he’d come up empty handed, and not just for owl winglets, but for all the stunning inventions that characterize life. Indeed, the most strikingly consistent characteristic of the whole Darwinian evolutionary story is the complete lack of evidence that it could actually work.

It’s worse than that, though. As I explain in my book, there’s plenty of counter-evidence — evidence that the clumsy cost-cutting effects of natural selection prevent even very modest acts of invention. As passionate as Nye is about science, then, why would he choose to ignore all this evidence? In the time he took to visit Ken Ham’s ark, he could have visited a team of scientists here in Seattle who have spent decades testing the ideas he takes for granted, showing them to be woefully inadequate. “When two scientists disagree about evolution,” Nye writes, “they confer with colleagues, develop theories, collect evidence, and arrive at a more complete understanding.”

Exactly. So why not do that, Bill? By dropping your authoritarian approach and engaging some of these scientists who disagree with you on scientific grounds you might find something more rewarding than publicity. The team I work with here in Seattle would welcome you for that kind of in-depth conversation, and I can assure you there won’t be any preaching.

 

Douglas Axe, director of Biologic Institute in Seattle, is the author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    In evolution, there is no one to plan, think, or implement any changes in anything. “Natural selection” implies that something, or someone, is selecting something. But there is no one to do any selecting. Things that happen by chance don’t have a plan, or a purpose, or a goal. Chance is nothing. It has no intelligence or ability to do anything. The only way that evolution could possibly be true is if it is being implemented and guided by SOMEONE who has the ability to make it happen with a goal in mind. But most evolutionists will deny that anyone is making evolution happen. That means their theory is nonsense pretending to be science.

    • David Butler

      You need to brush up on what natural selection is. It sure isn’t a semantics argument. Natural means that nature is selecting the traits or populations akin to how humans do it with artificial selection. Only in this case, nature by way of climate, geography, even disasters like the meteor impact that killed off the dinosaurs, the animals that survive these happenings are the ones that reproduce and carry on. Additionally, competition from other extant life also drives it, as well as abundance of food and many many other things. That’s really all there is to it.

      • “That’s really all there is to it”
        But that is nowhere near all there is to it. The selection aspect is the easy part – but what is needed is the thing that gets selected, which Doug Axe is arguing is impossible to come about through random mutations. Most Design advocates will not argue with you about the fact that nature does a lot of selecting through dumb luck – but what they will argue about is how the thing selected came into existence.

        • David Butler

          Yes, it really is. And this is where Axe lies to everyone. He’s a creationist through and through, and as usual, uses his bullshit and credentials to pass off his incredulity at his own tomfoolery in experimentation as evidence against evolution…which he was already predisposed to. Take careful note, that Axe no longer works in the field of microbiology. Not for any research lab, or institution, or company. He works instead for the creationist organization ‘Discovery Instittute’.

          In this book of his and others, Axe has written about the “impossibility” of functional gain in the evolution of protein families because he could not rewind evolution of one protein and then move it forwards to another target protein in the same family. In doing so, he completely ignored everything that is known about contingency in neutral theory of molecular evolution. What he was looking to do was already impossible by evolutionary standards. His methodology would have been flawed decades ago, and is absolutely refuted by the recent research by Joseph Thornton on ancestral protein resurrection.

          • David, Thornton has refuted nothing. Just because some researcher makes broad conclusions based on narrow experimentation does not mean that the problem of the origin of protein domains has been solved. For instance, in Thornton’s work on proton pumps, the proteins that were studied did not exhibit any additional function from one to another. Also, the paralog families themselves remain very isolated in terms of nucleotide sequence space from other paralog families. But more importantly, while his work deals with fully functional variants, the “original” remains completely unexplained, nor does his work explain the assemblage of the various other proteins required to build the entire, fully functional pump. So, the problem of the origin of protein domains remains (as well as the origin of complex regulatory networks, origin of life itself, etc., etc.)

          • David Butler

            If I might ask, if you are attacking Thornton’s ‘narrow experimentation’ as you call it (nevermind that he was in collaboration with others), why do you then trust Axe’s so-called research that is the embodiment of such? Especially when he was very much on his own and published it basically like one would a children’s book. Pot/Kettle son.

            I am not certain what your critique has to do with what Axe was doing (or rather, claims) though, and what Thornton’s work specific to that was. Changing the subject I guess?

          • No, not changing the subject, of course. Your claim was that Thornton’s work discredits Axe’s, so I gave you an example of how Thornton’s work with proton pumps does no such thing. Axe’s work has
            been in regards to the sequence space between protein domains, while Thornton’s work is within a paralog family. I appreciate Thornton’s work in this regard, but the results simply cannot be extrapolated to the degree that Thornton has presumed (it’s comparing apples and oranges – or rather apples and animals), and I explained why that is so.
            I do not know how many people were involved with Axe’s research, but I know it wasn’t just himself. Besides, even if it were, what difference does it make? The bulk of your attacks are directed towards impertinencies. You should be more substantial.

          • David Butler

            But you’re deliberately focusing on other work by Thornton (his work is wide ranging, as opposed to…what by Axe?) rather than what I mentioned, and thereby arguing that this is an apples and oranges problem, as you said. It is I suppose, refreshing to me that you guys at the ID circus are well aware of Thornton’s work, meaning that what he’s done is a genuine threat, as usual, so you guys have the usual pre-loaded retorts and misdirection ready to go.

            And I find this statement of yours earlier, highly ironic: “Just because some researcher makes broad conclusions based on narrow experimentation does not mean that the problem of the origin of protein domains has been solved.”

            What then should our takeaway by from Douglas Axe, who seems to be operating entirely solo?

            I think it’s funny that you then attempt to say “Well Axe had people working with him too!”. So was it just him that realized he was trying to do something impossible, or did the rest of the team realize it too?

          • Logic

            You make creationist sound like a bad word. Isn’t that what a proponent of intelligent (i.e. creator) design is? ID theorists just look at the scientific facts and deduce that what we see today was designed rather than the product of chance. Each ID researcher has their own ideas about who or what the designer is. Even the famous atheist and Darwinian apologist, Richard Dawkins, said that organisms appear to be designed and suggested that maybe aliens brought DNA to earth (which begs the question, Where did the aliens come from?). Maybe when you say creationist, you mean a person who believes in a god that created the universe less than 10,000 years ago. That is a narrow definition of a creationist, so you might want to define your terms to avoid confusion.

            You also make the Discovery Institute sound like a bad thing. I have a PhD in the biological sciences, and even though I am not associated with the Discovery Institute, some of the most brilliant, thinking scientists that I have ever met , heard, or read are members of the Discovery Institute. People can search the Internet for Discovery Institute (since I can’t post a link) to decide for themselves. The vitriol that many in the “scientific community” have leveled at the Discovery Institute is an embarrassment and only inhibits scientific debate and discovery. There is not enough space here to list even half of the times that the “scientific consensus” was wrong (but the recent discovery that the universe had a beginning instead of being eternal is just one good example).

            One of the problems with debates about evolution is that the term is not properly defined, which causes confusion. I can guarantee that every scientist who proposes that the available evidence points to a designer rather than chance also believes in evolution, microevolution. Microevolution is observable and testable (e.g. different breeds of dogs). The mistake that Charles Darwin, and those who blindly follow his theories, made is to extrapolate microevolution to macroevolution. The current evidences, which Darwin did not have 150 years ago, do not support Darwinian evolution. The Cambrian Explosion is one glaring example. I recommend that you read On the Origin of Species. It has been my experience that nearly everyone who defends Darwinian evolution have never read it. I suspect that if Darwin were alive today, even he wouldn’t believe his theory based on the statements that he made in his book.

            Concerning Dr. Axe’s article, I think that he did an excellent job of explaining irreducible complexity in a way that even a layperson could understand it. As you may know, this concept was popularized by Dr. Michael Behe. Dr. Behe does not believe that the universe or the earth is young. In fact, he even believes in the idea of common descent, and yet, he is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute as well as a Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University. I think that you are mischaracterizing (demonizing?) the competent scientists at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere who are using a scientific approach to study the origins of the universe and life on earth. You might want to read their writings, and if you have an open mind, you might come to a different conclusion. Since you seem to have some knowledge of genetics and biochemistry, I recommend starting with Signature in the Cell by Dr. Stephen Meyer.

          • David Butler

            You’re a terrible liar, ‘logic’.

      • Gary

        Nature is incapable of selecting traits or populations, either for survival or for some kind of change. Only a thinking being can select something. And only a thinking being that can enact change in living things, and does, is a reasonable answer for why organisms change. What you are really saying is that blind chance and dumb luck are doing the selecting. And that is not possible.

      • Jim Walker

        David, In the beginning, there is NOTHING. Try finding 2 objects and create that BIG BANG and then I will talk to you. If Evolution does exists, you would have been that cockroach I stepped on while walking to my car.

        • David Butler

          Uh. what?

      • Franklin Dzioba

        Doesnt the genome limit the available changes the species can undergo?
        I get that genetic change can be environmentally pushed but how does the environment produce new genetic info into a creature? I dont think creationists have a hard time with natural selection (survival of the fittest) BUT with a complexity trend (tree of life). Where does new genetic info come from? How is it introduced? How come genomic changes arent considered to be cyclical, like environmental patterns are?
        Natural selection can explain continued existence but not a trajectory toward the more complex, IMO.

      • NC

        Natural selection must act on random mutations. The Neo-Darwinian paradigm IS random. Natural selection needs a beneficial trait to select and pass on… You are thinking of survival of the fittest & small scale variation within species which isn’t equivalent to large scale mutations which is necessarily random!

  • Char B

    So rational, so sensible – well said!

  • David Butler

    “In the time he took to visit Ken Ham’s ark, he could have visited a team of scientists here in Seattle who have spent decades testing the ideas he takes for granted, showing them to be woefully inadequate. ”

    The ‘Biologic Institute’ is a single office space that ‘was’ rented out of a building in Redmond, WA, with apparently no current occupancy. How could Nye visit your facility when you have no such place?

  • Chris

    This author is full of himself and obviously incorrect about everything he says. What a blowhard.

    • Stephen_Phelan

      Perfect parody of the typical name calling response. Well done!

      • Chris

        Yeah but it works because it’s true. Even the fake twitter account is ridiculous. Right wing hate mongering fear mongering propaganda. None of it is remotely true, and that’s obvious to anyone with half a brain. Those fearful of brown people and mentally challenged are duped. It’s a tragedy.

  • Gert

    Creationists apparently do not read anything but other creationist books, and so they end up repeating the same ignorant claptrap and patting themselves on the back. Mr. author, ‘what good is half a wing’ has been answered. Use the internets, and google ‘wing assisted incline running.’ A half wing has many uses. Mating or defense displays are a couple. It also helps baby birds who have ‘half wings’ and can definitely not fly run up vertical surfaces to get away from predators. Ground birds like turkeys and chukars (horrible fliers – like bricks with wings) do the same. The point is that evolution doesn’t have to plan for long-term stuff. Structures are adaptive in the short-term – just for totally different things than in the long-term, and that’s plenty good for evolution to work with.

    The author also suggests that all natural selection has to work with is ‘one tiny random variation at a time.’ Again, use the internets to look up these key terms: gene duplication, genome duplication, horizontal gene transfer, transposons, horizontal genome transfer. These are all types of mutations. None of them are tiny. Each results in HUGE increases in information and genetic potential.

    • Charles Burge

      It sounds almost plausible when you look at it from a mile-high view. A body part or structure gets modified somehow, and then fulfills a new purpose. But the nuts and bolts – the “somehow” – is what evolutionists always gloss over. Eyes, wings, feathers – none of those just spring from nothing. It takes INFORMATION to make each of those, in the form of genes coding for specific proteins. And information only comes from the mind of an intelligent being working with a purpose.

      In the field of information technology, there are built-in mechanisms for maintaining the fidelity of information flow (such as cyclic redundancy checks on disk drives, and error-checking built into TCP/IP). Why don’t software programmers ever run their files through a transfer mechanism without error checking, in hopes of intentionally introducing changes that might improve their code? Answer: entropy *always* degrades information. It never causes beneficial changes. The so-called mechanism for evolution – namely, gene mutations – is a sham. It just flat-out doesn’t work as advertised.

      Why are Darwinists so opposed to having critical thinking applied to their cherished theory in schools? It’s because they know that it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. They have to resort to brainwashing and indoctrination in order to get people to accept it. Thinking people know better.

      • Gert

        Mutations CAN add information. I hope you can understand that I am attempting a sincere exchange of ideas here. The conditions for mutations adding information are often tied to gene, chromosome, or genome duplication mutations. The original copy continues to do its original function. The new genetic information can take on entirely new functions (new information added). Probably the best example of this is Hox genes. Only animals have them, and they are critical for embryo development and body plan formation. More complex animals have more Hox genes than very primitive ones, and it’s very clear that the extra Hox genes are copies of the ones that primitive animals have.

        Another very good example is horizontal gene transfer between bacteria. It’s a type of mutation where one bacterium takes up random DNA (entire functional genes) from another kind of bacterium. One of the results of that process is the spread of antibiotic resistance genes. So there is a mutation that increases information and causes adaptive evolution.

        Darwinists are not at all opposed to critical thinking. The evidence responding to all your questions has been out there in (literally) hundreds of thousands of science publications for many years.

      • Gert

        About your entropy question. Of course, entropy degrades information and organization, but ONLY in systems that LOSE energy. My home does not fall apart over time because I spend energy keeping it maintained, and with extra energy, I can make improvements.

        Evolution works the same way. Biological systems with evolving organisms obviously have energy coming into the system, which is used to maintain and grow, from the sun and chemicals and higher up the food chain by organisms consuming other organisms. As long as energy is coming into the system, evolution is possible.

        For big steps in evolution, biological systems must pull more energy out of those sources than before. This happens several ways. One is for a species to find a new, more energy rich food source. When human diet switched from plants only to include meat and later cooked meat, that was a huge addition of energy. It’s no coincidence that human brain size increased at the same time, new tool adaptations evolved, etc.

        Pulling out more energy than before has also happened with the addition of new adaptations. Endosymbiosis a major adaptation that led to the origin of eukaryotes added 200,000x more energy for gene expression than previous bacteria (first organisms on earth) had. Because of the energy provided by endosymbiosis, individual eukaryote cells now had enough energy to form complex colonies and eventually multicellular life. Multicellular life requires huge energy to fuel genes needed for cell-to-cell communication and regulation. There are so many examples that debunk your claim that entropy rules, it’s hard to know where to start in a response. But this is a good place. Read about it. If you need a reference, there’s a good article on this published recently in the journal Nature (one of the best science sources) in 2010 by Nick Lane and William Martin titled “The energetics of genome complexity.”

        You can also explore this topic at a bigger scale, because entropy also tends to decrease in the universe over time (at least for a while), which is how life started. The formation of the first matter from condensation of energy after the Big Bang was a decrease in entropy. The formation of the first very simple atoms like Hydrogen by attraction of subatomic particles was another later decrease in entropy. When a nebula of gas and dust condenses by static electricity and gravity, a star forms. That’s another higher step of organization of matter than existed previously and it adds information and organization (decreased entropy) in two ways. First, star formation helps trigger planet formation (a place for life to live). Second, stars are giant nuclear furnaces that takes very simple atoms and fuses them into bigger, more complex atoms in a process called nucleosynthesis. Other chemical reactions happen in the dust and gas and asteroids and comets around stars that form increasingly complex organic molecules that are the building blocks of life, like amino acids and nucleic acids (for proteins and DNA). Those reactions undeniably happen. There’s a very good summation of this decrease in entropy, which set up the origin of life, that is in a TED talk by David Christian called “Big History.”

        In sum, the entropy “problem” is a complete non-starter. It’s intellectually vacuous, devoid of critical thinking, and ignores almost a century of science.

      • Gert

        Since you brought up information technology and the possibility of errors adding information, read up on evolution in digital organisms. There’s a very good article explaining the error in your thinking. It’s by Lenski et al., 2003, published in Nature, titled “The evolutionary origin of complex features.” If you can’t get beyond the subscription wall, contact your local library.

        Here’s the abstract text:
        “A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms—computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.”

        • Stephen_Phelan

          So they used intelligent design–“organisms” under their complete control designed and manipulated to their specifications via algorithms for a specific purpose (including “evolving”)–to illustrate that nature does not have a designer and “random mutation” occurs.

          Would you people please take some basic courses in philosophy? You don’t need a PhD, just enough to step out of an ideology and see it for what it is. You may still return to its conclusions if you find them the most reasonable, but you might also find that your previous conclusions are untenable. One can be very intelligent and blind to his own hidden ideological premises. But please don’t expect others with a basic understanding of logic to miss the “We designed a random process to prove the non-design of nature” contradiction.

          • Gert

            I don’t find this as confusing as you do. All they did was set up a system of mutation and selection, and they found that evolutionary improvements happen. If you stop and think before foaming at the mouth, you get two take-home points.
            1. blind mutation and selection can produce evolutionary improvements.
            2. Yes, this algorithm system was design by humans, but it was designed to mimic the self-guided process of evolution which works by mutation and selection. You’re assuming humans are guiding every step like a designer might, and, no, that’s not what is happening here. Humans just set up the initial conditions. Does that invalidate anything? Of course not. Nature is a system (designed or not) that must produce mutations (undeniable fact) and sort them out through unguided but non-random selection (another undeniable fact).

          • Stephen_Phelan

            My response was uncharitable. I apologize. I do get frustrated when scientists don’t see the boundary of the explanatory value that their work has, but I should avoid condescension. I should also admit that I don’t understand the relevant science as you do.

            All I need you to admit, as you do here, is that the system example that you raised was set up by intelligent designers who set the scope of “self-guided (really designer-guided, since they wrote the algorithms)” changes that mimic natural processes. Their project reinforces the designer argument, which may have been their intention.

            A believer (scientist or no) can agree that nature is in fact a system and that mutations occur in species. I don’t know anyone who denies this. But if he’s studied any logic he sees the problem with claiming something is simultaneously both “unguided” and “non-random”, the latter necessarily precluding non-material causation. I have seen your explanations here about how the mutations are random by their selection is not, which begs the question that you don’t see. I have said that the blindness to the question is due to ideology, one to which some of the most eminent scientists in these fields throughout history, and in the present, are not bound. They do have a belief system, which they acknowledge, and this system allows them to understand the exact same phenomena that you describe while not having to change the meaning of words (random, causation, agent, etc.) to explain the same observable facts, since their belief system does not require a completely closed physical universe and the ignoring of findings in, for example, quantum mechanics, which raise serious questions about determinism.

            Thanks for your efforts to explain the issues as you see them.

          • Gert

            Not sure I understand your point. You’re saying that some ’eminent’ scientists believe in forces that our beyond material causality, and my explanations overlook their possibility. I totally agree with you if that’s what you’re saying. Science, BY DEFINITION, proceeds by developing TESTABLE hypotheses. If it isn’t testable, you’re not doing science. PERIOD. Non-material causality is impossible to test. Doesn’t mean it isn’t true, it’s just not within the realm of science. More importantly, if it’s not within the realm of science, it’s impossible to know if it’s true or not. At least with science, I can put a claim through the ringer and check it out. With non-material causality, you never know. It could be totally made up malarky. What worries me about scientists who go there – who make claims about non-material causality – is that as soon as they do that, I know right then and there that they don’t understand what science is and its limits. They lose all credibility at that point. They can believe that stuff all they want, but they MUST acknowledge that those claims do not hold verifiable truth value by definition and must not be confused with scientific claims that do.

            Now, back to the idea that non-material causality could be true. Sure. And that’s precisely why a good scientist MUST be agnostic about all non-material causality claims. We can not say there is no god and no non-material causality. We can only say “I don’t know.” Simple.

            What’s most striking, though, is that setting aside non-material causality doesn’t stop my science. I can explain things perfectly well and test them without reference to supernatural powers. Evolutionary change works just fine without hocus pocus. Just mutation and selection is it. That does not mean we understand every aspect of it, which is why there are still evolutionary biologists. Every year, we learn a little more about mutation and selection and genetic networks and epigenetics, etc.

          • Stephen_Phelan

            It is unusual to make progress in such conversations, but we’re on the verge of it. Thanks for the reply.

            Where non-material causality comes in is in the language one uses to describe the process of evolution. A person like Nye constantly oversteps the science, mocking people of much greater accomplishment and acumen in the field and implying that “science” is on his “side.”

            The God-believing scientists who are actually very highly accomplished in their fields (despite your dismissals, which are sorry to say just lazy and ideological–Jerome LeJeune was uneducated?) are much more familiar with the boundaries of science than you allow, which is why they are so accomplished. You have to dismiss them as uneducated even though they innovated in biology and other fields. That’s an ideological move on your part, not a scientific one.

            I admit my ignorance in evolution, and you admit your ignorance in logic and semantics (eg using the word “agency” to describe what you believe to be a preordained process). At least that’s something. I’m prepared to grant a scientist empirical claims based on peer-reviewed and accepted research, but when they start using words like “non-random” to describe events that are not, in fact, intentional, then our true divide is linguistic/philosophical or ideological and he is misusing science beyond its explanatory boundaries. Setting aside or accepting non-material causality should not change the science, and it doesn’t, but it should cause one to rethink their explanatory language, and should result in a bit more humility from idiots like Nye (not saying you’re an idiot) who arrogantly think that science has disproved things (non-material causality, or actual agency) it was never designed to describe.

          • Gert

            I didn’t dismiss your heroes as uneducated. They have degrees, sure. But did they get ANY exposure to evolutionary biology along the way. The answer for genetics and medical biologists is no. That’s just a fact. Zero training.
            Do they understand science? Doubtful. When you do experiments, you rarely run into problems that require you to understand or ask questions about the limits of science. And they make serious missteps when they extrapolate beyond the benchtop. It’s not that they are stupid. I would never claim that. But science has limits and making a claim AS A SCIENTIST about non-material causality is impossible. Anyone who tries has made a serious misstep. That’s a FACT. Smart but clumsy is probably how I would describe these types.
            I haven’t listened to Nye that much to know what he has said about non-material causality. I have listened to Neil de Grasse Tyson, though, and I would like to think Nye and Tyson are close in their positions. Tyson has openly stated that he is not an atheist. He’s an agnostic for precisely the reasons I described above. Both Nye and Tyson fight HARD against your science heroes who abuse their positions of authority when they make science claims about non-material causality. I don’t see any problems in that. If they want to go there, fine. But take off the science hat and lab coat and put on the pope hat first.

          • Stephen_Phelan

            Just needed you to admit your ignorance re: scientific explanation and causality. I appreciate that, and wish you the best.

          • Gert

            One last reply, Stephen. No half-decent scientist would claim to be free of ignorance. But that’s not even interesting. What is interesting is what you DO when you’re ignorant. Creationists submit immediately in utter stupification. Scientists do not. THAT’s how we differ. One of the most insightful discussions of this that I have ever heard is this presentation, which you can find on the internets:
            Neil deGrasse Tyson – The Perimeter of Ignorance (EN/NL subtitles)
            Type that in and you’ll go straight to it. It’s long but very well worth the journey.

          • Stephen_Phelan

            Again with the false binaries and language… if you think that Jerome LeJeune and co. “submit immediately in utter stupification” then you haven’t made an attempt to understand the position. Admitting the limits of scientific explanation, ensuring that language accurately represents these limitations, and marveling at human freedom and material indeterminism (eg quantum mechanics) are hardly stupification. And if we’re just stuck in a name calling back and forth, it’s best we hang it up there. I do with you the best, though.

          • Gert

            I understand their position very well, Stephen, and using ‘stupefaction’ to describe intelligent design isn’t name calling or rude. It means “overwhelming amazment,” which is exactly what you described LeJeune’s position as – marveling at nature. But science doesn’t marvel, because no problems have ever been solved by marveling.

            You haven’t seen the Tyson video (Neil deGrasse Tyson – The Perimeter of Ignorance (EN/NL subtitles) obviously, BUT YOU SHOULD. He explains this more lucidly than I can. What he shows is that many of the most brilliant astronomers that have ever walked the Earth have invoked intelligent design and non-material causality when they reached the limits of their understanding. It’s a normal thing for the human brain to do. For many astronomers through the 18th century, the limit of their understanding was the regular orbit of the planets in our solar system. They didn’t have a good enough grasp of calculus, and because of that, they had no math that could explain the orbits. Non-material causality was all they had left. It’s the philosophy of giving up.

            What’s fascinating is how many times non-material causality as a scientific explanation has been shown to be false. The regular orbits could be the work of a designer, but in the context of calculus, the normal laws of physics work just fine. No magic needed. Tyson goes through one example after another where someone proposes that the only reasonable explanation is non-material causality, and then wait a hundred years, and some other scientist comes along and explains it with something new they figured out about math or physics.

            The larger point is that the history of science has not been kind to intelligent design. It’s been debunked and dethroned again and again and again. If you know that history and appreciate its lesson, how can you support intelligent design for anything? Maybe it’s true, but it’s probably not because it’s been refuted time and time again and not once has it ever been proven. If this were gambling, you wouldn’t bet on it. The only safe bet is to do what I do (and Tyson and any other rational human) and say “I don’t know, but I look forward to the next generation of scientists tackling that.”

          • Stephen_Phelan

            But you didn’t use the word “stupefaction,” did you, Gert? You said “stupification,” which, though as a neologism is not exactly an accepted word, has a colloquial meaning of “to make stupid.” Had you said stupefaction you’d have been correct, though you’d remain ignorant of the implications of the term for Christian scientists (it in no way requires “giving up”–in another dishonest dismissal of ideas you don’t understand). Instead, you pretend you said another word without simply acknowledging the error. Like too many scientists who get caught even in little mistakes (or big ones–eg the “hockey stick”).

            And the lack of logic: you claim that “non-material causality as a scientific explanation has been shown to be false”, though you have admitted previously–and correctly–that science as an empirical discipline of the material has no way to measure, and therefore refute or corroborate, non-material causality. Then you say later that non-material causation could have been present in the beginning, or may enter the equation later… somehow (magically?). All while it has been “shown to be false.” And how, precisely, would intelligent design theory–which is really a metaphysical argument of deduction from natural phenomena, not a scientific theory–be, um, “debunked… again and again” when scientists only stick to science and empirical measurement?

            I’m starting to think you’re not even really trying here. If this is an example of Tyson’s argument style–and the few things I’ve been able to watch where he “reasons” beyond science lead me to believe it is–I think I’ll pass. I’d recommend Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” if you want some scientific history and epistemology, including a detailed description of theories once considered “settled science” that, well after their proponents started treating them like religion that cannot be questioned, were in fact refuted by theories with greater explanatory value.

          • Gert

            It was a typo. Not what I meant. I apologize.

            Both science and ID are ways, very different ways, of approaching complex questions about the world around us. In science, there is NO point at which we give up trying to apply math, evidence, and reason because scientists ASSUME that the world is comprehensible in terms of material causality. Maybe some parts of it are not (good scientists must be agnostic about that), but there are so many examples of successful material explanations and so many examples of ID failures (scientists who proposed ID and were followed later by scientists who succeeded in solving their problem with material causality) that we’re probably right in assuming we won’t soon run out of material causes. We might as well stay the material course.

            ID, in contrast, is a way of thinking that ASSUMES that phenomena we don’t yet understand never will be understood through material causation. NEVER. By definition, that’s giving up any attempt at explanation. ID is not an explanation of anything. If ID was an explanation, you’d be able to tell me what non-material causality is and how it works and why it isn’t needed for every explanation. I’d love to hear that. I think you’re trapped on this one.

            My statement that ID is not verifiable but can be debunked are not contradictory. No one can ever prove with evidence, logic, or math that ID works, because there’s no mechanism to test. No details to examine. However, if someone says material causality doesn’t explain why airplanes stay in the sky, and a grand designer must be holding them up, then ID has overstepped. We can agree that this debunkable. It’s making magical claims about something that clearly has material causality. If we can explain that phenomenon with material causality alone, we should be done. The Tyson’s video that you’re too scared to watch is about the history of ID in astronomy and how it has been repeatedly been debunked. Phenomena that were previously given up to god, like the regular orbits of the planets, are now understood. Someone just had to invent calculus to get beyond the “marveling” stance of ID.

            So, let’s focus. The debate you and I are having is fundamentally about what scientists should do when they face the limits of our understanding. Right? You don’t have a material explanation for the origin of life or evolution, so your frame of mind changes completely. You marvel. Marveling is fun, but it’s not an explanation, and it’s not science. Science, by definition, does not give up hope of material causation.

            I’m very familiar with Kuhn. I was a philosophy major before I was a scientist. Kuhn’s model of science is interesting but not at all accurate. I’m not sure what your point was. Support for evolutionary theory has only increased since Darwin, and scientists don’t treat it like a religion. The only people who say that are just repeating what other creationists have told them. They don’t actually look at what the scientists are doing. Religions do not allow questioning and scrutiny, which is why people like you get so upset when someone like me asks a few questions about ID. The mechanics of evolution, in contrast, are under constant scrutiny. Gould questioned whether Darwinian selection was more potent than species selection. Developmental biologists questioned whether Darwinian selection could be rendered ineffective by in some cases by pre-existing developmental trajectories. Epigeneticists are questioning whether Lamarckian inheritance can happen. And the genetics revolution has added so many new concepts to the mechanics. Endless examples. If evolution was a religion, there would be none of this introspection, criticism, and addition.

            And if treating something like a religion is bad (your words), why are you so ardently against questioning your own intelligent design? Be a little introspective. If you don’t do that, that’s hypocritical.

            And if you’re a good Catholic, why is your anti-evolution position so totally contradictory to the papal position? Your leaders seem to get it. My buddy, the Catholic Jesuit priest, seems to get it.

          • Gert

            I just looked up LeJeune. You’re a Catholic. I have a degree from a Catholic university, married a Catholic, and have a very good friend who is a Catholic priest AND an evolutionary biologist (like me). I’ve always been impressed with my friend’s views and the “official” papal statements on the validity of science. Basically, they say that scientists are trustworthy and right, and evolution happens just as they say it happens. They invoke an intelligent designer only at the end of that history – somewhere along the evolutionary path from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens, these creatures were provided a soul and some free will. That’s totally fine with me because it doesn’t detract from or conflict with scientific fact. If we’re being reasonable, why couldn’t we go one step further and consider whether the Big Bang (discovered, in part, by a Catholic priest) and everything that followed it (formation of galaxies, stars, planetary systems, the origin of life, and all the evolutionary steps towards humanity) were set in motion by an intelligent designer? All the designer would have to do is kick off the universe. The rest would happen as a natural, inevitable unfolding. I presume you would not claim that your all powerful designer is incapable of creating and using evolution (by creating its preconditions) or that you have special knowledge that your special designer would not want to do it that way.

    • Gary

      Evolution can only work if there is an intelligent being making it work. Nothing happens by chance, and living things do not have the ability to change their DNA.

      • Gert

        Evolution is not a chance process. That’s why natural selection has the word ‘selection’ in it. It’s selective, not random. I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say organisms can’t change their DNA. Of course they can. Mutations happen all the time. That’s why we need new flu vaccines every year. That’s why we have bacteria that are now resistant to all antibiotics.

        • Gary

          If you think organisms can change their DNA, then change yours. How long will it take?

          • David Butler

            Wow, IDiot….

          • Gary

            Gert said living things can change their DNA. I asked her to prove it by changing her own DNA. And you think I’m the idiot?

          • Gert

            I don’t like calling people names, but that was one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard. I’d respond, but I don’t think it would be understood.

          • Gary

            You said that living things can change their DNA. If that is true (it isn’t), then you should be able to change yours. But you can’t. Which proves your claim is false.

          • Gert

            Actually, you and all other organisms can change what your DNA does. It’s called epigenetics. Beyond that, though, your understanding of the time this process takes is all wrong. Mutation is not something an adult organism decides to do. It happens in the germ line (sperm and egg producing cells), and those mutations get passed on. If you doubt me, I have a challenge for you. Take one of your own personal sperm samples to a biologist who does genetic sequencing. Ask him or her to determine if they are all genetically identical or if some have mutations. Sequencing is relatively cheap now, so go. Run. Do it.

          • Gary

            Then when you said organisms can change their DNA, you were just joking? If living things cannot change their DNA, and the changes don’t happen by chance, then how are the changes being made?

          • Gert

            This is simple, Gary. Sperm and egg cells divide. The process is called MEIOSIS. The result is DNA that is changed from the parent. Some of this is due to ERRORS. Some of this is the normal part of meiosis called CROSSING OVER. Both are mutational changes that get passed on to offspring. Hopefully, you never reproduced, but if had, sperm would have met egg in a process called FERTILIZATION. More changes happen there because some of the DNA is dominant and expressed in the growing embryo and some DNA is turned off. The result of these three types of changes is an organism that is not identical to the parent. Hopefully, any offspring you produced are not identical.

          • Gary

            You won’t defend your claim that living things can change their DNA, so you are back to changes in DNA happening by chance. But remember that chance is nothing and has no ability to change anything. That fact leads to the conclusion that you don’t have a clue as to what is responsible for changing DNA.

          • Billybbb

            Organisms create offspring. Offspring has different DNA from the parents. Do individual organisms change their DNA? No. Does a lineage of organisms have different DNA each generation? Yes. Now quit being an idiot, Gary.

          • Gary

            Humans never reproduce anything but humans. Dogs never reproduce anything but dogs. Birds never reproduce anything but birds. I could go on, but you should get the idea. If you’re smart enough.

          • Billybbb

            Mutations, if beneficial, will be retained.Mutations with no benefit, provided they aren’t detrimental, can be retained by chance. Mutatoins that are not beneficial are not retained.

          • JDV

            Exactly, and the relevant issue is if true information addition occurs rather than drawing from existing information or deletion as in the case of mutations.

          • Stephen_Phelan

            He is playing word games without realizing that he is doing it. Some of these guys have decent scientific understanding but no philosophical training, so they constantly change the meaning of words to make the “science” reach their preferred conclusion. Nye is the worst at this, Dawkins is also pretty bad. Dennett is the only one of the atheist proselytizers who understands and rejects the trick, and so has more humility in admitting that some of the argument is based on belief and not science.

        • NC

          “Evolution is not a chance process”

          Yes it is. This is looking at the Neo-Darwinian paradigm which is natural selection ACTING ON random mutation (not change minor within species which is what you are referring to). You need a mutation for natural selection to act on.

          • Gert

            Yes, that’s what I was referring to because mutation by itself is not evolution. Evolution needs natural selection, and it’s called SELECTION because survival and reproduction (which decide which organisms pass on their DNA) are not random.

          • Gary

            Survival and reproduction do not account for the changes in organisms that you claim have happened. What you call “selection” is nothing and nothing was selected by nothing.

        • Stephen_Phelan

          Who does the selecting? That is, whose intention is realized in the evolution of species? If the answer is no one, then you’re using the word “random” incorrectly, or changing its meaning. Random means without intent or order, and if you deny randomness then you admit intent. If you’re changing the word, then at least admit it, and admit that you’re hiding an important premise–that there is no creator–rather than coming to the conclusion. This is an ideological move, not a scientific one.

          One who believes in design doesn’t have to deny the importance of variations of the types you mention, only the certainty of their randomness. And if you also deny that they are random, but deny that there is any intent (creator) in the process, you’re changing the meaning of the word and not relying on science.

          • Gert

            Just because no single entity does the selecting and with long-term intent does NOT in any way mean that selection is random or orderless. The explanation is simple. There are a finite number of things (agents or agencies) that cause selection to happen. They don’t have conscious intent, but that is irrelevant, because these types of agents (predators, competitors, finicky mates, etc.) have predictable effects over the short term and the long term. For example, a predator doesn’t select for large size in its prey (by eating the small ones first) one day and then selecting for red noses the next day. Selection pressures are consistent enough to scale up over millions of years to cause predictable evolutionary effects. We can also describe how the genetic side of adaptation works here, i.e., genetics of small adaptations like tweaking adult size vs. genetics of evolving new macroevolutionary traits like skeletons, but I think you’re asking something much more basic.

            Stephen, you and I both start with ideology. The ideological move I and other scientists make is the assumption that the world is orderly enough that I can study it and figure it out. If I get befuddled by some problem, at no point do I say “well, it must be magic because I’m confused.”

            You, on the other hand, start with the idealogy of stupification – that because you can’t figure it out it must be too complex to be figured out without resorting to the magical big guy in the sky. I don’t find that to be very productive, and if we all went that route every time we got confused, science would shut down. No more cures for diseases. No more discoveries in astronomy and physics. No more computational advances. No more next gen DARPA weapons to combat the Chinese and Russians. No more GMOs to combat world hunger. And just let the Zika swarm over us.

          • Stephen_Phelan

            But in what sense is an “agent” really an “agent”, if they are only passively being acted upon in a physically closed universe where every physical act is predetermined? If there is no non-material element in causation (freedom from determinism), then there really is no agency. What you describe as agency is really just a series of physical events and system level properties of biological entities being acted upon by preexisting conditions. This must necessarily human animals, which means that our opinions and choice in how we make our arguments are illusory–somehow necessitated by evolution. Like Beethoven’s 9th is a product of evolution, since it involved the predetermined “actions” of a human animal.

            To concede that a human may have some small sort of freedom to create, for example, art; or to decide whether or not and how to reply to some dope like me on a comment thread is all the believer needs to establish nonmaterial causation, and thus the opening for God to have begun the process and intervene as He sees fit.

            I admit, and never claimed, to understand all of the science. But with a basic philosophical education I can see the problem with scientists claiming “random” effects from a system that they designed, including the scope of possible “randomness.” You don’t seem to understand the issue here, as you’re committed to using words allegorically (agent, random) and expect them to hold as reality-based descriptors in biological processes. Not sure anyone here has claimed “magic” is involved, unless he misunderstands the case for design and non-material causation.

            You also misunderstand why, for example, the head of the Human Genome Project is a Christian who believes that God is the designer of the universe. Please explain to Dr. Francis Collins what his scientific work is in error because he leaves room for his magical God. Jerome Lejeune, Father Lazzaro Spallanzani, and many, many others… either these geniuses were fools or you misunderstand the role that they, as scientists, saw God playing in creation. The only prohibition to their position is ideological, not scientific, and philosophy helps us to make these distinctions.

          • Gert

            “What you describe as agency is really just a series of physical events and system level properties of biological entities being acted upon by preexisting conditions.”
            Yes, that’s all I am saying, Stephen. I did not mean that agents of selection are conscious selectors. Biologists focus on the effects of agents, which does not require assumptions or overstatements about what an agent might be trying to do. In that sense, random and directed evolution are perfectly compatible.

            “Not sure anyone here has claimed “magic” is involved, unless he misunderstands the case for design and non-material causation.”
            Design would a non-material process that we do not understand in exactly the same way we might not understand a wizard’s magic. So, yes, creationist accounts do refer to magical processes.

            I know about the relatively small number of geneticists who believe in ID. It’s an education issue. It’s possible to get a bachelor’s degree in microbiology or genetics and never take a single upper level course in evolution. Those are the degrees that produce geneticists like the ones you mention. And once they are in graduate programs, they are so focused on coursework related to their specific fields that they again get zero (ZERO) training in evolution. Not surprisingly, they don’t know much about it. At our university, we’ve started partnerships with a cancer institute to fill the educational gaps. Cancer cells evolve, and we have an entire generation of specialists that has no clue how to make the next steps in curing cancer because of it.

  • IA14A

    Imagine if Bill Nye was to face the ID giants like Douglas Axe & Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer is a professional debater when it comes to the origin of biological information and the Cambrian Explosion while Axe is a molecular biologist who has actually done experiments in proteins to see if it fits with neo-Darwinian mechanisms.

    Nye may have defeated Ken Ham in the creation museum debate, but Ham wasn’t much inspiring and didn’t contribute much to helping creationism as science. All of his arguments were all biblical based, which was Ham’s weakness. He is not really much of debater.

    However, with the ID giants like Douglas Axe, they won’t argue against Bill Nye using the bible but through pure science talk. As Axe stated here, “I assure you there won’t be any preaching”

    Exactly right, if Nye wants a real debate, he will get one with Douglas Axe. Question is, will Nye be able to withstand their objective criticisms against Darwinian evolution or will Nye get one big body-slam with one big smackdown? Considering how Nye follows what the mainstream science says about neo-Darwinian evolution, but ignores the research that go against such paradigm, I would say he won’t have two legs to stand on. The truly unique thing about the ID proponents in Seattle is that they don’t really based their arguments in the Bible, but what has been objectively researched and debated.

    I know that if Nye was to argue with Douglas Axe unprepared, he will be squashed like a bug for sure. My advice to Bill Nye is that he better prepare himself greatly if he was to ever argue with the ID giants at Seattle or else he will make the Team Darwin look so bad. Just so you know Nye, going up against Douglas Axe won’t be the same experience as going up with Ken Ham.

    • Logic

      I would pay good money to see that! However, I am fairly certain that Nye would never do it because what you said is 100% correct (and Nye would be humiliated). I have seen some excellent debates with ID theorists, but unfortunately, they are usually ignored by the media.

    • NC

      I’m interested to see how Douglas axe would go in a debate. I doubt Nye would have a chance.

      • almufasa

        Does Douglas Axe believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans?

        • NC

          He focuses on the science and whether it accords with Darwinism (it does not). Such questions are not explored…

    • Mike Wellein

      Ham also believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. That essentially makes him lose every argument on this subject he could possibly be in. He is what I like to call a smart retard.

    • David Butler

      Douglas Axe is an out of work Molecular biologist who hasn’t published in his field since he left school. Stephen Meyer is not a scientist at all. Axe is neither a giant or an intellectual. Already, within days of his book of silliness coming out, he’s down to writing hit pieces like this.

      If Axe had any stones, he’d debate John Thornton. But he never will.

      Creationists love to pick fights with people that they’ll try to pull their pseudoscientific arguments on, knowing that they might lack the ability to fully respond.

      If Nye shows up, I’d suggest he bring some actual working microbiologists with him, and then see how willing Axe is to debate matters.

    • David Butler

      Oooo.. ‘ID GIANTS’ eh?

      Axe would do only one thing, and that’s to try to get the discussion down into the weeds on aspects of molecular biology. Which Axe knows Nye isn’t an expert on. Again, I’d love to see Axe pick a fight with an actual molecular biologist from ‘team darwin’ and see how eager he is to show up. lol

  • Andrew Shields

    If you don’t use the bible as a source aren’t you using humanism as a source? I honestly am always confused when an intelligent design argument is given which doesn’t name the creator.

    Full disclosure I am a Baptist pastor who believes the biblical account isn’t inconsistent with science.

    • NC

      You can’t infer through science the identity of the creator… That’s why. That’s getting into metaphysics.

    • Gary

      There has to be a creator. No other explanation is possible. The question is, who was it? It has to be someone with the ability to create everything out of nothing. The God of the Bible is the only being with that ability.

      • Jay Brannon

        Who created the creator?

        • Gary

          God is eternal. If He were not, then nothing would exist.

          • Jay Brannon

            So you DO get the concept of “eternal” and “infinite”. Is the plane of existence that God lives in “infinite” then? If so, which came first, the place He lives, or Him? Or do you refuse to ask those questions? If you refuse to ask those questions, then you refuse to use logic, which is what science is based on, so why get faith mixed up with science? Its like mixing Algebra with History or Spanish. Not the same subject.

          • Ryan

            What came first, science or logic? whose logic is science based on?
            Does life come from life? or did it just happen? If life just happened, what logic do you use to explain it? What scientific experiments do you use to explain life? Can logic explain through evolution the complexity that was required for the first single cell to even live beyond the first few seconds of its existence?
            The evolution story is an extreme stretch of the imagination, but fiction makes big bucks for those who have an overactive imagination.

          • Jay Brannon

            Evolution is a proven fact. Just look at your dog. You can breed with other dogs to get it just the way you like it. HOW evolution has effected us as humans is the theory. So you have to get your “words” right to make sense.

            Again, God made the universe as it is, with all the “SCIENCE” in it. If science is here, it is here because God put it here. If evolution works the way described, its because God made it that way. The only error here, is by idiots that refuse to do work. Refuse to learn from what God gave you.

            It reminds me of the story of the Christian that was in the flood, trapped on top of a roof. As the water rose, a canoe came by, asking to help him. He said “no, go help someone else, God will save me.” Later, as water rose higher, a motorboat came by to help him, again refusing help, saying “God will save me.” Finally, water even higher, a helicopter comes to rescue him, he says “go help someone else, God will save me.” Finally, he drowns. When he gets in front of God, he asks, “Why didn’t you save me?” God says, “I sent you a canoe, a motorboat, and a helicopter. What else did you want?”

            The point being, that you cannot hope for supernatural assistance. God sends you “help” in your life, and you have to actually DO something to accept His help. Its the same with learning about science. You cannot deny it is there because you, or some religious leader misread something in the Bible about the age of the Earth – obviously, your calculations are off – in fact, maybe the point of his story was not for you to use it to calculate the age of the Earth, but to use the story as a guide to how you should act towards others, etc (seems to be what most of the stories are about). God created the universe, and all its scientific laws that we are able to discover. For you to deny science, is for you to deny God’s creation. Get with it, and work on what God gave you, and quit being an idiot!!!

          • Peacharoo

            “Evolution is a proven fact. Just look at your dog”.

            Everybody knows that Evolution is a proven fact!

            We Creationists just prefer to use the terms Adaptation or Variation instead of “Micro Evolution” Because the Ambivalent and purposely vague term “Evolution” can be Extrapolated to mean the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian Common Ancestor or all living things..

            I hope that helps clear up the confusion

      • erickcartman

        Stephen Hawking once said the existence of gravity proves you can create something out of nothing, hence there is no need for God. Fools like Hawking think they are so insightful. They really are just selling junk science with big words and incomprehensible blather.

    • Mike Wellein

      SCIENCE!!!!

  • Gert

    You’re right, Franklin. Home improvements are not random and neither are evolutionary improvements. Organisms need to eat, not get sick, reproduce, etc. That’s their list.

    Random blind changes sound bad on the surface, but evolution has a few other things going for it. You have one home. A species can have literally trillions of individuals, each comparable to your one home in the analogy. Most are expendable. In other words, while you can not afford to roll the dice with your one home, a species can definitely afford to roll the dice with all of its individuals and let natural selection sort it out. That’s exactly how it works. Consider how many acorns an oak tree produces a year and multiply that by the number of years the tree produces acorns and then multiply that by the number of oak trees of that species currently alive and then multiply that by the total number of oak tree generations. You have a really big number of course – that’s how many times evolution gets to roll the dice.

    Adaptations don’t happen by presto. Creationism requires presto magic. Evolution doesn’t. There are plenty of examples of small, intermediate steps in evolution to produce complex adaptations. The eye is a great example. So are brains. The human hand. So many examples. I’m sorry, I can’t write an essay about each one, but information is not hard to find if you look.

    The key thing to know about the process of adaptation is that it ALWAYS modifies a pre-existing trait or genetic code or developmental module to produce something new. That’s a MAJOR head start. The other key point is that there is usually a PERMISSIVE environment for early stages of adaptation. What I mean is that the bird wing didn’t have to be a perfect flight wing initially. It could have just been used for mating show or wing-assisted incline running. Eventually, it can be put to the test of powered flight, but it benefits the organism greatly even at the earlier steps. So evolution keeps it and moves it along the assembly line.

  • Gert

    Does anything else work like evolution? Yes. When large corporations want to innovate, one of the things some of them do is study the process of evolutionary innovation. I know because I’m an evolutionary biologist and I was asked to help a large corporation in this way. When the Pentagon wanted to know what strategies were available to combat the emerging threat of terrorism, they consulted evolutionary biologists because these biologists study how species evolve to deal with unpredictable attacks (like predation). There’s a book documenting this called Darwinian Security. Why do arms races start between nations like the US and USSR, and is there any way to stop them? Guess what? There are also evolutionary arms races. There’s a great book about this by Geerat Vermeij called Evolution and Escalation: an Ecological History of Life. There’s also evolutionary algorithms. Computer programming is now reaching the point of becoming too complex for the human brain. Programmers have been using evolutionary mechanisms to improve code and solve those complex problems. I could go on . . .

    • Franklin Dzioba

      Evolutionary biologist? Great, now I see why you have so much to say about it and why you speakin such in a educated manner. Obviously Im dubious of evolution so you maybe you can help me, as I really appreciate the way you approach explaining things in a non demeaning way.
      Where does genetics end and evolution begin? In other words, the genome is limited, it has certain possibilities but it is not exhaustive. Why is the small changes that evolutionists point to not really just examples of recessive traits showing themselves? I took introduction to biology recently and the info presented didnt change my mind that evolution seems to borrow genetic changes and claim them as NEW. I other words doesnt evolution eventually have to add genetic coding to a creatures genome to make it have more available traits in order to see the increased complexity? Evolution must go beyond epigenetics, it must explain new genetic info and so far I have not seen that.
      I dont expect a long lesson, as Im guessing this format is too limited for that. Maybe you can post a link that shows what natural mechanism adds genetic coding to a genome??

      • Gert

        Any intro course in biology can not possibly cover the complexity of what we know operates in genetics and evolution. It’s not until you get to a PhD level education that you start to learn the good stuff. Also, intro courses are usually taught by instructors, not researchers, and are not as adept with the material.
        Evolution does exactly what you say though. It borrows genetic changes and claims them as new. One of the biggest examples of a mutation type that does something new by recycling (or copying) the old is genome duplication. In some lineages of plants, the entire genome has been duplicated up to seven times. That’s not a single letter mutation. They have several copies of the entire genetic code. None of the letters are new, but having extra copies gives an organism evolutionary potential to modify or mutate the new duplicated parts of the genome in crazy ways without harming the vital original DNA. If you google ‘evolution by genome duplication’ you’ll find some links. For deeper reading that will take you straight to the good stuff, explore these terms on the google scholar app.

        Tried posting a link for the mechanisms that add new code to the genome but it was deleted by a moderator. Other terms you can look up that will lead you to better understand where new code comes from in evolution are – gene duplication, chromosome duplication, transposons, horizontal gene transfer, horizontal genome transfer (endosymbiosis).

    • JDV

      So designers of processes consult observers of design in nature to help with issues caused by natural creatures and even non-biological laws of nature. I don’t know that anyone is arguing that processes don’t unfold in these arenas in measurable ways.

  • amrsadjew

    Nye states in the book that evolution isn’t random. Quite the opposite. Survival is the goal in mind that you’re referring to. Through trial and error, the optimal version of a species survives. Just look at the 99.9% of species that have gone extinct. Also Bill Nye doesn’t claim to be this great, all knowing scientist, so why are people so interested in “destroying/embarrassing” him. He’s merely trying to educate people/ignite there interest in educating themselves. Most of what is mentioned about Nye in this article comes from chapter 1. No humans can’t change their DNA (yet), but they can enhance aspects of it i.e. Reading books, going to the gym, altering your appearance. Not everything happens with a goal in mind i.e. Leicester City FC, silly puddy, jazz music, x-ray imaging, me…some times things do happen by chance and are built upon after the fact. Poorly put together rant, but my thoughts are kind of choppy after a brain injury. sorry.

    • NC

      Oh my goodness, you are the third person to say that on this article! Evolution IS random. The modern synthesis of evolution is the Neo-Darwinian paradigm which is natural selection ACTING ON random mutations. On a minor level within species it isn’t random but above that, it is – small scale change does not equate to macroevolutionary change… Natural selection needs a random mutation to select and pass on…

      • amrsadjew

        I’m not saying it isn’t random. The mutations are random, but to say evolution IS random, to me, sounds like ‘oops looks like we’ve got these useless beaks now”. The non-beneficial mutations seldom get passed on, and if they do they’re short lived. I may have worded my ‘poorly put together rant’ poorly, but I was meaning to take a non-creationist stance, not a non-randomness stance.The women (or men) you meet are more than likely random, but you choose who you mate with. Hopefully…some people impregnate whatever they can find and slow down human evolution.

        • Stephen_Phelan

          That’s the thing with scientism, and those with inadequate training to recognize it as such. Ideology dressed up as science. The word “random” has a meaning that can be agreed upon, but must be agreed upon. The whole point of saying evolution means there isn’t a Creator is denying intent and design in natural biological order. To say that it isn’t random is to anthropomorphize natural selection as if there really was some intelligent order to the whole thing, which they deny in the next breath. I thought their case was that the mutations are in fact random, but that those that are more evolutionarily useful remain. To say this isn’t random is to change the meaning of the word (non-intentional or -ordered) for rhetorical purposes. It’s sloppy reasoning and a dumb trick that works on those who’ve already accepted the conclusion.

          Some materialists understand and accept the inevitable conclusion of the purely material universe (an ideological declaration, not proven) by accepting that everything is physically predetermined in such a universe. Thus, inevitable parts of our experience like freedom and intent are illusions, with the logical further conclusion that “reason” is also an illusion–we’re all just working out a pre-ordained set of inevitabilities and thus aren’t responsible for error or truth. So what’s the point in arguing about it if even the errors are every bit as determined as the truths?

          To believe that takes a level of faith that I want to admire but can’t, because it is the opposite of lived experience of agency vs coercion.

          • Dan Williams

            Faith is a gift from God. Please ask Him for it, and find out for yourself if what billions of people throughout history claim to experience is real. I can assure you it is.

          • Stephen_Phelan

            I’d recommend reading the post again. Materialism is also a faith system, which I find untenable.

          • amrsadjew

            Well put, just trying to learn and contribute. I’m not trying to take some big stance or prove how smart I am by arguing about semantics. Arguing via bombastic claims, and semi-known truths stated as facts seems rather counterproductive. I’m from the south, backwoods south, not college town south. Creationism here has a different meaning (talking snake, 7 days etc) I didn’t learn about Darwinism until high school, and Bill Nye is targeting people like me, not trying to argue the meaning of words.

  • I’d love to see the Cambridge-educated Dr. Axe beat the snot out of non-scientist Nye. Unfortunately, the chances of Nye having the nerve to debate Axe are so low that I won’t be getting my hopes up.

    • Gert

      I’m afraid Axe would get completely destroyed by any half-talented evolutionary biologist. Axe has successfully recycled the same old vacuous arguments that were destroye

      • Thomas Weiss

        For instance?…in your own words please…..

      • Stephen_Phelan

        That’s the crux of it. Nye and co have no philosophical training, thus draw erroneous conclusions based on hidden ideological premises, under the guise of “just following the science.” Science has nothing to say about pre-scientific questions, and intelligent people can make deductions about pre-scientific, or faith-related/metaphysical issues, but they should admit that they are doing so. Most scientists and hacks like Nye don’t even realize they’re doing it, so they resort to that feigned surprised/offended sniffing and stammering when someone challenges a conclusion.

        Dennett is better at this, Hitchens had great moments of lucidity often followed by spittingly angry non sequiturs that revealed his biases and undermined sometimes-good points. Dawkins and Nye are just extremely sloppy thinkers–more proselytizers than “scientists” who don’t know that they don’t know certain things.

        • Eldjr

          The apparent dichotomy concerns the use of the word, “natural” when connected to ‘science’: “Natural science” begins at an assertion of an only material universe governed by ‘uniformitarian’ processes. Of course, when peering into questions of the origins of existence, the ‘natural’ scientist is dragged into metaphysics featuring a primordial cosmological singularity which spontaneously transmuted itself from static monodimensional inertia [absence of potentiality] to multidimensional space and material disambiguation.

      • Keninmo

        “Axe has successfully recycled decades old misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. His misunderstandings about evolution are about concepts and processes so widely known to biologists and so simple that it sounds like deliberate misrepresentation.” — And those are…what, exactly? Please elaborate and show us your insights. “Bill Nye told me so” doesn’t count.

    • Nye takes the science position, and Axe doesn’t? I think I know how this is going to turn out.

  • IA14A

    A response to David Butler on Douglas Axe.

    Recently upon after commenting in this article, a user critic by the name David Butler came on to the defense. According to Butler, Axe’s credibility falls short due to his lack of scientific publications, as quote unquote:

    “Douglas Axe is an out of work Molecular biologist who hasn’t published in his field since he left school.”

    Contrary to Butler’s criticism, Axe has a background of publishing peer-reviewed papers in scientific academia. In 2004, Axe published a research paper entitled, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” in a peer-reviewed journal called Journal of Molecular Biology. Axe has about a total of 9 published peer-reviewed papers ranging from 1987 to 2000s. His most recent published paper being one from 2008, which was published for peer-review and accepted in the peer-reviewed open access journal, PLoS One. Axe also has additional papers published in an intelligent design journal called BIO-COMPLEXITY. Whether one to argue that BIO-COMPLEXITY is peer-reviewed or not, it doesn’t negate the fact that Axe has a genuine background of publishing papers in actual scientific peer-review journals as I have previously demonstrated.

    Butler believes that the evolutionary biologist, Joseph W. Thornton, if confronted destroy Axe’s argument on how neo-Darwinian mechanisms are incapable of explaining the origin of new protein folds. As quoted:

    “If Axe had any stones, he’d debate John Thornton. But he never will.”

    Upon having doing some investigation using the name of that evolutionary biologist, I found this paper in which Thornton himself thinks it goes against creationism. The paper is entitled, “Evolution of Hormone Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation”

    Here evolutionary biologist John W. Thornton was examining the hormone steroid receptor present in vertebrates. They examined three sets of genes: 1) Ancestral corticoid-receptor, AncCR 2) GR, glucocorticoid-receptor & 3) MR, mineralocorticoid-receptor. By examining the three sets of genes under phylogenetic analysis, Thornton found that the glucocorticoid-receptor & mineralocorticoid-receptor were duplicated from the ancestral AncCR gene.

    By using a technique called “gene resurrection”, Thornton was able to resurrect the ancestral AncCR gene. After the resurrection of the dead gene, he concluded that he finally demonstrated “step-wise” evolution of how the hormone steroid receptor could have evolved. By duplicating the AncCR site and by demonstrating the daughter genes GR & MR coming into existence, evolution was capable of evolving a hormone receptor regulating electrolyte homeostasis and other processes.

    New genetic information, by gene duplication?

    Yet, a closer look at the details reveals something different. It turned out that the duplicated “mineralocorticoid-receptor, MR” gene actually had the same function as its ancestral gene, AncCR! According to the paper, the mineralocorticoid receptor gene is activated by a steroid hormone called Aldosterone. Interestingly, when Thornton resurrected the AncCR ancestral gene in which MR duplicated from, it turned out that the ancestral gene had the same exact function as the newly duplicated MR gene receptor.
    As Thornton writes, “Given these results, the most parsimonious scenario is that AncCR was capable of being activated by aldosterone”
    In other words the AncCR gene in terms of functionality was no different than the new duplicated derived MR gene. They were both capable of being activated by aldosterone and perform similar cellular functions. Rather than gene duplication actually creating any novel proteins by neo-functionalization, the types of proteins that Douglas Axe argues against Darwinian evolution, the gene duplication was actually nothing more but subfunctionalization. That is the duplicated genes, MR & GR, retained the same functional copy of its ancestral gene, AncCR. No new novelty or genetic information was actually generated in Thornton’s study. What really happened instead was that the MR gene was able to retain its function as that of the ancestral AncCR gene while the GR gene lost that very same ancestral function present in MR causing it to be insensitive to Aldosterone. Basically, one duplicated gene retained the same functional copy while the other duplicated lost the same functional ancestral copy, or at least weaken.
    Another point I would like to emphasize is that Thornton did not demonstrate “stepwise” evolution whatsoever. What he did was examined those already existing three genes, where one of the genes was ancestral/dead, and intentionally resurrected the already existing ancestral gene using intelligent, guided mutagens (mutations). Notice the term “guided, intentional, intelligent” which is exactly what Thornton did. To make gene resurrection possible, he had to intelligently manipulate and input guided mutations into the DNA just to resurrect the dead AncCR ancestral gene. Intelligence, guided, etc. plays no role in evolution, as it is blind, undirected, and most importantly, a non-teleological force of nature that has no foresight. Now imagine what is takes for evolution to create a single functional protein, made up of more or less 100 amino acids, where only certain amino acid substitutions would be beneficial to a living organism against the overwhelming number of non-functional sequence, making evolution in the search space of creating a new functional exceedingly rare. Another problem that evolutionary biologist Thornton does not even remotely address in his study due to his false dichotomy on intelligently resurrecting dead genes rather than addressing the main issue of what Douglas Axe has been arguing about all along, that neo-Darwinian mechanisms are extremely improbable in creating brand new proteins.

  • Thomas Weiss

    Bill Nye…BS in mechanical engineering from Cornell and an introductory astronomy course?

    • Dan Williams

      Hey, his denial of the obvious intelligence of design has helped make him famous in our sinful society which craves justification for their sins. So, what the heck? Why not run with it? I doubt if in his heart of hearts he or anyone else actually believes it.

  • Buddy James Fazzio

    Evolutionary theory never, never, never says anything happened by accident. So uh’m this article fails to impress even my very limited knowledge of evolution.

    • So, since it didn’t happen by accident, it happened with intent?

      What’s the source of this intent in nature?

    • Dan Williams

      Buddy, which developed all by itself first: The lungs, to allow the heart to beat, or the heart, to allow the lungs to breathe? Even children can understand that a brain, an eye, a liver, a kidney, cannot invent themselves to function without the other organs being present to allow them to function. Evolution is the athiest’s ONLY explanation, as scientifically unplausible as it is.

    • Keninmo

      Mmmm…actually, that is literally the textbook definition of genetic mutation, which is the basis of Darwinian evolution. If it didn’t happen by non-directed mutation, then well…it is happening by…..*directed* mutation…which is by….design….

    • NC

      Oh my goodness, Neo-Darwinism relies on natural selection ACTING ON random mutations… Therefore it does rely on accident….

    • Peacharoo

      So it says it all happened on Purpose?

  • Larry Starks

    Somebody is wrong so everyone pick a side and pray your right….and remember that if you choose creationism and your wrong, no harm done. If you pick evolution and your wrong…..

    • Pascal’s Wager–fun! Try it on your own position. You’ll be hosed if the Mormons are right. Or the Muslims. Or the Hindus …

      • DrewTwoFish

        This reminds me of a discussion I was having with a Christian on Twitter. The fact that Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are just as sincere and just as certain about the veracity of THEIR faith didn’t seem to make a dent…

        • Eastern_girl

          You might find my comments to Bob Seidensticker on this topic above interesting, if this is a conversation you have been interested in.

      • Eastern_girl

        Nope, “Mormons” believe that anyone who sincerely tries to do what is right will be saved regardless of that person’s beliefs. So, people are born with the light of Christ (their conscience) and if they don’t act against that (i.e. hurt people) they are fine. Also, if they act in accordance with a belief system that is wrong, if they are sincerely convinced that that is the right thing to do there won’t be a bad consequence to them. It was even a question answer on Jeopardy! 🙂 You can look it up.

        • Do you really not get it? Pascal’s Wager applies to the Christian as much as anyone else. It sounds like a win for the Christian only if you limit the possibilities to Christianity and atheism.

          • Eastern_girl

            Yep, I understand what you are saying. I was only correcting an incorrect statement about Mormons. As a believer, I get Pascal’s wager– from the leap of faith aspect. But you’re right that you still have to use your best logic and reasoning to decide which faith you’re leaping into. I have resolved that for my self by placing my wager on the system that in my estimation has brought the most truth and good results to followers ( two small examples: support of families and teen abstinence help believers reap many mental health and general well-being benefits that you see for children in stable homes). I can also eliminate faiths with bad results for followers (see Islam and the caste system for Hindus).

            In my belief system faith has a very important purpose. God can help people develop good character as they show commitment or non-commitment to do good and help people while not having a sure knowledge that they will get anything out of it ultimately. There is no mindless chasing of a carrot or stick if down deep you are not 100% sure that the rewards are there. But as you act according to your faith (Pascal’s wager if you like) you demonstrate your true nature and God will judge where you belong based on what you reveal under those circumstances.

          • If you’re looking for the most useful worldview, then just call it a worldview and not a religion. You’re saying that the supernatural beliefs are useful, not that they are true.

            And if you’re not constrained by supernatural beliefs and are looking just for the most useful religion, I encourage you to make sure your flavor of Christianity is benign (since many are not).

          • Eastern_girl

            I guess I’m using “most useful worldview” as one test of which God claims are true because if God is as described (all knowing, good) then results for adherents should bear out that he has insight into truth. And it isn’t a worldview because my own best opinions haven’t borne the good results that I have seen when I have tried out the tenets of my religion. I could give you dozens of examples from my life if you are interested to hear.

            And, at the risk of being redundant of course my flavor of Christianity is benign, in fact statistically is very beneficial. But I would be very interested to see what you think the malignant strains of Christianity are. Because there is a lot of evidence that religiously raised children in the US (predominantly Christian) see many benefits– from lower depression rates, to better academic achievement to lower drug and alcohol abuse. I can give you the links to the studies, if you want. But this is all ignored by the media, and they paint a deceptively dark picture of Christians, most times.

          • I could give you dozens of examples from my life if you are interested to hear.

            Be careful to avoid confirmation bias.

            what you think the malignant strains of Christianity are.

            Denominations that meddle in public policy, for example—stand in the way of civil rights, abortion rights, and so on.

          • Peacharoo

            “abortion rights,”
            Yes, the “Right to Torture and Murder an innocent and helpless young human being.. Typical Darwinian Logic…

          • “Human being”? If it’s a single cell, I’m happy to let the pregnant woman decide its fate. Call that single cell whatever you want.

            I’m not sure what “typical Darwinian logic” means or where it points you.

        • Firewagon

          “….if they are sincerely convinced that that is the right thing to do there won’t be a bad consequence to them.”

          I “believe” that might be problematic with “my” God. Unless there is some ‘alternate’ heaven for the Jihadists and Pol Pots of the world, I’m very doubtful of that ‘no bad consequence’ thinking! How about a “belief system” that says all but blue eyed, blonde haired, white skinned people should be eradicated from the earth?

          • Eastern_girl

            I guess I can see why you would think that from what I said, but that is not the accurate picture. Every person has a conscience when they are born (which we call the light of Christ) that lets them know that hurting someone is wrong, etc. I’m sure you’ve felt the pangs of conscience when you have done something bad. So even people without God’s truth will have some guidance about their actions that they need to pay attention to. It’s up to God to determine how much they listened to their conscience and other information that they came into contact with, but it will only be people who acted according to law they honestly believe in coupled with their conscience that will be “saved”. I’m glad God’s in the judging business, not me.

        • Peacharoo

          Unfortunately Mormons believe that Jesus is the Brother of the Devil… WATCH OUT for the Cult of LDS.. a FALSE Prophet Joseph Smith was indeed…

      • Larry Starks

        Bob…. did I state what I believe? I have pointed out nothing but the obvious which obviously you missed.

        • OK, I guess I missed the obvious. My “obvious” was that “if you choose creationism and your wrong, no harm done. If you pick evolution and your wrong…” meant that you’ll have to answer to God if you pick wrongly between creationism and evolution.

          So you’ll have to tell me what you did mean, because obviously it wasn’t that.

    • pcantidote

      What a lame reason to believe in something. Why don’t you just admit that you are not a critical thinker and you just follow the herd? And wouldn’t god know that you only “believe” so you can trick him into getting into heaven? If your god is such an arrogant narcissist that his sole reason for allowing two otherwise equal people into heaven is whether they believed in him…..then he can have his fancy heaven.

      • Larry Starks

        Pcant…..I’ve not stated what I believe one way or the other so I can only view your comments as those of a person who lacks the critical thinking skills necessary to discern exactly WHAT they just real…or more precisely, MISREAD. Have a nice day.

    • DrewTwoFish

      So what you’re saying is, based on the evidence one is presented with, if one makes in good faith (if you’ll pardon the pun) makes the best decision they know how they still end up frying for eternity. Does anyone else see a problem here?

      • Larry Starks

        Drewtwo…you can choose what to believe for yourself and no one can tell you that you are right or wrong. The only real problem is that one choice has no consequences while the other carries eternal consequences. Your choice.

        • Mike Wellein

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    • Mike Wellein

      If you pick evolution and you are wrong, guess what happens. Absolutely nothing. I’m not going to sell my soul to some half assed fiction just because there is a slim to none chance that it is actually correct.

    • Kevin Morgan

      It’s not just a dart’s throw at the two options. The evidence for design is compelling. Only the true science deniers, committed to the magic of philosophical naturalism (a.k.a. pantheism), force themselves to ignore the design that is ubiquitous on every level–macro, micro, cellular, and DNA. It isn’t the evidence that stands in the way; it’s the philosophical assumptions that won’t allow the evidence to speak.

  • DTS623

    Progressive are very vocal when slamming people of faith for not adhering to the THEORIES of Evolution as espoused by Darwin yet deny the reality of “Natural Selection” in our society and our welfare system that promotes and supports the least fit among us

    • Disingenuous

      Now that was a low blow! Nicely done.

    • I don’t get it. You’re saying that there’s something weak about a scientific theory?

      If so, you need to look up what a scientific theory is. It’s not like theories graduate to laws, for example.

    • pcantidote

      As a constitutional conservative atheist I can comfortably say that was complete non-sequitur nonsense.

    • Rudy R

      Progressives are people of faith and Conservatives believe in the Theory if Evolution, so your comment is a non-sequitor.

  • erickcartman

    Bill De-Nye cannot handle the truth. He has bought into the lies of the devil and is perfectly happy in his Matrix fantasy world- just another humanist that workships himself. How does Nye explain the “evolution” of the sexes? Few bring that up. Having male and female for procreation is VERY inefficient and takes incredible leaps of logic to explain. In fact, it cannot be explained.

    • axual

      No, ha can’t handle your truth, or guess that that there is a god. You ask how Nye explains evolution of the sexes. Well, how do you do that?

  • consumer87

    Bill Nye visiting Ham’s ark reminds me of Dawkins visiting Ted Haggard. You are correct, if these intellectuals were serious about having scientific discourse with those who oppose their views, and not merely seeking publicity, they would take you up on your offer to meet.

  • pepper12

    A semi-religious question – if we are “biological accidents” then what is the point of our life? If the greenies really believed their Gaia religion they would kill themselves (humans are a virus). But of course it is “for thee but not me” nimbys. They do realize deep down inside that there is some reason for our existence, they just can’t face it so they deny it.

    • Christopher Beattie

      In one sense we are all “accidents” and in one sense we are not. Consider that it rains on both the good and the bad. If the weather had been different when you were conceived you might not have been. We tend to go into two opposite directions; that God micromanages everything or that he does nothing. But just as God was found not in the storm but in the quiet wind, the hand of God can be seen in the subtle things, as opposed to a “god of the gaps.”

  • Mktingguy

    A few comments… To say that there is a complete lack of evidence for evolution seems wrong. Darwin’s finches on the Galapogos are but one example. And the whole ‘lack of planning’ thesis seems to be blind to the thought that we have evolved into planning creatures!!! Eugenics, abortion, euthanasia are all evolutionary plans at some level, disregarding the moral component of the “plan”. I’m always amused at how we strive to tell God how he created us. If one’s understanding of God and the Bible rests on some definitive belief in how we humans were created by Him, I would suggest that faith is rather weak. You are relying on science to prove God. Good luck with that!

    • Eastern_girl

      Big difference between micro and macro (species into species) evolution. Micro evolution is observable. Macro (goo to you) has never been observed or even demonstrated in the fossil record– there are no links.

      • Eldjr

        Free PDF Book: temcat. com/L-4-Topical-Library/Creation/Handbook-all. pdf

        Take out the spaces.

      • Mktingguy

        How would one ever demonstrate macro evolution in the fossil record? Impossible task. There are lineages in the record, from ape to man to suggest the most obvious. Who cares if we came from apes? That could be God’s plan,

        • Eastern_girl

          You would demonstrate macro evolution by showing skeletons that form a continuous line of small changes from species to species. That is never what we find. Evolutionists try to form things into a line because of similar features, but if you look closely you will find the other features that are very different, creatures that aren’t the same size, different mouths, hearts, etc., not a smooth line as you would see in a line with evolutionary changes. There are distinct creatures then another distinct creature, no line with small changes from one to the other.

          Of course evolution could be God’s plan if that’s how he designed it, but if you get yourself informed enough about evolution, the evidence is just not there to support it.

          • Mktingguy

            Evolutionary changes are so small and take such long periods of time that a conclusive, continuous skeleton line over million of years is virtually impossible to produce. Just think about what’s required. However, evolutionary geneticists can reasonably construct DNA pathways that prove with high probabilities that apes and humans diverged about 8 million years ago. So, I would suggest you get yourself informed about that!

          • Eastern_girl

            I would be willing to bet that I have spent more time informing myself about this topic than you have. Did you know that the scientists keep changing their mind which primate man is descended through? (If DNA evidence is so cut and dried, why does this keep changing?) and did you know that man shares more DNA with mice, than monkeys? And there has never been any “continuous skeleton line” for any species to species transition, just distinct, fully formed species that abruptly show up, with some other animals that scientist think look similar, but also are fully formed when they first show up supposedly lined up in between.

          • Mktingguy

            Time spent on analysis has nothing to do with quality of understanding. Yes, I knew the mice DNA thing. That’s one reason they test drugs with mice. Both evolution and creationism are unprovable because of a decaying fossil record. We will just have to agree to disagree. Peace!

          • Peacharoo

            Finally, An honest Atheist / Darwinist who admits that Creationism AND Abiogenesis / Darwinism are BOTH religions that have ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to prove them right or wrong…. Which begs the question… Why is YOUR religion of Mindless MYO Mud to Man (Metaphysical Naturalism) The ONLY religion that is taught in each and every public school biology class at taxpayer expense?
            What happened to the “Separation of church and state?” I guess we can overlook it as long as only YOUR religion gets taught.. Right?

          • Mktingguy

            Calm down. I’m certainly not an atheist, but a conservative Roman Catholic. I wish they would teach both theories in schools, as “where did we come from” is a pretty important question. I just was suggesting that from my perspective evolution makes more sense, and that my fundamental belied in Jesus Christ and God doesn’t require a certain belief in where we came from. Ok?

    • philip gunby

      There are zero intermediate fossils found. Dont you think thats a little strange when they find 10000 fossils every year? Sure puts a big hole into the evolution theory.

      • Mktingguy

        Evolutionary changes are so small and take such long periods of time that a conclusive, continuous skeleton line over million of years is virtually impossible to produce — even if 10,000 fossils are found each year. Just think about what’s required to identify all the singular pathways through those!!! However, evolutionary geneticists can reasonably construct DNA pathways that prove with high probabilities that apes and humans diverged about 8 million years ago. Study that instead of fossils and you might find your hole in evolutionary theory plugged up.

  • Sergio Bungholio

    I’m still so surprised that anyone gives this nit wit credence. I first saw him when I moved to Seattle in 96. He was on a comedy show called almost live. A comedy show on before SNL. He then took the science guy to a Saturday morning kid show. Basically he’s a comedian. Of course these type of people to liberals are experts. Since I was pre med in college I guess to a liberal I’m a doctor.

    • Bill Nye takes the scientific consensus. In a battle of knowing why the world is the way it is, that’s a pretty good starting point. I think Bill wins.

      • Privatejetsetter

        Well from a group that looks at movie stars and comedians as leaders in politics and the economy I would expect an answer like this

        • Cool! From just that, you can read so much about me! It’s like you can look into my very soul.

          But this does nothing to my comment. When you think up a rebuttal–perhaps a recommendation for an option besides adopting the scientific consensus when you’re a layman–get back to me. A clever one-liner doesn’t do it.

      • philip gunby

        YouTube type in kent hovlind seminars. Be open minded.

  • John G. McNeil

    Dear Mr. Axe,

    Your reasoning, as is the case with all who want to pit Creationism vs Evolution, faces a singular fallacy. God created man, as well as everything that has happened, and will happen, to man’s anatomy and physiology in the future. God created evolution; it isn’t some dark voodoo magic concocted by Charles Darwin – he was simply a keen observer and messenger of God’s work. Darwin never tried to pit the concept of evolution – that pertains to both flora and fauna – against the creation of all that is, and ever will be, by God. Evolutionary processes are constantly at work, but they are so because it is part of God’s plan for how the world should unfold. Evolution is NOT a series of stochastic experiments to ultimately arrive at some optimal outcome; it is a rationale approach to determine what God wants us, and everything around us, to be at any given moment in time.

    There is already so much divisiveness in the world these days. Let’s not add unnecessary fuel to the fire.

    In Christ, John G. McNeil, MD PhD

    • axual

      Or not. Since there is no actual repeatable experiment to test a theory of god (is there one?), conjecturing there must be a god because we exist or we observe an oak tree arising from an acorn is philosphy at best, and wishful thinking for sure. If you wish to the methods of science silly (for whatever reason), the notion of a god it seems is even sillier.

      • Peacharoo

        Since there is no actual repeatable experiment to test a theory of DARWINISM

        There, fixed it for you..

        Just admit that Abiogenesis / Darwinism is a Religious belief of Metaphysical Naturalism… Be honest.. We BOTH have a religious belief when it comes to Origins… The question of the day is, Why do MY tax dollars have to pay for YOUR religious belief to be taught in every public school biology class??
        What happened to the “Seperation of church and State?
        Darwinists are indeed the biggest hypocrites.. They insist the THEIR State run religion of Atheism / Metaphysical Naturism / Darwinism (all the same) be taught to each and every public school kid….

      • John G. McNeil

        I am a highly accomplished scientist – a firm believer in the scientific method. Belief in God is intrinsic Faith, requiring no contemporary evidence to justify my belief system. It is a true curiosity to me that so many find they must pit one vs. the other. This is a fallacy by my way of thinking. Science and Theocratic belief are not in the same domains. I find no requirement to refute the null hypothesis in order to have a completely intact belief system. Do you have experimental data to prove there is no God? Of course not, nor do you need it to believe what you want to believe.

    • pcantidote

      You’ve come a long way from prior generations with your ability to recognize evolution for what it is. Now you just need to take the common sense last step and acknowledge that there probably is no god.

      • Thomas Weiss

        what you need to do is realize the mathematical impossibility of life springing from matter

        • pcantidote

          what you need to do is realize the insanity of believing in magic men in the sky.

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”” believing in magic men in the sky.”””

            LOL we don’t…we believe the reality we perceive being length, width and height plus time had a beginning, (Hawking/Penrose claim they proved time “began”) and that beginning is commonly refereed to as the Big bang….
            We believe that for something to begin to exist there must be an entity (prime mover-beginner-creator) that must exist outside of what was created, in other words that entity must “transcend” our perceived reality…..make sense?

            “man in the sky”?…….lol hardly…

          • pcantidote

            Who created the creator?

          • Thomas Weiss

            I believe that outside our finite space time universe an form of eternity exists, and the entity exists or is composed of, that eternity…..
            what do you believe exists outside of space and time?

          • Thomas Weiss

            I believe that outside our finite space time universe a form of eternity
            exists, and the entity exists in, or is composed of, that eternity…..
            what do you believe exists outside of space and time?

      • Peacharoo

        Yup, and THAT is why the mindless MYO mud to man Myth was invented in the first place…

        It NEVER had anything to do with Science.. BTE there is ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support your hypothetical hypothesis of Abiogenesis / Darwinsim.. Good Luck with Chuck..!!

        “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

        Richard Dawkins

        • pcantidote

          Even if there was zero empirical evidence, that DOES NOT mean that the answer then somehow defaults to some magic man in the sky. That should have become obvious around the same time as Santa.

      • John G. McNeil

        I see you say ‘probably’, so you’re not sure. Faith is our intrinsic belief system. Having faith doesn’t require positive proof; you simply have it or you don’t. I find no “common” sense in repudiating God.

    • NTX007

      Well said! If only both sides would have just a slightly larger open mind, one can see that science and God go hand-in-hand. Whatever laws exist and whatever unknowns bewilder us, only God is all-knowing. We will slowly, over time, learn more and more about the universe, but for me that only reinforces my faith and strengthens the wonder of God!

      • Peacharoo

        YES! God and Science (What we KNOW) do indeed go hand in hand!

        Would you like to know what DOESNT go hand in hand with Science?

        The Mindless MYO Mud to Mand Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all flora and fauna.. In Fact,

        Abiogenesis / Darwinism has ZERO to do with Science… Nothing at all because it doesnt conform to the Empirical Scientific Method… (You do know what that is I hope) The ONLY reason that hypothetical hypothesis of Abiogenesis / Darwinism was invented was to try to eliminate the Judeo Christian God of the Bible, it is merely a fairy tale.. At least in the REAL fairy tale, the Frog gets a kiss from the princess before turning into a Prince…

        “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

        Richard Dawkins

    • UtMadman

      So we’re all hybrids? I can live with that.

    • NC

      Axe’s disagreement with Neo-Darwinism is an evidence based one… Not one derived from creationism or the authority of the bible…

    • Peacharoo

      Just to clarify, when you make the dogmatic statement ” God created evolution”
      What do you mean by the ambivalent and purposely vague term “Evolution”
      Do you mean the Mindless MYO Mud To Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian Common ancestor for all the flora and fauna ever to exist on planet earth?
      OR
      are you talking about Variation, Adaptation, or “Micro” Evolution like finches beaks, dogs ears, moth colors, bear coats and other changes allready present in the DNA genome of each created kind….

      Look forward to your clarification. Blitzking

    • Peacharoo

      Just to clarify, when you make the dogmatic statement ” God created evolution”
      What do you mean by the ambivalent and purposely vague term “Evolution”
      Do you mean the Mindless MYO Mud To Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian Common ancestor for all the flora and fauna ever to exist on planet earth?
      OR
      are you talking about Variation, Adaptation, or “Micro” Evolution like finches beaks, dogs ears, moth colors, bear coats and other changes allready present in the DNA genome of each created kind….

      Look forward to your clarification. Blitzking

    • Peacharoo

      Just to clarify, when you make the dogmatic statement ” God created evolution”
      What do you mean by the ambivalent and purposely vague term “Evolution”
      Do you mean the Mindless MYO Mud To Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian Common ancestor for all the flora and fauna ever to exist on planet earth?
      OR
      are you talking about Variation, Adaptation, or “Micro” Evolution like finches beaks, dogs ears, moth colors, bear coats and other changes allready present in the DNA genome of each created kind….

      Look forward to your clarification. Blitzking

      • John G. McNeil

        Peacharoo:

        I’m just now seeing your response nearly a month after the initial exchange.

        Let’s simply apply Ockham’s razor here. Your first posit of “evolution” is not one embraced by other than very basic biochemical scientists. That we arrived at our current state through abiogenesis or that all flora and fauna emanated from a common paleoprogenitor are theories not held by serious scientists or philosophers. These are classified by most as evolutionary “myths”.

        My point: there would be no genomes at all without God; even the simplest and earliest single-stranded RNA genomes from billions of years ago. There would be no starting place for life of any kind without God. There would be no changes to the makeup of anything (evolution, in you will) without God. We are not who we are, and all living matter is not what it is, based on a series of stochastic events leading to preferred levels of bio-fitness. Such a process from simple single-stranded RNA (or less, say undifferentiated oligonucleotides) to our extant human genome would take trillions of years, not billions of years, and more than likely would have resulted in bio-extinguishment many times over given the severe changes in our environment over the life span of the earth (i.e.what existed in any given point in time would have been undone by the rapid and harsh physical consequences of the environment not previously present during stochastic fitness changes).

        Might I add, respectfully, it serves no benefit to your position to insert pejorative adjectives like dogmatic, ambivalent, vague and mindless in addressing another’s position (in this case, these aren’t even my positions, but your own inferential assertions). It only serves to dampen or extinguish the discourse. I hope that is not in keeping with your philosophy, “Blitz”king?

        • Peacharoo

          OK. What are you trying to say?

          By the way, as for your “are theories not held by serious scientists or philosophers.”
          Did you conduct a poll to determine what theories are held and by which scientists? Also, What was your criteria for deciding which scientists are “Serious” and which ones are not, Were YOU the judge of that?

          “it serves no benefit to your position to insert pejorative adjectives like dogmatic, ambivalent, vague and mindless

          The word “Evolution” is Completely Ambivalent and Vague, should I use a thesaurus and hunt for better words??
          The words Mindless and Dogmatic are very accurate as well..
          Remember..
          “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”
          Richard Dawkins..
          I hope I helped clear up your confusion
          Have a nice night.. Peach

        • Peacharoo

          Let’s simply apply Ockham’s razor here. Your first posit of “evolution”
          is not one embraced by other than very basic biochemical scientists.
          That we arrived at our current state through abiogenesis or that all
          flora and fauna emanated from a common paleoprogenitor are theories not
          held by serious scientists or philosophers. These are classified by most
          as evolutionary “myths”.

          NOT IN ONE SINGLE PUBLIC SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASS ARE THEY CLASSIFIED AS “MYTHS”

          AND I STAND BY MY COMMENTS THAT THE WORD “EVOLUTION” IS IN ITSELF PURPOSELY DUPLICITOUS, AMBIVALENT, AND VAGUE..

          I CAN EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS TO YOU IF YOU LIKE
          REGARDS BK

        • Peacharoo

          So you ARE or ARE NOT a Theistic Evolutionist?
          You are being VAGUE.. Sorry if I use that term but
          I dont know what else to say..

          Just to clarify, when you make the statement ” God created evolution” What do you mean by “Evolution” Do you mean the Mindless MYO Mud To Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian Common ancestor for all the flora and fauna ever to exist on planet earth?
          OR

          Are you talking about Variation, Adaptation, or “Micro” Evolution like finches beaks, dogs ears, moth colors, bear coats and other changes allready present in the DNA genome of each created kind….

          Look forward to your clarification. Blitzking

        • Peacharoo

          Jesus said

          “in the beginning he created them male and female”

          I will go with what Jesus said before I believe brainwashed fools anyday of the week..

          “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

          Richard Dawkins

          MERRY CHRISTMAS

  • Joe Ser

    Because a priori he rules it out. He knows the inference and would rather be in denial.

  • micheal

    I’m sorry but really. Bill nye is a cluck without any doubt but I am sick and tired of the tired arguments brought out against Darwin by even more specious clucks pushing creationism and other biblical nonsense. Darwin came up with a theory based almost entirely on observation because the ability to test his theories weren’t available and wouldn’t be for over a century. He wasn’t even aware of Mendel’s work in genetics. Given what he had to work with, his theory has stood up quite well and has been merely improved on by recent scientific discovery. Before Darwin, there was the Lamarckian theory of evolution which oddly now elements might actually prove to be correct. Point being that scientific theories are continuously developing entities but at least they are available for editing. Seems the theory you creationists cling to is not so so much. That is called closed minded in most circles of polite society.

  • Moo

    Why don’t you ask the millions who perish or are left disabled as a result of tiny genetic mutations how’s perfectly designed they are by their loving Creator.

    • UtMadman

      Guess you didn’t read the part about perfection…or the lack thereof. Much like that sentence…

    • philip gunby

      You are here for one reason. To “fear God and keep his commandments” thru Adam we were subjected to vanity and even death. Dont believe in JESUS ? All the movies do listen carefully and you will hear his name mentioned in almost every movie. His word says do not take HIS name in vain. His word says hollowed (pure) is his name. Dont you think its strange people curse only his name. ?? The movies use his name because there is power in it. It strikes the air.

    • Peacharoo

      We are a copy off of a copy off of a copy (ad nauseum) It is amazing we are in the shape that we are in..
      Besides, you have some preconceived notion that the temporary tent that we live to house our spirit while we choose to accept or reject our creator and his truth has to be perfect (according to you in all of your infinite wisdom..)

  • pcantidote

    I’m sorry, but I cannot regard anyone who believes in a god as being a critical thinker or intelligent. Book smart, perhaps, but not intelligent.

    • Thomas Weiss

      Right, Issac Newton was such an idiot….

      • pcantidote

        Newton lived in a much different time with much different access to information. Even still, he was considered a heretic because he challenged the conventional dogmas. A man of his intellect today would be an atheist.

        • Firewagon

          Same nonsensical response attributed to George Washington, who stated: “It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme being.”

          Through some “natural selection” humans acquired the capability to reason, while other animals did not? Me thinketh that ‘natural selection’/Darwinist subscribers are ‘without reason.’

        • Thomas Weiss

          Quite the reverse, Newton lived in a time when the universe was perceived as static…..
          he would have gone wild with joy watching big bang cosmology being proven and likely would have contribute greatly……
          Can you imagine him being able to (as we are today) come within a billionth of a second of the creation event? Realistically believing just 4 of the 9 perceived dimensions uncurled…..
          Can you imagine Newton having obvious proof in his grasp that the exquisite order he was able to recognize/define and explain to the world was the result of an incomprehensibly hot, inconceivably dense particle exploding in an unthinkably cataclysmic, yet controlled manner??

          In light of mathematical probability only an agenda driven insipid goon would categorize himself as “A-theist””…..save your dignity and make the leap to agnostic…

          • pcantidote

            It is so cute when you talk about mathematical probabilities and magic men in the sky in the same argument. SMH.

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”” believing in magic men in the sky.”””

            LOL we don’t…we
            believe the reality we perceive being length, width and height plus time
            had a beginning, (Hawking/Penrose claim they proved time “began”) and
            that beginning is commonly refereed to as the Big bang….
            We believe
            that for something to begin to exist there must be an entity (prime
            mover-beginner-creator) that must exist outside of what was created, in
            other words that entity must “transcend” our perceived reality…..make
            sense?

            .

          • Peacharoo

            Darwinists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. Hypocrisy on Steroids.. In the beginning NOTHING Exploded and created all of the matter in the known universe// no “Magic” needed LOL Then, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines of specified / irreducibly complexity was able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water… when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical combinations CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE trying to create DNA,!!!! No “Magic” there ..LOL Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT.. Which was the “Order” for their “Evolution”? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all “Evolve” TOGETHER?? no “Magic” Required” LOL Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg?? OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for that “Proto” chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh?? Or How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo… No Magic required there…. I suggest you take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it.. I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori assumption that Abio / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of science (Which it is NOT) but because… “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist” RICHARD DAWKINS

          • pcantidote

            I don’t need Darwinism to be precisely, scientifically exact and true to be an atheist. I just need to know that it is childish to believe in a magic man in the sky because I cannot otherwise explain something.

          • Peacharoo

            “I don’t need Darwinism to be precisely, scientifically exact and true to be an Atheist”
            I believe you.. I also believe that even if all of the evidence in the world showed without a shadow of a doubt (which it DOES) that Darwinism is a Fraudulent Myth, You wouldn’t care one bit and would be an Atheist anyway

    • Eldjr

      Intelligently and critically consider:

      In scientific terms, please describe the process or event which caused the cosmological singularity to spontaneously transmute from infinitely entropic monodimensional stasis to multidimensional spacial expansion and material disambiguation;

      Given only a single dimension within which to exist, all potentialities were neutral being uniformly distributed, and in an ambiguous state:

      No imbalance in distribution means no ‘potential’ would be available for ‘work’: all would be at perfect ‘entropy’, or uniform composition, distribution, charge and temperature.

      This entropy would be infinite, because all ‘energy’ and ‘space’ would comprise a single dimensional ‘point’, at ‘infinite entropy’: perfect internal symmetry and balance.

      Following, that since there was no dimensional space within which this uniformly distributed ‘nothingness’ could disambiguate into heterogeneous particles of matter [possessing differentiated – opposing – charges and/or inequalities in composition or distribution of mass], there could be no generation of ‘physical forces’, all of which emanate from matter, or ‘particles’, which require multidimensional space to exist.

      Furthermore, since the proposed cosmological singularity contained not only all energy, but all ‘space’ as well – it also being in an undisambiguated state – there was nothing ‘outside’ of the singularity for the ‘nothingness’ – undisambiguated ‘potential’ – to push against: In order to go from “A” to “B” there has to exist a “B” to go to.

      So there was no potential [imbalance in distribution] either relative to internal [homogeneous and entropic] structure, nor in relation to external ‘space’, because NONE EXISTED “outside” of the singularity.

      That’s why it’s called a ‘singularity’; because – according to Big Bang cosmology – that’s all there was.

      Thus, there was no matter that could generate ‘physical force’; all potential-generating distributive inequalities of mass, temperature, charge [particles], or relative spacial distribution of aforementioned [requiring multidimensional space] were as-yet undisambiguated: the cosmological singularity, by definition, was at stasis: it was INERT.

      So, since we’re talking about reason and science, I reasonably and scientifically inquire:

      “What process or event caused the cosmological singularity to spontaneously transmute from infinitely entropic
      monodimensional stasis to multidimensional spacial expansion and material disambiguation?”

      Answer it, and win the Nobel Prize.

      • pcantidote

        Hopefully you just cut and pasted all that, because my answer is simple and should be quite obvious: Just because we cannot explain something with science, the answer then DOES NOT default to the answer being a god(s).

        • Eldjr

          didn’t cut or paste at all. What I shared is reason, and my point is that if a belief in something deemed impossible is faith, then those that believe in a self-generating universe have great faith; the only real difference is that the christian has faith in an intelligent Creator with the power and the will to act, while the materialist has nothing but a desire to live and die without consequence, and faith that it is so.

          There is an answer to the puzzle, though, and it’s hinted at by Isaiah, in chapter 46 [of the Christian Bible’s enumeration]:

          8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors.
          9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
          10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

          It would take an honest inquiry with – shall I call it scientific? – curiosity to compare the history of the prophetic Word with the history of human events. 150 years before the birth of Cyrus, God called him by name and declared that he would be the conqueror of Babylon. Just a single example among many.

          Lots of people won’t go to a doctor lest they be told something is wrong… It’s a common human response.

          • pcantidote

            Belief in a “self generating” universe is one thing, but belief in a magic man in the sky should have stopped around the same time as Santa and the Easter Bunny.

          • philip gunby

            Type in YouTube I went to hell. Listen to what these modern day prophets have to say.

          • pcantidote

            I hear hucksters trafficking in BS to sell books and youtube clicks.

          • Eldjr

            It’s only different because you need it to be 😉

      • UtMadman

        Great response, but you lost me at “undisambiguated.” Reminds me of a few German words I’ve heard. 🙂

        • Eldjr

          “Vielen Dank für Ihre freundlichen Worte!”

          ‘Undisambiguated’ is a technical term meaning ‘no difference between parts’. The root is ‘ambiguous’ meaning ‘undefined’.

          To ‘disambiguate’ is to define an undefined quantity or quality; if applied to a homogeneous object or group, the properties and/or characteristics of that object or group are specified in discrete terms [think of the difference between “it weighs 2,015 pounds, 9 ounces” versus “it weighs a lot”];

          If applied to a heterogeneous composition its components are specified as discriminate parts, each expressable as definite properties and/or characteristics [think Di-HydroMonoxide or H2O instead of “liquid”, “stainless steel washers, nuts, and bolts” instead of “hardware”, or protons, neutrons, electrons, muons, mesons, baryons, neutrinos, etc. instead of “matter”].

          The primoridial [‘pre-order’ or ‘first-order’] ‘singularity’ [being a one-dimensional, homogeneous quantity], would be in an undisambiguated state by definition. It would be incapable of spontaneous action, because no space would exist within which matter could disambiguate into discrete particles possessing inequalities in mass, charge or distribution – ergo – ‘potential energy’.

          Belief [faith] in such is only made plausible by the inescapable consequence of the alternative, creation by a Sovereign Creator possessing the authority to judge according to an unalterable law.

          And in order to make their proposition more believable, they lie about its properties, saying things like, “Before the Universe existed, all matter and space was compressed into a tiny point about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.” The truth is, though, that the “…period at the end..” exists in three-dimensional space: it has length, width, and depth – even if very small. This is done in order to give the undefinable a ‘plausible definition’ in the minds of the reader or hearer, though any scientist that knows anything about the concept will admit that the statement is a falsity; it’s just a convenient falsity that helps to sell the idea to the ignorant.

          But when you press the question home, they’re forced to admit that they believe in something that stands on no more authority than the confession of faith expressed by the Christian: “I believe…” without requiring the support of “natural” science, or “I do not believe…” though lacking evidence to the contrary [though there is measurable physical evidence for Creation, it is dismissed as ‘mysteries’ that [faith statement] will eventually be explained by “natural science” according to the “uniformitarian principle”.

          For some of this evidence, visit www. halos. com and look for the downloadable videos.

          For some books outlining a great many evidences visit evolutionfacts. com/Downloads. htm

        • Eldjr

          “Vielen Dank für Ihre freundlichen Worte!”

          ‘Undisambiguated’ is a technical term meaning ‘no difference between parts’. The root is ‘ambiguous’ meaning ‘undefined’.

          To ‘disambiguate’ is to define an undefined quantity or quality; if applied to a homogeneous object or group, the properties and/or characteristics of that object or group are specified in discrete terms
          [think of the difference between “it weighs 2,015 pounds, 9 ounces” versus “it weighs a lot”];

          If applied to a heterogeneous composition its components are specified as discriminate parts, each
          expressable as definite properties and/or characteristics [think Di-HydroMonoxide or H2O instead of “liquid”, “stainless steel washers, nuts, and bolts” instead of “hardware”, or protons, neutrons, electrons,muons, mesons, baryons, neutrinos, etc. instead of “matter”].

          The primoridial [‘pre-order’ or ‘first-order’] ‘singularity’ [being a one-dimensional, homogeneous quantity], would be in an undisambiguated state by definition. It would be incapable of spontaneous action, because no space would exist within which matter could disambiguate into discrete particles possessing inequalities in mass, charge or distribution – ergo – ‘potential energy’. It would not be conceptually unlike a hole filling itself in.

          Belief [faith] in such is only made plausible by the inescapable consequence of the alternative, creation by a Sovereign Creator possessing the authority to judge according to an unalterable law.

          And in order to make their proposition more believable, they lie about its properties, saying things like, “Before the Universe existed, all matter and space was compressed into a tiny point about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.”

          The truth is, though, that the “…period at the end..” exists in three-dimensional space: it has length, width, and depth – even if very small.

          This is done in order to give the undefinable a ‘plausible definition’ in the minds of the reader or hearer, though any scientist that knows anything about the concept – and will be honest – will admit that the statement is a falsity; it’s just a convenient falsity that helps to sell the idea to the ignorant.

          But when you press the question home, they’re forced to admit that they believe in something that stands on no more authority than the confession of faith expressed by the Christian: “I believe…” without requiring the support of “natural” science, or “I do not believe…” though lacking evidence to the contrary – though there is measurable physical evidence for Creation, it is dismissed as
          ‘mysteries’ that [faith statement] will eventually be explained by “natural science” according to the “uniformitarian principle”: “The present contains the key to the past”, or as Peter wrote:

          “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

          And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. [The ‘Uniformitarian Principle” – Eldjr]

          For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: [“Flood-deniers” – Eldjr]

          But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

          For some of this evidence, visit www. halos. com and look for the downloadable videos.

          For some books outlining a great many evidences visit evolutionfacts. com/Downloads. htm

    • NC

      I think this ignorant opinion says something of your intelligence…

    • Peacharoo

      Why don’t you just show me how Nothing becomes Dirt becomes DNA becomes worms becomes fish becomes Rat becomes Ape becomes SUPER Ape (YOU) unguided over Billions of Years…

      Now.. Don’t forget to show me by utilizing the Empirical Scientific Method, You do know about the Empirical Scientific Method is, Don’t you?

      You do know that your hopes, dreams, and opinions are not part of Science don’t you?

      You do realize that is the EXACT reason the Empirical Scientific Method was invented don’t you?

      So as to prevent snake oil salesmen like yourself to go around inventing ridiculous fairy tales and
      claiming that they are true just because you and other like minded people with a neurotic agreement
      say so..

      You do realize that is why if something is not subject to the Empirical Scientific Method then….
      (And here is the bad news)

      IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE..!

      • pcantidote

        I don’t have to know precisely how it works. All I have to know is that the unknown does NOT default to the answer being some magic man in the sky. That should be obvious.

        • Peacharoo

          Actually, we aren’t talking about the “Unknown” we KNOW that a self replicating DNA molecule is encoded with millions of lines of specified and irreducible complexity.. We KNOW that scientists, with all of their technology, knowledge, resources, have the ability to artificially manipulate environments and chemicals nearly any way possible, But they CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA..

          So we are supposed to pretend that Dirt, Air, Heat, and Water Mindlessly Created DNA by chance just to keep the ACLU and Richard Dawkins happy?

          “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

          RICHARD DAWKINS

  • Curtis Cunningham

    If evolution is the answer then can all land mammals evolve back into fish giving a long enough time frame?

    • IamLostHere

      Isn’t evolution about survival of the fittest? If needed, why would it be farfetched to think that maybe one day all mammals in one shape or form might evolve into a sea-based creature?

      • Curtis Cunningham

        For that to happen your DNA would have to mutate either by substitution, insertion. DNA deletion or frameshift would not produce the mutation on its own. You would need to procreate with a species that contained the DNA to produce say gills. Our reproductive process is not compatible with these sort of species so we cannot “evolve” gills.

    • If you mean go back to the water, then whales are an example.

      • Curtis Cunningham

        False. The whale is a completely different purpose made species. We would need to be able to grow a fluke and fins to devolve back to the ocean. For that to happen your DNA would have to mutate either by substitution, insertion. DNA deletion or frameshift would not produce the mutation on its own. You would need to procreate with a species that contained the DNA that creates flukes and fins . Our reproductive process is not compatible with these sort of species so we cannot “evolve” into whales.

        • Devolve? That’s not quite the way the biologists describe it. And I imagine that they’d agree with you that humans evolving into whales isn’t going to happen.

  • Kristin Johns

    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…

    • Bringing the Bible to a discussion about science? Not very helpful.

    • Reham Kcirtap

      So one specific religion out of thousands of available options is right? Try not to be so dumb. I know it’s hard but give it a shot

      • Kristin Johns

        Just like investing in the right stock is right or wrong, it will go up or go down, we will do likewise based on our assessment of all the information that is available about the various religions. Or we can ignore the facts and hope eternity does not exist.

      • Thomas Weiss

        So you would put Catholicism (which gave western civilization the hospital system as we know it today…the University system as we know it today) on the same level as the Polynesian Earth Diver Turtle God?

  • Gary Russell

    My whole theory against evolution evolves around the basic premise that all along the evolutionary time line somebody left a sandwich so everything could survive. You know the odds of an available food source is tremendously high.

    • Reham Kcirtap

      That makes no sense.

      • Gary Russell

        Sorry if it flew over your head.

    • pcantidote

      Who left the sandwich for God while he was designing everything?

      • Gary Russell

        Really, that’s all you got?

      • DrewTwoFish

        And was it kosher?

  • Jim

    If we are here because of evolution, or the Darwinian version, survival of the fittest, why do we sleep? In fact, I’m not aware of any animal that doesn’t sleep. Sleep is when we are at our most vulnerable. Wouldn’t natural selection favor those who can function best with less sleep? Over the billions of years it supposedly took to go from a single cell to a fully functioning human, wouldn’t sleep be one of the 1st traits we would lose along the way?

    • Firewagon

      Question being, as pointed out in the article, why would any “single cell” ‘decide(?)’ it needed to “naturally select,” improve to, anything else?

      • ApostateltsopA

        Dude, cells do not decide to evolve. They replicate. Sometimes a replication produces a mutation, sometimes those mutations are harmful and the offspring die. Sometimes the mutation is advantageous and those offspring do better than their competition.

        Repeat, repeat, repeat and eventually you get all kinds of neat things.

        The little flaws you lot think are arguments against evolution are actually arguments for it. A designer would make something streamlined and simple. Evolution doesn’t have a goal, all it does is preserve what works well enough.

  • Evolution is the scientific consensus. Deal with it.

    • Firewagon

      What, when, where, who consensus? A kindergarten child has a better explanation to ‘debunk’ “evolution,” by simply answering a test question: “What were the first two cells?” Answer: “Lonely!”

      Natural selection? NATURAL SELECTION?! Explain to that kindergartner how those first two cells “naturally selected each other,” from throughout the universe. “Scientists” are just ‘slightly’ less ignorant than the rest of myopic mankind! Deal with it.

      • The consensus within biology.

        I could jump in to discuss your puzzlers with you, but why bother? You don’t care what I have to say. If you’re genuinely curious, you can read up on evolution in a textbook.

    • Gary Russell

      You mean like the consensus that the world was flat. Didn’t work out quite well did it.

      • That’s probably my fault for not being clear. I’m talking about modern science from, say, 1800 onwards.

        If your point is that sometimes science is wrong, that’s true. We laymen are still stuck with science’s consensus views as our best provisional statements of the truth.

        • Thomas Weiss

          What as your perception of the composition of the universe prior to the discovery of dark energy less than 20 years ago?…were you 90% mistaken just 20 years ago?

          • Your point is that science is incomplete? I agree. Good thing the scientists are still hard at work.

            Science is still our best avenue for understanding reality.

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”Your point is that science is incomplete?”””

            Actually my point is they are flatly wrong a large % of the time but try so hard to create the impression that anyone that disagrees with them is neanderthal…

          • pcantidote

            Right or wrong, it still doesn’t mean that there is some magic man in the sky.

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”” believing in magic men in the sky.”””

            LOL we don’t…we
            believe the reality we perceive being length, width and height plus time
            had a beginning, (Hawking/Penrose claim they proved time “began”) and
            that beginning is commonly refereed to as the Big bang….
            We believe
            that for something to begin to exist there must be an entity (prime
            mover-beginner-creator) that must exist outside of what was created, in
            other words that entity must “transcend” our perceived reality…..make
            sense?

            Magic man in the sky?….lol hardly

          • pcantidote

            So then you are willing to say that all modern religions are complete BS right?

          • Thomas Weiss

            Could you please explain how you arrive at that conclusion from my statement…?

          • The_REAL_Voice_of_Reason

            I’m betting wishful thinking.

          • jsplegge

            No, that’s pretty much the invisible sky daddy.

            The God of the Gaps is getting smaller and smaller. We see how things work, and there’s no room for God in there. We’ve pushed that back to the Big Bang. There’s no reason to suppose that it can’t be pushed back even more. (See “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss.)

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”We’ve pushed that back to the Big Bang.””

            what does that mean exactly?….I see Big Bang theory as the mortal enemy of the atheist….

            AH, the Gaps are getting wider not smaller…..

            And BTW Krauss’ book/theory is laughable nonsense dis proven mathematically, scientifically and philosophically…its another desperate attempt to placate atheists who are getting their ears pinned back more every single year…

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”No, that’s pretty much the invisible sky daddy.”””

            You must not have understood what I wrote……

          • I’d be curious to hear the statistics of how wrong they are, but considering that we’re using computers to communicate via the internet, which runs on electricity, and is all grounded by science, it is ironic that you seem so skeptical of science’s benefit.

            And I’m still waiting for something better than science.

          • Thomas Weiss

            What on earth would make you think I have a problem with the benefits humankind has gotten from science.?
            If theres something I said that makes you think I have a problem with science itself, by all means point that out….and be specific….

          • Peacharoo

            These guys just love to smuggle their Religion of Chucky into the realm of Science where it doesn’t belong…. Talk about Bait and Switch!! There are actually laws against what these guys are pulling in every public school in America… But Mob Rule and the ACLU are tough to fight.. Abiogenisis / Darwinism is a rotting dead dogs carcass ready to be swept off of the road, The only reason it is still around is not because of Science.. It has everything to do with what Richard Dawkins said..
            “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”
            And THAT is the only reason Darwinism was ever invented..
            It NEVER had ANYTHING to do with Science!!!!
            On a side note.. I would be wary of Hugh Ross… Just a word of caution..

          • The_REAL_Voice_of_Reason

            If they weren’t wrong there would be no reason for them to continue to work.

            You know….kind of like they want to do with global warming/cooling/snowing/meteor swarming…….

          • Ah, yes. Yet another scientific consensus. Show me something better than science.

            If warming vs. cooling is truly an interesting thing for you rather than just a meaningless one-liner, look up what scientists say about that.

          • Peacharoo

            You keep making the mistake of conflating Abiogenesis / Darwinism with Science..
            Electricity is based on REAL Science (You know, the EMPIRICAL kind..) Not a religious belief off Metaphysical Naturalism based on wishful assumptions, hopeful opinions and unverified hypotheses..

            Why don’t you just show me how Nothing becomes Dirt becomes DNA becomes worms becomes fish becomes Rat becomes Ape becomes SUPER Ape (YOU) unguided over Billions of Years…

            Now.. Don’t forget to show me by utilizing the Empirical Scientific Method, You do know about the Empirical Scientific Method is, Don’t you?

            You do know that your hopes, dreams, and opinions are not part of Science don’t you?

            You do realize that is the EXACT reason the Empirical Scientific Method was invented don’t you?

            So as to prevent snake oil salesmen like yourself to go around inventing ridiculous fairy tales and
            claiming that they are true just because you and other like minded people with a neurotic agreement
            say so..

            You do realize that is why if something is not subject to the Empirical Scientific Method then….
            (And here is the bad news)

            IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE..!

    • Kristin Johns

      There are plenty of scientists who believe in creation.

      • But how many biologists?

        It’s the overwhelming consensus of biologists.

        • Thomas Weiss

          Currently about 25%, in 1970 it was sbout 1%, but since then mathmatics has gradually been introduced into the graduate curriculum.

          • Interesting! Show me the source of that.

          • Thomas Weiss

            It came from a PhD astrophysicist by the name of Dr. Hugh Ross.

          • In fact, I attend a local Reasons to Believe group. I have very little respect for Dr. Ross as a biologist because, y’know, he’s not one.

            But perhaps he has some survey data of people who actually do matter on this question. Give me a link if you have one. “Dr. Ross says so” counts for nothing.

          • Thomas Weiss

            The statement is in my notes from a lecture I attended by Dr. Ross in Southern California.

            Are you saying Dr. Ross is incorrect or are you saying he didn’t say it?

            If its the later, your RTB friends should be able to help you find it….if you think I’m going to find a link for you, think again…

          • Are you saying Dr. Ross is incorrect or are you saying he didn’t say it?

            The former. I find that he’s incorrect about a great many things.

            ….if you think I’m going to find a link for you, think again…

            I did think that, but thanks for correcting me. I’ll try to remember to not ask you to back up your statements in the future. Apologies.

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”I did think that, but thanks for correcting me. I’ll try to remember to
            not ask you to back up your statements in the future. Apologies.”””

            Back up this one for me….

            “”Right. Because evolution has nothing to do with galaxies.”””

          • Uh … because evolution doesn’t have anything to do with galaxies? Is this a trick question or are you really confused about what biological evolution means?

          • Thomas Weiss

            Uh…you don’t believe the formation of the universe and its 100 billion galaxies including all the elements and chemical compounds would influence the viability of life springing from matter here on earth???

            Seriously?

            Maybe you think we could do without those other silly galaxies??

        • Kristin Johns

          For Albert Einstein, the great physicist that he was, the toughest intellectual barrier to the Christian faith was not the question of God creating the world due to the reason of cause and effect. He saw that the universe was an effect and it had to have a source. He saw that the universe was designed and it had to have a designer. He saw that it was ordered and it had to come out of an orderly mind. And so, Einstein concluded that there must be a mind behind the universe. He rejected the idea of matter simply bumping around endlessly in space until by random it formed itself into the universe that now exists. As he put it: “The universe reveals an intelligence of such superiority that it overshadows all human intelligence.”

          • I don’t know that Einstein was much of a champion of Christianity. The fact remains: evolution is the scientific consensus. I’m a layman, and I have no choice but to accept it. From what platform could I possibly reject it??

          • Peacharoo

            From the platform that it is impossible,, Unless you can explain how Man’s 10 INTERDEPENDANT vital organs could have slowly “evolved” Separately over billions of years… which came first? The stomach? the brain? just give us some thing PLAUSABLE!!!!

          • So you’re a layman, and yet you’re going to set yourself up as Judge of All Science® and declare which scientific theories are nonsense? Wow–I’ve met some arrogant people, but I think you’re their king.

            If you actually want to find out how evolution works (here, I’m speaking to the lurkers since I’m certain you have no interest), I suggest reading a textbook. You just need to have curiosity and an open mind (again, not much to ask of most people).

          • Peacharoo

            Listen, I know quite a lot more about “evolution” than you appear to think I do.. all I have EVER asked for over the last 40 years are a few examples of Empirical Scientific Evidence to support the hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth! Is THAT too much to ask in your opinion?No Textbook, Scientist, Biologist, Professor, Paleontologist, website or anything or anyone else has EVER been able to provide it for me!! Now.. Will YOU be the FIRST?? Remember, No story telling allowed, because I will put what you say under the microscope for all the lurkers to see here! I’m sure you remember what the empirical Scientific Method is… I cant wait, this will be a learning experience for all of us!!
            Regards Blitzking

          • No Textbook, Scientist, Biologist, Professor, Paleontologist, website or anything or anyone else has EVER been able to provide it for me!!

            If your goal is to find out why evolution is the scientific consensus, I’m certain that a good textbook is the answer.

            My guess however is that you have no interest in retiring your questions. You simply want to get into a debate with another amateur. Kind of a waste of time, I think, when there actually are experts who can explain it to you.

          • Peacharoo

            “If your goal is to find out why evolution is the scientific consensus, I’m certain that a good textbook is the answer.”

            Well, sorry to burst your bubble of “Certainty” I have read Biology and many other textbooks till im blue in the face and NONE of them have ANY Empirical Scientific Evidence to support the hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all the flora and fauna either extant or extinct on planet Earth..

            Just be honest and admit that you just have a religious belief in Metaphysical Naturalism and have no Empirical Evidence to support your Godless pagan religion of Chuck..

            Remember, The ONLY reason Abiogenesis / Darwinism was ever invented was to try to remove the Judeo Christian God of the Bible from man’s conscience…. It has ZERO to do with Science.. It Never Did….

            “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”

            RICHARD DAWKINS

          • I have read Biology and many other textbooks till im blue in the face and NONE of them have ANY Empirical Scientific Evidence to support the hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis

            Why would you expect to find abiogenesis in a discussion of evolution? Two very different things.

            Just be honest and admit that you just have a religious belief in Metaphysical Naturalism and have no Empirical Evidence to support your Godless pagan religion of Chuck..

            Nice bluster … and yet evolution remains the scientific consensus. I’m dying to hear why you think you’re smart enough to dismiss the consensus of an entire scientific discipline that you don’t have a doctorate in. Face it: you’re not qualified to evaluate the evidence.

            Christians would do themselves a favor by not picking and choosing their science based on how it makes them feel.

    • Thomas Weiss

      Haha in Darwins day scientific concensus presumed what we now know as the Milky Way galaxy encompased the entire universe…….could “science” possibly have been more mistaken by gargantuan proportion?

      they were even off on the simple composition of the universe by 98%….

      • jsplegge

        Science doesn’t come out of the box saying “we know everything and it’s never going to change”. That’s what religion does.

        Science says “here’s how we think things are based on the evidence we have at this time”. You know, room for improvement.

        • Thomas Weiss

          the exact opposite is true on both counts….

      • Yeah, I get it. The science changes. Show me something more reliable.

        • Thomas Weiss

          If you think its simply that “the science changes” then no you really don’t get it…

          Darwin and his contemporaries were wrong on an incomprehensible magnitude….

          In this instance they were off by roughly 100 billion galaxies……..

          Do mistakes come any bigger than that?

          But I think you’re defensively hard headed, and what I just told you won’t matter at all.

          • what I just told you won’t matter at all.

            Right. Because evolution has nothing to do with galaxies.

          • Thomas Weiss

            The point you missing is that “science” has proven itself to be laughably incompetent over the centuries…especially at prediction…

          • The point you missing is that “science” has proven itself to be laughably incompetent over the centuries…especially at prediction…

            Wow—I was way off! I thought we were talking about evolution and galaxies. Boy, do I feel stupid now.

            But you’ve set me facing in the right direction now, so thanks for that. Now we’re talking about (1) science is “incompetent” and (2) science is bad at prediction.

            (1) A mountain of examples of what science has done (for example, each year’s Science Top 10 lists) leaps to mind, but I imagine you’re familiar with the amazing things that science has done and somehow still find science incompetent. I’m not sure how we can proceed. But show me what you’re using instead, since science sucks so badly.

            (2) Bad at prediction? You mean like predicting the Higgs boson? Or predicting Tiktaalik? Those seemed to be pretty impressive. Or did you have something else in mind?

          • Thomas Weiss

            I mean like the Earth is flat…

            Like the Milky Way encompass’ the entire Universe….

            Like the Universe is static…you know, the really BIG things….

          • You’re all over the map, which I imagine is deliberate.

            I presume this is supposed to be a list of places where science got it wrong. Yes, science got it wrong, but that hasn’t been happening as much since the modern science about 200 years ago.

            And I await, with no expectation of satisfaction, the discipline that you’d prefer to use against science.

            Since you seem to have nothing better than science, just admit it so I don’t have to keep bringing it up and embarrassing you.

          • Thomas Weiss

            This may be beyond you, but what I’m emphasizing is the incomprehensibly enormously incorrect postulations that “science” has forced civilization….

            Neo Darwinism will not survive 21st century biology…

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”! I thought we were talking about evolution and galaxies”””

            If thats what you thought, re read the beginning of this thread

          • ”I thought we were talking about evolution and galaxies”
            If thats what you thought, re read the beginning of this thread

            You said: “Darwin and his contemporaries were wrong on an incomprehensible magnitude….
            In this instance they were off by roughly 100 billion galaxies……..
            Do mistakes come any bigger than that?”

            Yep, we were talking about evolution and galaxies, just like I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.

          • Thomas Weiss

            “””Yep, we were talking about evolution and galaxies, just like I thought. Thanks for the confirmation.””

            lol this is what you opened with and I responded to….

            “Evolution is the scientific consensus. Deal with it.””””

            This does seem difficult for you….

    • NC

      An appeal to authority isn’t a convincing argument.

      • Agreed. Good thing I didn’t make that error.

        “The scientific consensus is X” isn’t an appeal to authority.

        And, while we’re chatting, you got anything you’d recommend instead of science?

        • NC

          You’re using the consensus as if it constitutes a sufficient reason to reject any opposition to Darwinism…

          • Laypeople opposing evolution? What does that even mean? It’d be like me barging into an operating room to chat with the surgeon about my ideas about medicine (and I’m not a doctor).

            The scientific community is where critique of evolution goes.

          • Eldjr

            www. halos. com

          • Like I said, the scientific community is where critique of evolution should happen.

          • Eldjr

            To exclude discussion elsewhere? nah…

            Eventually even that would er… evolve into ‘only people with university degrees should discuss it’, and then, ‘only people with university degrees that adhere to the fundamental uniformitarian premise should discuss it’. Think about the free and open discussion being like the Protestant Reformation vs. the Roman Church’s thought-control system.

            In Galileo’s time, only those opinions or analyses that hewed to the Church’s line were granted the imprimateur and nihils obstat; other or varying opinions were called, ‘heresy’ and punished [rather like some Progressives would like Androgenic Climate Change deniers punished].

          • To exclude discussion elsewhere?

            Certainly not. It’d be great for the public to be better educated about science. I’m simply saying that if you’re not an expert in a scientific field (biology, in this case), don’t flatter yourself that your conclusion can trump the scientific consensus.

            Eventually even that would er… evolve into ‘only people with university degrees should discuss it’,

            Obviously not what I’m saying.

          • Peacharoo

            You keep making the mistake of conflating Abiogenesis / Darwinism with Science..

            Why don’t you just show me how Nothing becomes Dirt becomes DNA becomes worms becomes fish becomes Rat becomes Ape becomes SUPER Ape (YOU) unguided over Billions of Years…

            Now.. Don’t forget to show me by utilizing the Empirical Scientific Method, You do know about the Empirical Scientific Method is, Don’t you?

            You do know that your hopes, dreams, and opinions are not part of Science don’t you?

            You do realize that is the EXACT reason the Empirical Scientific Method was invented don’t you?

            So as to prevent snake oil salesmen like yourself to go around inventing ridiculous fairy tales and
            claiming that they are true just because you and other like minded people with a neurotic agreement
            say so..

            You do realize that is why if something is not subject to the Empirical Scientific Method then….
            (And here is the bad news)

            IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE..!

          • You keep making the mistake of conflating Abiogenesis / Darwinism with Science..

            (1) I doubt it. I’m quite clear on the difference.

            (2) Even though we’re laymen, let’s not use baby words. The theory within biology is called “evolution.”

            Why don’t you just show me how Nothing becomes Dirt becomes DNA

            I can’t. Is this relevant? Does it shock you that science has unanswered questions?

            And BTW, it’s a bold assumption that “Nothing” is the starting point. Might be true. Might not be.

            snake oil salesmen like yourself

            I’m a layman who insists on following the scientific consensus as our best provisional statement of the truth that we have. Yeah—that cautious attitude is identical to “snake oil salesman.”

    • Peacharoo

      “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
      “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
      “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
      [Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
      “… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

      • In science consensus is irrelevant.

        Sounds pretty relevant to me. How else are we laymen going to know what they’ve figured out except by learning the consensus?

        The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

        … and then made a (dare I say it?) new consensus?

        Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.

        But is it the consensus of scientists that the sun is 93M miles away? And isn’t my saying, “The sun is 93M miles away” identical to and grounded on, “The scientific consensus is that the sun is 93M miles away”?

  • Korean_Vet

    I still believe that the “Bumble Bee Theory” is the best Rejection of Darwin’s Theory-! “Engineers should all Agree–that
    the Structure of the Bumble Bee Is too heavy “Percentage-wise to Fly”-! It’s Percentage in Weight doesn’t give it any
    advantages at all for it’s Wing-size–“But Don’t Stop It from Flying”–They’ve Got a Stinger–That says “Let Me Alone”–I
    “Know My Business–Take Care of Yours”-! (That’s one of the Best Simple Examples I Know of–‘just to keep it simple’-! )

    • Reham Kcirtap

      You’re an idiot as well. If a bumble bee couldn’t fly it wouldn’t be flying

      • Thomas Weiss

        A very stupid reply to a thoughtful statement indeed….

        • Eastern_girl

          It’s all he has, don’t destroy his worldview that protects him from thinking.

      • Josiah Luke Spencer

        Everyone knows that the Bumble Bee baffles engineers.

        • jsplegge

          No, it doesn’t.

          It wasn’t clear for some time how it generated the lift it needed to fly, but guess what? We got smarter and figured it out. Science. It, like, PROGRESSES. Unlike certain 2000+ year old beliefs.

          • Thomas Weiss

            “”We got smarter and figured it out.””

            Very anxious to hear that!!

  • Firewagon

    Somebody said, “bringing the Bible into a scientific discussion is not helpful.”

    Problem with man is leaving the Bible out of any discussion, scientific in particular. Problem in most of our schools today, mindless indoctrination versus acquiring the ‘ability’ to think. Issues plaguing America, today, from crime to the decimation of the American family, is directly attributable to the systematic removal of God from our ever “evolving” secular society – and that society is evolving in the wrong direction!

    Evolutionary, if you prefer, man will always struggle with “theory/ies” about how/where from man came to be. The clue: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1 Corinthians 13:12

    As with “doubting Thomas,” too many today want ‘proof’ of God in some physical manner. They will believe anyone or thing that removes the thought that all knowledgeable man is answerable to some higher power. “Believing” God made man in His own image, tells ‘scientists’ we evolved NOT from some amoeba slime.

    Putting your trust in some “man theory” is somewhat akin to a criminal defendant, on trial for his life, desiring to be his own attorney, he simply has a “fool” for a client.

    “Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” John 20:29

    “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24 – I would opine that problem applies also to the “intellectual academic” that would ‘think’ his way OUT of heaven!

    • Reham Kcirtap

      You’re an idiot

      • Firewagon

        Concise, and to the point. If I can make it through the eye of that needle by being “an idiot,” gladly accepted!

        You seem to have quite the affinity for labeling people as idiots. Just guessing you consider yourself something less than an idiot, or more of an idiot?

        Borrowing from a fav line in a movie in response to “you’re an idiot:” Yes sir, in my case the result of being labeled such because of having “faith.” In your case, well sir, you are a self-made man!

        • The_REAL_Voice_of_Reason

          Projection. It’s all they have once the curtain is thrown back and they get exposed.

          Pearls and swine. Thankfully my salvation hinges not on theirs.

      • Eastern_girl

        I think you’ve convinced a lot of people with your detailed argument.

    • NC

      Bringing this into an Intelligent Design discussion is not beneficial because it confuses the basis of the argument because it is a science-based argument! Not one derived from the authority of the bible! You don’t need the bible to disprove evolution.

      • Eldjr

        Both the Bible and materialism come up against the same question at the last: Why do I – why does anything – exist? Observation of the universe without accounting for the One “…upholding all things by the Word of His power” can only result in unanswerable mystery.

        Navigating the wonder of the natural universe without acknowledging its Creator is like trying to use a map with no legend or orientational reference. One may, based upon faulty orientation, make all the correct turns and end up hopelessly lost.

        Such were the Gnostics who, though pursuing knowledge [gnosis], nevertheless ended up in superstitious confusion and absurdity; “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”.

        Let us face the truth that, no matter how solidly-grounded-in-science a line of argument might be, there is a fundamental abhorrence of the knowledge of God at operation in ‘the children of disobedience’ which, like a puddle of mercury, will fastidiously evade any attempt to ‘pin it down’. “the heart [of man] is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked [‘out-of-the-way’], who can know it?”

        Let science and reason have their place, no-one that refuses to acknowledge the existence of a Creator will do so until they are brought to their knees before the great, white throne – and even then they will rather defiantly die than repent. Many of such would declare so now if asked.

        But if the argument is only for the purpose of proving this or that fact; for proving ‘the science’ while omitting ‘the weightier matter’, of Divine purpose as fulfilled in “Intelligent Design”, then it’s so much chaff and vanity.

        Never discourage one from presenting the portion of truth that they’ve been given; it may be unpalatable and meaningless to many, but for some – even one – it could be ‘the savor of life unto Life’. Unto such perhaps the Master will declare, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of your Lord”.

        • Justin May

          What creator do you allude to? I am curious. Do you believe DNA material was seeded? Or something spoke life into existence? Either way I see no evidence either way, but given time the answers will be known. Have a wonderful evening.

          • Eastern_girl

            Dawkins believes that there’s a possibility that aliens came and brought DNA with them. See the end of Ben Stein’s “Expelled”. Whatever allows him to keep the faith that there’s no god. Even in the face of much conflicting evidence.

        • NC

          I respectfully disagree. If you can establish, through scientific methods, that the Creator is the God of the Bible – without relying solely on the authority of the Bible – then I would agree with you.

          To feel that this must come into a scientific discussion is not ideal as then you could justifiably bring all manner of metaphysics into scientific arguments, as atheists and materialists have regrettably done. It muddies the basis of scientific conclusions! It would decrease the credibility of Intelligent Design as being an argument from authority rather than one from the scientific evidence.

          I believe in the truth of the bible but do not believe it can it be established through purely scientific means. It is backed up through historical evidence, its internal harmony& prophecies, among other reasons…

          • Eldjr

            When one employs phrases like “purely scientific means” the underlying presumption of materialism usually rests at the foundation. This presupposition itself is not ‘purely scientific’, unless – as I have noted – the word ‘science’ is organically joined to ‘naturalism’ or ‘uniformitarianism’.

            If history may be considered a ‘scientific’ discipline, then comparison of history with prophecy would be a measurable indicator that information is being made available from outside the 4-dimensional limitations of the physical universe, IF it can be also historically shown that the prophetic Word was recorded prior to the fulfillment of the predicted events.

            The Creator challenges the ‘transgressor’ to precisely this in these words recorded by Isaiah in chapter 46:8-10

            “Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

            Disbelief in ‘predictive prophecy’ is an orientation from which many dismiss its witnessing authority,. but such ‘scientific [naturalistic] skepticism’ itself occludes any claim to ‘pure science’, and becomes a self-closing rationale essentially appealing to its presupposed unbelief as evidential of its rationality: “I do not accept predictive prophecy because it violates naturalistic/material science, and cannot be true; therefore, it is not.”

            Pure science – if we intend to say, “pure from presupposed bias” – would investigate these things with no intention of either proving or falsifying their claim to credibility. “Pure Science”, however, is exceedingly rare, when the investigator’s “deceitful and desperately wicked” heart is calling him to begin with denying the authenticity of the Holy bible and it’s prophetic/historical record.

            There are no neutral parties, and the ‘scientific’ consideration of Intelligent Design cannot be rationally bifurcated from its moral implications, because what follows the syllogistic rationale [If A=B and B=C then A=C] cannot be dismissed as a purely academic consideration.

          • NC

            I see your point, one step at a time though I think! Only after Armageddon could such a dream become a reality… Daniel 2:44

  • Jim

    Only the ignorant or dishonest deny evolution. That we all descend from a common ancestor is a fact. Deal with it. There is no refuting it.

    • Kristin Johns

      Yes, his name is Adam

      • Jim

        So, which are you? The ignorant or the dishonest?

      • Rudy R

        And what is your evidence for this belief?

        • Eldjr

          The fact that we all are one species [defined as “any interbreeding or potentially interbreeding organisms reproductively isolated from other such groups”] shows that we all came from a single mated pair of ancestors.

          • Rudy R

            Separate groups of organisms belonging to the same species may adapt in different ways to better exploit diverse environments or resources. They also may evolve varied characteristics for attracting mates. That is, different groups evolve in different directions. Over time, these groups or populations may become so different that they can no longer breed together–separate species are formed.

          • Eldjr

            The majority of your reply equates to a faith-statement based upon naturalistic conjecture, and poor understanding of the proposed function of ‘evolution’.

            ‘Evolution’ does not do anything “in order to”… anything. Purpose, foresight, problem-solving, decision-making [“selection”] all are functions of itellect, not chaos.

            There is no identifiable mechanism whereby a DNA molecule of any size can replicate without all of the necessary enzymes and structures in place. The enzymes themselves are encoded within the DNA; so what came first, the DNA that provides the coding for protein synthesis, or the enzymes without which synthesis is impossible? Will you say that they must have appeared at the same time, in the same place, in compatible forrms, because otherwise we wouldn’t be here?

            A faith-statement, not a scientific fact, as your contention that Australopithecus was an ancestor of Homo Sapiens sapiens is another, lacking the multitudinous interim developmental forms which should appear in the ‘fossil record’.

            So desperate is the ‘evolution’ community to find the ‘missing link’ that they’re prepared to swallow anything that might come along purporting to provide the evidence: I give you Piltdown and Nebraska Man; the former an outright forgery and fraud [found, incidentally, by the same man that supposedly ‘discovered’ a feathered flying lizard called ‘Archeopteryx”], and the latter a gross example of the kind of baseless extrapolation which claims both the anthropogenetic ancestry and relative intellect of Australopithecus; The “Nebraska Man” was a fantasy based upon the ‘discovery’ of a peccary tooth [What was it P.T. Barnum famously said?], lapped up by a credulous community of wishful thinkers.

            And touching the presumption that cranial volume is a reliable indictor of cognitive ability; by that measure, the Blue whale is a profound genius and a crow unable to cogitate the simplest problem. Of course, as studies of crows have repeatedly proven, cranial volume is not an adequate measure of intellect; by that measure, the Pygmies of African fame ought to be cognitively disdvantaged compared with a Western Homo Sapien possessing a larger brain-case. Thankfully, this isn’t so.

            ‘Evolution’ promotes a religion based upon materialism, which is itself, properly, a belief that reality comprehends a Universe of nothing but matter and the forces which matter generates. It is defended by the faithful materialist, much as religious mystics rely upon their creeds.

            Here is an interesting examination of the materialist/evolutionary paradigm, if you would be willing to look:

            temcat. com/L-4-Topical-Library/Creation/Handbook-all. pdf

            Enjoy.

          • Rudy R

            If I believed you understood evolution, I’d humor you with a response. But your comments suggests otherwise.

          • Eldjr

            Rock on, Rudy.

      • Eldjr

        rats… I should have scrolled down before posting the same thing. lol.

    • Thomas Weiss

      Lol prove it….you’ll win a Nobel prize….you’ve got to be a product of public education…

    • NC

      I deny Neo-Darwinian Evolution as being a fact. You just need to look beyond the rhetoric and examine things critically.

    • Eldjr

      His name was “Adam”.

  • Reham Kcirtap

    The person that wrote this article is an idiot.

    • Eastern_girl

      Whatever allows you to not have to contemplate new ideas. I’m sure it was painful for you– but you’re right… all those failed hippies that taught you in school are right, don’t think about it any more.

  • Kyle Shepherd

    If God made us from dirt, why is there still dirt?

    • Kristin Johns

      That’s like asking if God made the ocean, why are there still rivers and lakes?

    • philip gunby

      What the heck is that supposed to mean???

    • Eldjr

      Actually, what’s interesting is that everything we consume to maintain life comes from that same dirt. All food is – if you will – converted dirt. A brilliant plan.

  • IA14A

    This is a response to David Butler on Douglas Axe:

    “If Axe had any stones, he’d debate John Thornton. But he never will.”

    Butler beleives that John Thornton would destroy Axe if he was to debate him. What is Thornton’s secret weapon? Gene resurrection. That’s right, resurrecting dead genes is, according to Butler, a great argument against intelligent design and how evolution is capable of creating new protiens/anatomy.

    Upon having doing some investigation using the name of that evolutionary biologist; however, I found this paper in which Thornton himself thinks it goes against intelligent design.

    The paper is entitled, “Evolution of Hormone Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation”

    Here evolutionary biologist John W. Thornton was examining the hormone steroid receptor present in vertebrates. They examined three sets of genes: 1) AncCR, Ancestral corticoid-receptor 2) GR, glucocorticoid-receptor & 3) MR, mineralocorticoid-receptor. By examining the three sets of genes under phylogenetic analysis, Thornton found that the glucocorticoid-receptor & mineralocorticoid-receptor were duplicated from the ancestral AncCR gene.

    By using a technique called “gene resurrection”, Thornton was able to resurrect the ancestral AncCR gene. After the resurrection of the dead gene, he concluded that he finally demonstrated “step-wise” evolution of how the hormone steroid receptor could have evolved. By duplicating the AncCR site and by demonstrating the daughter genes GR & MR coming into existence, evolution was capable of evolving a hormone receptor regulating electrolyte homeostasis and other processes.

    New genetic information, by gene duplication?

    Yet, a closer look at the details reveals something different. It turned out that the duplicated “mineralocorticoid-receptor, MR” gene actually had the same function as its ancestral gene, AncCR! According to the paper, the mineralocorticoid receptor gene is activated by a steroid hormone called Aldosterone. Interestingly, when Thornton resurrected the AncCR ancestral gene in which MR duplicated from, it turned out that the ancestral gene had the same exact function as the newly duplicated MR gene receptor.

    As Thornton writes, “Given these results, the most parsimonious scenario is that AncCR was capable of being activated by aldosterone”

    In other words the AncCR gene in terms of functionality was no different than the new duplicated derived MR gene. They were both capable of being activated by aldosterone and perform similar cellular functions. Rather than gene duplication actually creating any novel proteins by neo-functionalization, the types of proteins that Douglas Axe argues against Darwinian evolution, the gene duplication was actually nothing more but subfunctionalization. That is the duplicated genes, MR & GR, retained the same functional copy of its ancestral gene, AncCR. No new novelty or genetic information was actually generated in Thornton’s study. What really happened instead was that the MR gene was able to retain its function as that of the ancestral AncCR gene while the GR gene lost that very same ancestral function, causing it to be insensitive by losing its specificity to the Aldosterone hormone. To put it simply, two of the duplicated genes retained the same functional copy as the ancestral gene, but one in which lost the same functional ancestral copy, or at least weakened. The gene that lost the ancestral gene was the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) gene.

    Another point I would like to emphasize is that Thornton did not really demonstrate “stepwise” evolution whatsoever. What he did was examined those already existing three genes, where one of the genes was ancestral/dead, and intentionally resurrected the already existing ancestral gene using intelligent, guided mutagens (mutations). Notice the term “guided, intentional, intelligent” which is exactly what Thornton did. To make gene resurrection possible, he had to intelligently manipulate and input guided mutations into the DNA just to resurrect the dead AncCR ancestral gene. Intelligence, guided, etc. plays no role in evolution, as it is blind, undirected, and most importantly, a non-teleological force of nature that has no foresight. Now imagine what is takes for evolution to create a single functional protein, made up of more or less 100 amino acids, where only certain amino acid substitutions would be beneficial to a living organism against the overwhelming number of non-functional amino acid sequences, making evolution in the search space of creating a new functional exceedingly rare.

    Another problem that evolutionary biologist Thornton does not even remotely address in his study is his false dichotomy on intelligently resurrecting dead genes and using it as an argument against what Douglas Axe has been arguing about all along, that neo-Darwinian mechanisms are extremely improbable when it comes to creating brand new proteins. Sorry, but resurrecting dead genes which is Thornton’s specialty does not in any way conflict with that of Axe’s central argument of evolution being incapable of accounting all the biological complexity observed in life.

    • Thomas Weiss

      I’d like to see YOU debate Thornton….that was impressive to say the least….

    • David Butler

      Wow, what a fascinating rewrite of what Thornton actually did.

    • David Butler

      .

  • UtMadman

    “Evolution is the scientific consensus” – much like a flat world was a few centuries ago. Scientific consensus is not exactly the sure thing to hang your hat on. The real problem for many when it comes to intelligent design is that they will never get there if they refuse to believe in God, or some higher power that had a hand in it. In essence, that part of their “objective” (in proving there is no God) must be a part of the “end” that they have in mind. They simply refuse to deviate from it. They will never “arrive at a more complete understanding” unless they can have a more open mind.

    • The_REAL_Voice_of_Reason

      “Scientists” used to believe that oxidation was actually a little imp that was released during combustion. It was called Phlogiston.

      It was a running joke around my home for years. The kids would blame the muddy footprints on mom’s clean kitchen floor on the phlogiston imp. Crayon mural on the wall? Phlogiston. Broken window? Phlogiston.

      • Eldjr

        Nice.. Let’s also note that prior to Pasteur’s “Spontaneous Generation” experiments, “scientists” believed that life sprang from non-life.

        Er… wait a minute… isn’t that what ‘natural scientists’ believe now?

        • Justin May

          You know, science is all about results and hypotheses. If it turns out wrong, New research is done and new hypotheses are made. That is how we learn. Much better than a magic man in the sky has all the answers so we don’t have to try to learn about our world. Don’t even get me started on the bible.

          • The_REAL_Voice_of_Reason

            “You know, science is all about results and hypotheses. If it turns out wrong, New research is done and new hypotheses are made. ”

            Unless the science is settled right?

            “Don’t even get me started on the bible.”

            Fear not…..as unqualified as you’ve shown yourself to be in carping about the subject at hand……none would want to be responsible for the ensuing aneurysm should you attempt to pontificate on something you are even less adroit at explaining.

          • Justin May

            What science is settled? Really… stooping to insults insinuating that you somehow understand something that is so difficult to grasp I am not able to. Good job. Who is the one that believes in a magic man in the sky?

          • Eldjr

            Permit me to point out that the congregants of the Church of ‘Natural’ science make much of their superior ‘understanding’ and ignorance of those that disagree; Mockery is never far behind.. “Who is the one that believes in a magic man in the sky?”

          • Justin May

            It’s called giving what you get. When I am attacked, I attack back. You really just pick and choose excerpts from posts taken out of context. Still didn’t reply to my question.

          • Eldjr

            You refer to a question that remains unanswered. If you aren’t writing of “What science is settled?”, then I don’t know what the question is.

            If that IS the question to which you refer, I would ask in return “Is there a Creator?”

            There are three possible answers to this question, and I would posit that there is only one ‘scientific’ answer possible.

            Answer #1 “Yes there is” – makes a claim to ‘settled science’ proving existence of a Creator
            Answer #2 “No there is not” – makes a claim to ‘settled science’ disproving existence of a Creator
            Answer #3 “We don’t know yet” – Makes no claim to ‘settled science’ regarding existence of a Creator.

            So your point – that science is never ‘settled’ – comes back to you.

            Thanks for your time and patience

          • Justin May

            I was responding to the “real voice of reason’s” post talking about settled science. As far as your post goes I would say we don’t know yet. All knowledge is attainable, given the time.

          • David Miller

            So, you prefer to take the low road; not only do you take the intellectually and scientifically inferior position, but you also take the morally inferior one… think about what that says about you, if you have the courage to make some improvements on yourself…

          • Justin May

            The bible says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Maybe you should read your bible.

          • David Miller

            Maybe you should read it, instead of trying to read into it, as that particular Israelite Law pertained to matters of bodily injury. How did you get your eye and tooth knocked out, over the Internet?

          • Justin May

            I really like the Israelite laws pertaining to how you should treat your slaves. I really like the laws concerning which of your slaves you can rape. Those are fun. Or the laws against homosexuality, or tattoos. I have read the bible all the way through 3 times, and have studied numerous passages and forced to memorize scores more. That is What happens when Christianity is forced down your throat.

          • David Miller

            I see where your confusion comes in. Let me help clarify things for you…

            First, the Old Testament doesn’t so much talk about how to treat slaves, as it does about how to treat the human traffickers who enslave them. If you’ve actually studied and memorized the whole Bible three separate times, you’ll remember Exodus 21:16, and Deuteronomy 24:7. Of course, we could talk about how the Israelite laws don’t apply to Christians, let alone Gentiles, but as someone whos studied and memorized every passage in the Bible three separate times, I’m sure you know which passages say that.

            Second, there are plenty of passages about servitude. Do you know the difference? In Masoretic Hebrew, it’s a very subtle difference between a particular mark in one character, and the lack of a mark in another. In history, it’s as big of a deal as the difference between the enslavement of black people, and the servitude of the Irish, both of which took place at about the same time. You confuse the two situations, just like some people have confused slavery and servitude in the above comparison, which has led to all kinds of misinformation about how Irish people were slaves in America, beaten far worse than black slaves. Of course, I’m sure you’ll agree that’s not true, but you see the point; you would have seen it even clearer, if you really had studied and memorized every passage of the Bible, three separate times.

            Third, I think you need to re-read the passages about tattoos and homosexuality again, since those seem to be major sticking-points with you; why, I can only guess, but still… On the subject of tattoos, Leviticus 19:28 specifies that these marks, along with cutting, were made for the dead. I’m sure you’d agree, worshiping the dead with tattoos is wrong, and that’s not even touching on the subject of cutting yourself, period. As to the point about homosexuality, what does the passage say? “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind”? And, in Romans and 1st Corinthians, you’ll notice that the subject is abusing yourself with others of your own gender. Sexual abuse, homosexual or heterosexual in nature, is the subject, here; not sexual attraction, itself. Of course, you’d already know that, if you really had studied and memoried every verse of the Bible, three times each.

            Is the lack of thinking you show in your comment characteristic with what happens when you fearfully run from, and lash out at, Christianity? For what, because you were told that you’re wrong about something? If you’re as logical and intelligent as you seem to believe you are, I’d almost wager that you’d see the flaw in that kind of logic.

            Here; let me give you a little friendly advice. You can read into any written document whatever you want, as it’s filtered through your own prejudice, but the Bible tells you how to understand every passage. Mark 12:30-31, and Matthew 7:12, is how the Bible says you must read it, to understand every passage. I can quote Scripture all day long, and still have trouble pointing out exact references to where the quote came from; even I knew that.

            Clearly, you have a lot of unresolved issues that you’re putting off on Christianity, and that’s only making things worse for you. I suggest you sort yourself out, before you actually study the Bible again… apparently, for the very first time.

          • Justin May

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) yes I know the difference you ignorant bible thumper. Didn’t say I memorized it. Said I read it, but facts aren’t your strong point are they?

          • David Miller

            Here; I’ll even help you out. You’ll find that passage among Exodus 21:12-36. You’ll also find Christ’s response to your version of it in Matthew 5:38-48.

          • Justin May

            So the bible contradicts itself? How do you know which grouping of books to follow? Old testament or new testament?

          • David Miller

            You don’t know what a contradiction actually is, do you?

          • Justin May

            Seems to me you have the reading and comprehension problems. I hear it’s a special chemical they put in the ink to make you slightly retarded. That explains your moronic posting.

          • David Miller

            Exodus 21:24. So, I somehow took your eye, your tooth, your hand, your foot, set you on fire, beat you, and whipped you, all through the Internet?

            I’ll see your quote-mine, and raise you Matthew 5:38-42.

          • Peacharoo

            I keep on hearing the phrase “Magic Man in the Sky” as Darwinists /
            Atheists mock and ridicule Creationists, claiming that they believe in
            “Magic” while Evos Believe in “Science”..

            I thought it might be a good topic to open to set the record straight
            on who REALLY believes in “Magic”.. Creationists believe that an
            Omnipotent God, Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment, order and design that we see in the world today..

            Darwinists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. What I would consider to be Hypocrisy on Steroids..

            It goes something like this

            In the beginning NOTHING (Or a miniscule dot) Exploded and created all of the matter in the known universe.. no “Magic” needed LOL..

            THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines
            of specified / irreducibly complexity were able to mindlessly
            create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water… when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to
            artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!! No “Magic” there ..LOL

            Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their
            support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT.. Which was the “Order” for their “Evolution”? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all “Evolve” TOGETHER?? No “Magic” Required” LOL

            Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg?? OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for that “Proto” Chicken (Or its first “Egg laying Ancestor) GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh??

            Or

            How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo… No Magic required there….

            I could easily write hundreds of more examples but I hope people reading this get the idea of who REALLY believes is Magic..

            I suggest you Atheists / Darwinists take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth

            We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it..

            I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori
            assumption that Abiogenesis / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of science (Which it is NOT) but because…

            “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

            RICHARD DAWKINS

          • David Miller

            “Really… stooping to insults insinuating that you somehow understand something that is so difficult to grasp I am not able to.”

            “Who is the one that believes in a magic man in the sky?”

            How embarrassing…

          • Peacharoo

            I keep on hearing the phrase “Magic Sky Daddy” as Darwinists / Atheists mock and ridicule Creationists, claiming that they believe in “Magic” while Evos Believe in “Science”..

            I thought it might be a good to set the record straight on who REALLY believes in “Magic”.. Creationists believe that an Omnipotent God, Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment we see in the world today..

            Darwinists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. What I would consider to be Hypocrisy on Steroids..

            It goes something like this

            In the beginning NOTHING (Or a miniscule dot) Exploded and created all of the matter in the known universe.. no “Magic” needed LOL..

            THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines of specified / irreducibly complexity were able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water… when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!! No “Magic” there ..LOL

            Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT.. Which was the “Order” for their “Evolution”? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all “Evolve” TOGETHER?? No “Magic” Required” LOL

            Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg?? OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for that “Proto” Chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh??
            Or
            How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo… No Magic required there….

            I suggest you Atheists / Darwinists take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth

            We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it..

            I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori assumption that Abio / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of science (Which it is NOT) but because…

            “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

            RICHARD DAWKINS

            All the Best Blitzy

          • Justin May

            So you use a whole wall of text to tell me you worship an alien.

          • Peacharoo

            I keep on hearing the phrase “Magic Sky Daddy” as Darwinists /
            Atheists mock and ridicule Creationists, claiming that they believe in
            “Magic” while Evos Believe in “Science”..

            I thought it might be a good topic to open to set the record straight
            on who REALLY believes in “Magic”.. Creationists believe that an
            Omnipotent God, Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space
            That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment we see in
            the world today..

            Darwinists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. What I would consider to be Hypocrisy on Steroids..

            It goes something like this

            In the beginning NOTHING (Or a miniscule dot) Exploded and created
            all of the matter in the known universe.. no “Magic” needed LOL..

            THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines
            of specified / irreducibly complexity were able to mindlessly
            create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water… when Man, with all
            of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to
            artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN
            TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!! No “Magic” there ..LOL

            Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their
            support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and
            GO EXTINCT.. Which was the “Order” for their “Evolution”? Stomach
            first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all “Evolve” TOGETHER??
            No “Magic” Required” LOL

            Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg??
            OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for
            that “Proto” Chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT
            THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh??

            Or

            How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA
            fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING
            COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo… No Magic required there….

            I suggest you Atheists / Darwinists take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth

            We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it..

            I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori
            assumption that Abio / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of
            science (Which it is NOT) but because…

            “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

            RICHARD DAWKINS

          • David Miller

            Explain the peer-reviewed paper that was published, by Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel.

            Explain how evolution causes 1/3 of all dinosaur fossils to be falsely classified, not to mention Neanderthals, Australopitheci, and Darwinius, and still goes unquestioned by the establishment.

            “… magic man in the…”

            If all you have is an ad-absurdiam reframe, you’re not worth the effort of an intellectual conversation.

            And, by all means, please, start on the Bible, in 100% accurate context. Good luck with that…

        • The_REAL_Voice_of_Reason

          Ha! Well said.

      • Justin May

        It’s hard to study when the church put you to death for heresy…

        • The_REAL_Voice_of_Reason

          Yet many did. BTW, had you even bothered to look……the men making these claims were respected scholars and scientists.

          No “church” holding them back from making these false pronouncements or anyone else from disproving them.

        • Eldjr

          …and not unlike Progressivism when unopposed by a People possessing the right to keep and bear arms.

        • David Miller

          It’s hard to get people to believe your historic revisionism, when the facts contradict your claims…

          • Justin May

            1511 – 1553
            Michael Servetus had wide ranging interests in science, medicine, theology, law, and the humanities.

            He made important contributions in medicine and anatomy: he was the first European to correctly describe blood circulation between the heart and lungs, independently of Ibn al-Nafis in Egypt.

            He was pronounced a heretic by Protestant and Catholic Churches, because he denied the Trinity and he objected to the baptism of infants. He was burned at the stake in Geneva, Switzerland.

            Any books Servetus had authored that could be found by religious authorities were also burned, so the importance of his work was unknown until many years after his death. There is one out of many. What were you saying about revisionist?

    • Eldjr

      Concensus is a form of democracy lacking an actual vote. If we were to try to determine truth or fact by consensus, the ‘evolutionist’ would be proven wrong by the sheer preponderance – worldwide – of people that disagree.

      “BUT!”, they exclaim, “Our concensus is based upon the scientific method, and is therefore correct.” I will point to the fact that this so-called, “scientific method” is based upon ‘naturalism’, a philosophy which begins at denial of a super-natural Creator exempt from the limitations of the material universe[ this is why ‘natural science’ museums will never admit an exhibition based upon, for example, the Great Flood described in Genesis and 2 Peter 3; “‘Uniformitarianism” is a paradigm which filters the study of the physical universe through a pre-defined philosophy which declares that “the key to the past lies in the present”, or, “all characteristics currently observed have always operated the same way according to the physical laws generated by an entirely material universe”.

      This would be an argument if not for the fact that the very origin of universal existence is believed by these to be a one-dimensional object which somehow spontaneously acted upon itself and became multiple dimensions [space] within which previously-undifferentiated ‘nothing’ became matter and the potential energy derived therefrom.

      In order for ‘potential energy’ to exist, there must be an inequality in the mass, charge or distribution of matter, which – according to ‘natural science’ – is the source of the four ‘universal forces’: i.e. Gravity, Electromagetism, ‘Strong’ force, ‘Weak’ force.

      No physical law or process can provide for the genesis of space, matter, or the energy which matter potentiates, yet the “Big Bang” is “scientific” because the ‘naturalist’ believes in it?

      It is not “science”, but philosophy masquerading as science, and the only refuge to which ‘believers’ in such can flee is, “Well, that doesn’t prove a Creator exists”. Fine, as long as they admit that what they believe stands on faith, not demonstrable or rational fact. At the beginning point of “natural science”, reason and the uniformitarian paradigm must be suspended.

      And the number of ‘votes’ they may tally in their favor has nothing whatever to do with whether their belief is true or false, any more than if the honest religionists of the world outnumber them – which they do.

  • philip gunby

    The humble housefly an engineering marvel. can travel (fly) upside down and then land on the slick kitchen ceiling. That little bug got here by pure chance? IT WAS DESIGNED. BY A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE.

  • IA14A

    In another response to Butler in regards to Axe’s credibility:

    “Douglas Axe is an out of work Molecular biologist who hasn’t published in his field since he left school.”

    Hasn’t published in his field since he left school. So wrong, Butler. Axe actually has a background of publishing peer-reviewed papers in scientific academia. In 2004, Axe published a research paper entitled, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” in a peer-reviewed journal called Journal of Molecular Biology. Axe has about a total of 9 published peer-reviewed papers ranging from 1987 to 2000s. His most recent published paper being one from 2008, which was published for peer-review and accepted in the peer-reviewed open access journal, PLoS One. Axe also has additional papers published in an intelligent design journal called BIO-COMPLEXITY. Whether one to argue that BIO-COMPLEXITY is peer-reviewed or not, it doesn’t negate the fact that Axe has a genuine scientific background of publishing papers in actual scientific peer-review journals as previously demonstrated.

  • philip gunby

    Every year they find 10000 fossils but never find ANY intermediate fossils. Still believe in evolution??? If evolution were true they would be finding thousands and thousands of intermediate fossils. All I can say is when it comes time to take the mark 666 I aint gonna take it!!! I will be in the 777 line.

    • IA14A

      “Every year they find 10000 fossils but never find any intermediate fossils”

      I don’t know whether they really do find about ten thousand fossils every year, but I do know the Cambrian fossils lack intermediate forms. Evolutionists don’t even know for certain who the so-called common ancestors of the Cambrian explosion animals were. They tried to point out that the Ediacaran creatures were the ancestors of the Cambrian animals, but the funny thing about that is that there is a controversy going on whether the Ediacarans were truly animals or just plants or possibly something entirely else. Worst yet, most of the Ediacarans don’t even have the features of homology to be considered as ancestors of the Cambrian explosion animals.

      • Thomas Weiss

        Hey you’re pretty smart my friend!

        • Peacharoo

          Yes he is… although I do wonder how he could make these dogmatic statements.. “the Cambrian explosion was a 5 to 6 million year event” And “During the Ediacaran extinction, which occurred around 540 to 531 mya,

          I wonder what the make and model was of his Time Machine in order for him to know these things, Surely he is smart enough to be up to date on how faulty Radiometric Dating is ON THINGS THAT WE ALREADY KNOW HOW OLD THEY ARE… What gives him the impression that it would be accurate on things THAT WE DONT KNOW HOW OLD THEY ARE ..!!
          I can give plenty of data and facts to back up what I am saying if you like…
          All the Best… Blitzking

          • Thomas Weiss

            And the reason you’re reply was to me instead of the person you’re criticizing is?

          • Peacharoo

            Good point.. I just did.

          • Peacharoo

            I Never got a response back.. What a Shock! LOL

          • Thomas Weiss

            Patience, you never know…

      • Gert

        No Cambrian fossils do not lack intermediate forms. There are sponge biomarkers at least 726 million years in age and the first sponge (actually first animal) fossils around 650 million years in age. There’s another very well documented fossil site in China about 580 million years, a little younger, with slightly more developed organisms, all more advanced than sponges but much less advanced than the Cambrian fauna. Just before the Cambrian “explosion” around 520 million years ago, there was an early Cambrian fauna called the small shellies. They are 540 million years in age. So you want intermediates? They aren’t hiding and more and more are discovered every year. The problem is creationists only read creationist claptrap and get increasingly behind the science.

        • Eldjr

          What was the intermediate form possessing the precursor of the trilobites’ compound eye?

        • IA14A

          “No Cambrian fossils do not lack intermediate forms.”

          Actually they do.

          “There are sponges/small shelly fauna older than the cambrian explosion.”

          True. The only problem with that is that both the sponges and small shelly fauna actually are completely different organisms from an entirely distinct phyla. Their body-plans are completely different and less complex than the body-plans that appeared during the Cambrian explosion. In other words, sponges, small shelly fauna, etc. lack the necessary anatomical homology to even be considered as ancestors of the Cambrian animals.

          In the Cambrian explosion, there were over 16 or more different types of major phyla (i.e. body-plans), including Arthropoda, Ctenophora, etc. the type of body-plans that are nothing at all like the Precambrian (sponges, small shelly fauna, etc.)

          Which is ironic because evolutionists like to consider two different species related only if they possess anatomical homologous structures when it comes to the fossil record. Yet, the Precambrian & Ediacaran creatures lack “those homologous creatures” compared to the complexity of the Cambrian animals.

          Do sponges and small shelly fauna show how they transitioned to the Cambrian animals? Nope. They don’t even compare.

          • Gert

            What I am implying is that the PreCambrian fossil record is pretty good overall considering we’re talking about preservation of VERY small, soft-bodied worm-like animals that lived over half a billion years ago. If you’re expecting geological processes to produce a museum with pretty preserved specimens on display, you’re not sincere in trying to understand what’s going on.

            What we do find is that the Cambrian explosion wasn’t an explosion. We don’t have every intermediate or transitional fossil but we have more than enough to falsify your belief that all animals were ‘created’ magically (POOF) 520 million years ago (or whatever that is on your young earth timescale). The first animal fossils are sponges 200 million years before the Cambrian explosion. The first cnidarians, one of the next steps up in body plan complexity, are 60 million years before the Cambrian explosion. There’s a very tiny worm-like bilaterian (i.e., ancestral to fish vertebrates) that also lived around the same time. All three major grades of animal body plans (no symmetry, radial symmetry, bilateral symmetry) are way before the Cambrian explosion so it wasn’t an explosion. It was a slow burn that took 200 million years.

          • IA14A

            “If you’re expecting geological processes to produce a museum with pretty preserved specimens on display, you’re not sincere in trying to understand what’s going on.”

            The fact the Precambrian rocks were able to preserve something as small and insignificant as an embryo and ancient bacteria is enough to falsify the assumption that the reason why the Cambrian animals lacked ancestors was because they were too soft-bodied or that fossilization was too rare to happen. Fact is, the environment from the Precambrian and earlier strata was rich in ingredients for preserving soft-bodied and microscopic microbes as fossils. If there were any ancestors at all, the older rocks prior to the Cambrian would have already preserved them. Yet, there is no evidence of them whatsoever.

            Once again you are not listening to what I’m asking you. You are trying to point out that the Cambrian animals ancestors were small shelly fauna, sponges, & Cnidarians, but what you failed to take into consideration is that those Precambrian animals prior to the Cambrian phyla were most likely unrelated, that is they do not share a common ancestral origin with the Cambrian animals. It is possible that both the sponges, small shelly fauna, & the Cnidarians appeared in the fossil record independently from each other and that the Cambrian phyla also too arrived independently being absolutely distinct from the Ediacaran biota & Precambrian.

            The fact the Precambrian animals lack “evidence of homology/similairty in morphology” is enough to show that the Precambrians were unrelated with the Cambrian animals. What you’re trying to do is lump the Precambrian with the Cambrian as ancestral, but if you knew anything about how taxonomy works at all you would know that in order to group two or more different taxons as closely-related, you must first demonstate that the two groups actually have something in common either in terms of morphology (i.e comparitive anatomy) or molecular genetics. However, as you clearly mentioned, the morphology of the Precambrian animals is not even close to resembling that of the major groups of phyla from the Cambrian explosion. Which means you just basically shot yourself in the foot.

            “It was a slow burn that took 200 million years”

            Nope, the Cambrian explosion was a 5 to 10 million year event, not 200 million years. During the Ediacaran extinction, which occurred around 540 to 531 mya, small shelly fauna began to appear. The Cambrian explosion; however, started 530 mya and ended approximately 525 mya. During those 5 to 10 million years, about 20 or more major groups of phyla appeared. There was a great diversity of animals with very complex and numerous distinct body-plans that can be classified as a phyla. Another interesting thing about the Cambrian explosion was that all the phyla within that 5 million year window appeared first in the beginning of the Cambrian and later diversified in lower level taxa. That is, complex body-plans appeared first in the Cambrian explosion without diversity. An appear of a top-down pattern where there was a great morphological disparity before diversity.

            Yes it’s true what you say that there were a few phyla present that appeared before the Cambrian explosion like Cnidaria & Porifera, but what makes the Cambrian explosion mostly significant in contrast to the very few Precambrian phyla was that the Cambrian explosion resulted in over 18 or more major phyla groups, including Arthropoda, Ctenophora, etc. within that approximately 5 million year window. 5 million years is too small and insignifcant for Darwinian evolution to create a phylum, worst yet a vast diversity of different unique body-plans.

            and you want to imply that all those major distinct body-plans all evolved from small shelly fauna, sponges, etc even though their morphology are not even close to resembling the complexity of the Cambrian animals? Full blown nonsense gibberish.

          • Peacharoo

            You are indeed on the right side of history as far a Darwinism being the Huge Fraud that it is.. Although I do wonder how he could make these dogmatic statements.. “the Cambrian explosion was a 5 to 6 million year event” And “During the Ediacaran extinction, which occurred around 540 to 531 mya,

            I wonder what the make and model was of your Time Machine in order for him to know these things, Surely you are smart enough to be up to date on how faulty Radiometric Dating is ON THINGS THAT WE ALREADY KNOW HOW OLD THEY ARE… What gives you the impression that it would be accurate on things THAT WE DONT KNOW HOW OLD THEY ARE ..!!
            I can give plenty of data and facts to back up what I am saying if you like…
            All the Best… Blitzking

    • Thomas Weiss

      And you know Darwin himself told us that IF his theory were correct species to species fossils would be so abundant we’d be tripping over them at Sunday picnic……However after 150 years of digging all over the world?

    • Robert Doell

      Exactly Evolution DEMANDS thousands of intermediate species for each jump from one group to another. The fossil record should be exponentially littered with the intermediate in-between species so much so that filled formed species should be hard to find.

      • Gert

        Paleontologists HAVE found thousands of intermediates. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The transition from Australopithecus to modern humans is so good we’re not sure where to stop one genus or species and start the next. The transition of life in the ocean to tetrapod life on land is also pretty good. Every time we find an intermediate between A and B, you guys claim there are now two intermediates missing. Your position is purely ideology.
        It’s pure nonsense to think geology would preserve every intermediate. Just think about what it takes to become a fossil. But we should have some, and we do. YOUR version of events requires there should be NONE. Not one. All I have to do to falsify your entire world view is give you one example. There are thousands. I listed just two but there are thousands.

        • Robert Doell

          The only intermediates are constructed in the minds of scientists. They have not found actual intermediates between species. Thousands of intermediates between 2 successive species. Be HONEST. You have constructed LINKS between them with GOD given imaginative minds. Science has NOT demonstrated links only fabricated imaginings of over active minds who by their HATRED for GOD/JESUS and Christians have created a storyline for non believers with as much belief required in supernatural as Judael/Christian religion; i.e. Universe from nothing, multiple universes or parallel dimensions, Dark Matter/Energy/Flow which comprises 96% of the Universe and Physical observations limited to the remaining 4% on which Scientists base all their conclusions and suppositions,Evolution but yet we have irreducibly complex organisms, etcetera. The total number of so called Chimp to Human fossils is represented by around 3,000 small pieces about the size of a little finger with a couple of larger Lucy part skeleton remnants. The only amazing connection between Australopithecus is your minds. You are a believer in the mysticism of a sudden perfectly balanced inflating universe out of nothing, and the mysticism of gene positive adaptations with the supposed exception of the Cambrian period when genes only Mutate not build new organisms as current DNA gene research is proving out.

          • Gert

            There’s not one example of irreducible complexity. The bacterial flagellum, the example creationists drag out most often, has several intermediate steps. Simple forms are spears.

            Creationists have long asked for intermediates. If humans evolve from apes (not chimps – no scientists think we evolved from chimps), there should be intermediate fossils. If creationists are right, there shouldn’t be one. Not a single one. So what’s Ardipithecus? It’s an ape of the right age (since our ape lineage diverged from the chimp lineage 6-7 million years ago based on genetic estimates). NOT a chimp. Walked UPRIGHT. Human-like pelvis, shoulder, and wrists. Lacked giant chimp canines – teeth were human-like. After that, there’s Australopithecus. Even more human like in skeletal features. And now they’re finding advanced (manufactured) stone tools. No chimp can do that. Homo habilis – so similar to Australopithecus that anthropologists have trouble telling where one starts and stops – walked upright, used similar tools to Australopithecus (to cut hides and chop bones). Homo erectus, definitely not a human. Intermediate between more distant apes and humans in feet bones. Any one of these falsifies the creationist dogma that there are no intermediate steps between apes and humans.

            And what about modern human chromosomes? Chimps have an extra pair. Guess what happened to it? It evolved. Somewhere along the way from the chimp-human ancestor to modern humans, a chromosome fused. We now have a chromosome that has ‘the end’ DNA sequence in the middle.

            And why is our genome more similar to chimps and bonobos than gorilla genome is to orangutans? Cos we’re naked chimps.

        • Peacharoo

          Yeah, sure they have, Ill bet you think you know much more about the fossil record that prominent evolutionary paleontolgists Gould and Patterson dont you…?

          Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Luther Sunderland wrote
          to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional
          fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following
          which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s
          Enigma:

          ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary
          transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have
          included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations,
          but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it,
          and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

          He went on to say:

          ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology
          from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when
          they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least
          “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”
          I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could
          make a watertight argument.’

          COLIN PATTERSON CHIEF PALEONTOGIST OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM

  • IA14A

    Fun fact:

    Ask any evolutionists who was the common ancestor of human and chimpanzee and if they are honest, they will tell you they don’t really know who that common ancestor was. The best they can do when it comes to common ancestry is showing fossils that exist only within sister species. Chimps and humans, for example, are sister species because they both (supposedly) diverged from a common ancestor that was human-ape like. Yet, the only fossils they have available are those found within chimp and human lineages, but never the so-called common ancestor of humans and chimps.

    All the so-called fossils that evolutionists like to point out like Homo-erectus, Neanderthals, Homo-naledi. etc are actually all fossils that appeared after the supposed human-chimp divergence, that is they existed within the human lineage.

    Funny yet, evolutionists have absolutely no fossil evidence of the so-called human-chimp like ancestor that they want us to so naively believe in, but ironically blind beleive that there was and must have been one even though it’s missing in the fossil record.

    How embarrassing.

    • Thomas Weiss

      Evolutionary theory DOES require an excellent imagination…!!

      • Eldjr

        Isn’t it ironic that the “natural scientist” – ‘believing’ in clocks that wind themseves up – goes to great length to show that only great intellects can understand something that didn’t require any to exist?

        When raw reason brings them to deal with the question of the origin of existence, the evolutionist is finally a mystic: They ‘believe’ in a theory that cannot be proven, demonstrated or falsified, and which stands against the function of every physical law which they employ to ‘prove’ that a Creator does not – cannot – exist.

        “Evolution” is naturalistic dogma defended as such, and is hypocritically exempt from self-criticism.

        • Robert Doell

          Amen Brother

        • Don Marfia

          Who created god?

          • Eldjr

            Neither I nor anyone else need to ‘defend God’. It is the atheist that declares ‘natural science’ as the oracle of truth, and requires the ‘believer-in-a-Creator’ to defend that faith in ‘natural science’ terms.

            Therefore I ask you to defend your faith according to ‘natural science’ apart from metaphysics:

            Consult the First Law of Thermodynamics, declare where potential originated, and win the Nobel Prize [Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changes forms].

            In order for energy to be available to do work there must be an inequality in its distribution [“potential”].

            In order for an inequality of distribution to be possible there must be multidimensional space within which ‘protomatter’ may be disambiguated into heterogeneous forms possessing acharacteristic and asymmetric attributes of mass and/or charge.

            In order for space-time dilation [expansion] to occur, the total force of expansion must exceed the opposing force of gravity – which supposedly holds the cosmological singularity within a single dimension wherein heterogeneous material disambiguation – by definition – would be impossible.

            This one-dimensional ‘object’ would then be uniform in its composition, charge, and mass.

            By scientific definition, therefore, no ‘potential’ exists: no matter capable of generating force exists, and no space within which material disambiguation could occur exists: it is INERT.

            Thus, I will propose the same question to you that I have presented to others:

            Describe the event or process that caused an infintely entropic cosmological singularity to spontaneously transmute from monodimenstional inertia to multidimensional material disambiguation.

            I’m not interested in what happened AFTER the process began; tell us what started it, please, in naturalistic, uniformitarian terms.

          • Don Marfia

            No. I will not defend that which we have evidence for against that which we have no evidence for. These irony is that you don’t even understand how basic the concept is.

            You tell me to defend how everything originated from nothing and the truth is we don’t know yet, and that’s okay. Then, in the same breath, you say it’s not your job to defend how you believe god came from nothing. Hypocrisy much? I will not debate in a one-sided argument with different rules for each party.

          • Eldjr

            Deal with the science I cited.

      • David Miller

        Not just an excellent imagination; a high intellect… both of which are important for a successful con job.

    • Gert

      So what is Australopithecus to you? Or Ardipithecus? or Orrorin? They’re not human. And they’re not chimps. Was each a separate creation? If so, that would be really remarkable since they seem to be getting increasingly like a modern human through the geologic record.

      • David Miller

        Each were examples of humans, as much so as any one race compared to any other. Reframing doesn’t serve as evidence.

        Where are the missing links, and why was there a Cambrian explosion?

        • Don Marfia

          If you expect to find the bones of every single human/chimp ancestor creating a perfect flow chart from the beginning of life on this planet until now, you are either a horribly optimistic son of a b*tch or a terribly stupid human being. I take it you’re not the former based on the vitriol in your previous comments (evidence carries weight) so I must assume you’re the latter.

          We have massive amounts of intermediary fossils available that give us a very good idea of the evolutionary course of our ancestors, and the amazing thing is that we found them all exactly where they should be. Not a single one of them cut in line and wound up outside of the sediment layer they should be in. That’s what we call empirical evidence.

          Again, all of this information is really available to you if you would put down your bibles (who am I kidding, none of you have truly read the Bible from beginning to end, that’s how atheists are made) and did some research. Must be easier to listen to a man behind a pulpit tell you how to think about all of the conspiracies evil scientists are trying to swindle you with.

          • David Miller

            Darwin expected as much; didn’t you ever read “Survival of the Favored Races”? I’ll also remind you of all the examples of soft-tissue fossilization, and the presence of soft tissue, blood cells, and DNA in fossils that should be too old to contain them. Sorry, but it just doesn’t add up. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want, regardless of how unscientific it may be, but you can’t expect thinking people to fall for it.

            What we have are fossils that show similar structures, and the fact that phenotype is misleading. I’ll refer you to the multiple examples of fossils that have been misclassified, solely in the hopes of finding evidence of evolution. Such fossil faux-pas are common knowledge, and should be easy for you to find, with a modicum of research, if you’re interested in the truth of the matter. So are the many times that fossils have been found outside of what should have been their strata, and the many errors in constructing evolutionary charts on the a-priori classifications of these fossils as missing links. The ’empirical evidence’ is against your position, in spite of how extreme your assertions may be. No matter how long, how loud, or how often, you assert something, it cannot be a fact, unless you have evidence on your side.

            Your bias is noted, and probably the result of your woeful ignorance on this subject. There’s a reason that Nietzsche referred to modern ‘scientists’ as “priests in white coats”, but you won’t let yourself consider it. Contrary to your belief, reading the Bible, from beginning to end, is how Christians are made; you’ve only shown that reading into the Bible what you want it to say is how atheists are made. Propaganda may be comfortable to you, but it damages your position. Try some truth, instead, if your position can stand in the face of it…

      • Peacharoo

        Extinct Apes.. the word “Pithecus” is a dead giveaway (It means Ape)
        They ARENT getting increasingly like a human… That is a MYTH
        BTW, the only place the “Geologic Column” exists is IN THE TEXTBOOKS! It isn’t anywhere on EARTH that’s for sure.. Sorry, you have been sold a Big Lie.

        • Don Marfia

          Chimps have advanced into the stone age, just thought you’d like to know how fast they are NOT evolving.

      • Peacharoo

        They were Extinct Apes… Nothing to do with Man
        Actually, the word “Pithecus should have been a clue..
        It means….APE ..Next Question please..

        • Gert

          Wow, nothing gets past you, does it? We are apes. Not sure what your point is. Why does Ardipithecus have so many human-like traits that do not occur in chimps? Clue: You’ll have to read something not published by a creationist to figure this puzzle out.

          • Peacharoo

            Speak for yourself Monkey boy.. Why the strange Fetish of pretending that you are a flea infested foul smelling ape?? Sounds very unhealthy to me..

            Wake Up! your Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it.. It is a made up Fairy tale based on Wishful Speculation and Hopeful assumptions.. I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori assumption that Abio / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of science (Which it is NOT) but because…
            “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”
            RICHARD DAWKINS

          • Gert

            And your fetish is Catholic priests. This is a fun tangent.

            Seriously, how can you lob comments like scientists believe in fairy tales and have emotional attachments when you believe a magical father figure with a beard who protects you and does everything you don’t understand? Daddy issues? Have you ever been hugged?

            Why do you believe in something there is no evidence for? Have you seen god? Can you take his picture for everyone else, please? How does his magic work? If it works for creating humans, why doesn’t it also work for explaining everything? It would be bizarre if it was just evolution.

    • NManning

      What is truly embarrassing is that creationists do not understand the issues well enough to even ask sensible questions.

      Allow me to play the YEC-mentality card – where are the bones of Moses? Huh? Don;t have them? He supposedly only lived a few thousand years ago and you can’t even present THEM, yet you demand that others present you with something from hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago?

      Now THAT is embarrassing.

      • David Miller

        So, you concede that evolution is only as verifiable as any given historical account in the Bible? Aside from all the failed predictions based on evolution, all the demonstrably false premises and conclusions of evolution, and all the blatant fraud used to prop it up, that is (Earnst Haeckel, anyone?)…

        Speaking of embarrassing, you have to know what ‘sensible’ means, before you can apply it
        properly. I suggest you pick up a dictionary, and look up the
        definition, first…

        • Don Marfia

          Yeah, no, there is no blatant fraud propping up the bible at all (King James, anyone?)…

          • David Miller

            Go ahead; defend your accusation.

          • Don Marfia

            Okay, fair enough. Who wrote John 8:1-11?

          • David Miller

            In all likelihood, all of John and the Revelation were penned by a Christian, on John’s behalf, since they were written circa 90-99 A.D., which would make John very old, and as a fisherman, he was probably semi-literate, at best. What does that have to do with anything?

          • Don Marfia

            Actually, those particular passages were penned in about 400 CE, by a person who wasn’t there at all. The tone of those passages is so different from the rest of John that it was a completely different author and was interjected into the Bible hundreds of years after the rest. I wonder what purpose there could have been for a person to make up a story like that and put it in the Bible? No fraud there at all…

          • David Miller

            Got any evidence to back up your statements, or are you just making things up to fill in the gaps in your own knowledge on the subject? I wonder why nobody ever made such a claim in all the centuries since the Gospel of John was written. Not one naysayer has made such a claim, until a relatively recent period in history.

            By the way, what evidence do you have to support the belief that the apostles named as the authors of the Gnostic gospels, which were both clearly mythic in nature (sky-high talking cross, anyone? Women, getting sex-change operations to get into Heaven, because they’re not as good as men?), and contradictory to every passage cited since before 125, none of which were denied by anyone before the date you claim, even with all the naysayers having plenty of motive and opportunity to do just that?

            Did you know that the Council of Nicea, one of several, was not even the council that canonized the New Testament, and took place before your claim of 400 years after the Revelation was written? A little off topic, but do you know why so many frauds rely on conspiracy theories, when the facts contradict their claims (Frank Dux comes to mind, for one)?

            Nice try, but you are wrong.

          • Don Marfia

            I hope the moderators approve my responses. I linked a couple Christian articles backing up my statement as evidence, but they usually don’t approve of such things (even when they are Christian articles).

          • David Miller

            I’ll take that as your admission to the above facts that I posted…

      • Peacharoo

        We understand the issues just fine thank you, Many of us are Scientists who know a whole lot more about Darwinism than you do so you can quit with the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Verecundum….

        What is embarassing is your terrible Straw Moses….
        You dont get to write a science fiction novel about millions of years ago, pretending you have a time machine and then try to fit the square pegs in the round holes when your hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO mud to man doesnt fit with the facts on the ground (See Convergant Evoution, 100 MYO Dino Red Blood Cells, Hopeful monsters, Punctuated Equilibrium, and “Living fossils for starters.. lol)

    • David Butler

      How is this embarassing? We don’t have direct lineages for most life on the planet. Fossilization doesn’t work that way, and at best we can only reconstruct paths, rather than specific lineages. This is nothing more than the usual creationist ‘show me ALL the fossil transitions’ demand.

  • Halimolobos

    NOthing here that convinces me, a PhD life scientist, that Nye is wrong and Axe is right.

    • Eldjr

      Address my posts

    • Robert Doell

      Of course not. It is the only story you have been taught and truly investigated.

      • NManning

        Having actually done research on evolution, why would I bother ‘researching’ the silly claims of pre-technological ancient middle eastern herders?

        • David Miller

          So, you admit to your ignorance holding you back?

          • Don Marfia

            Saying, “I will not investigate the existence of unicorns because there is nothing to even hint at their existence” is not the same as saying “I don’t want to research your claims because I don’t want believe you”.

            If we spent our time chasing dragons, unicorns, and invisible fairy fathers we would all be fantasy writers.

        • Peacharoo

          How about a Self Replicating DNA Molecule encoded with millions of lines of specified and irreducible complexity.
          Do you think that could have mindlessly created Itself out of dirt, air, heat, and water? please explain (Scientifically)
          Which came first? the chicken? or the egg.. If your answer is “the egg” please explain (Scientifically of course) who or what put all of the genetic information / blueprints in that Proto Egg!! (Or its first “egg laying” ancestor)
          Those are the easy ones.. I got some others you are just going to love after you deal with these easy ones!
          Incidentally, Just so we don’t think that your belief in Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all is purely a religion of yours based on wishful speculation, hopeful assumptions, or unverified hypotheses, Could you please provide for us, a few examples of Empirical Scientific Evidence to support your hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth?
          Remember, No story telling allowed, because we will call you out on it!
          I’m sure you remember what the empirical Scientific Method is…
          I cant wait, this will be a learning experience for all of us!!
          Regards Blitzking

    • Angelo Grasso

      what would convince you ?

      • Don Marfia

        Literally any actual evidence whatsoever.

    • David Miller

      I’ll believe your claim, when you demonstrate it.

    • Peacharoo

      How about a Self Replicating DNA Molecule encoded with millions of lines of specified and irreducible complexity.
      Do you think that could have mindlessly created Itself out of dirt, air, heat, and water? please explain (Scientifically)
      Which came first? the chicken? or the egg.. If your answer is “the egg” please explain (Scientifically of course) who or what put all of the genetic information / blueprints in that Proto Egg!! (Or its first “egg laying” ancestor)
      Those are the easy ones.. I got some others you are just going to love after you deal with these easy ones!
      Incidentally, Just so we don’t think that your belief in Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all is purely a religion of yours based on wishful speculation, hopeful assumptions, or unverified hypotheses, Could you please provide for us, Mr. Scientist, a few examples of Empirical Scientific Evidence to support your hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth?
      Remember, No story telling allowed, because we will call you out on it!
      I’m sure you remember what the empirical Scientific Method is…
      I cant wait, this will be a learning experience for all of us!!
      Regards Blitzking

      • Gert

        Don nailed it in his answer below. But I’ll add.
        Your position, Peacharoo, is ‘God did it,’ which, when translated into English is MAGIC. You believe in MAGIC. Have you ever seen magical causation, Peacharoo? Does stuff just levitate around you? Do chickens spontaneously materialize around you out of thin air? You don’t get your groceries from the store – you just open your fridge and bam, there they are? You must have witnessed magic firsthand at some point, and that’s why you’re so sure MAGIC explains everything. Heck, why do we need science at all? If there’s magic, there’s no reason it would just be present at the origin of life and then go hide. It should be everywhere even now. Goodbye trying to cure cancer with science, predict the weather, or understand why bridges stay up. Because you figured it out, we can stop wasting our time and just sit on our a$$es waiting for magic to come and show us what to do.

        BTW, DNA is not irreducibly complex. Fully formed nucleic acids are formed by abiotic chemical reactions in space. That’s a FACT. So are amino acids and every other COMPLEX organic molecule that make up ingredients for abiogenetic origins of life.

        • Peacharoo

          Darwinists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. Hypocrisy on Steroids..
          In the beginning NOTHING Exploded and created all of the matter in the known universe// no “Magic” needed LOL
          Then, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines of specified / irreducibly complexity was able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water… when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical combinations CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE trying to create DNA,!!!! No “Magic” there ..LOL
          Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT.. Which was the “Order” for their “Evolution”? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all “Evolve” TOGETHER??
          no “Magic” Required” LOL
          Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg?? OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for that “Proto” chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG??
          WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh??
          Or
          How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo… No Magic required there….
          I suggest you take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth
          We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it..
          I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori assumption that Abio / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of science (Which it is NOT) but because…
          “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”
          RICHARD DAWKINS

          • Gert

            The difference between us is that when you don’t understand something, you immediately assume it must be magic. Scientists don’t. We try to figure it out. Maybe you’re right, and it is magic. But there are so many instances where people like you have called something magic and turned out to be completely wrong – it was just normal physics or chemistry – that it’s irrational to start with the assumption of magic. Best example is the regular orbit of the planets. Early astronomers didn’t understand why the solar system held together with the planets moving so orderly. They understood a little about gravity but their math was too simple. So they gave up and said the planets must be led around on a leash by an intelligent designer. Then someone invented calculus and figured out how the solar system works. It took a long time between when people posed the question and it was solved, so I get why people like you stop and marvel at things you don’t understand. But history tells us it will be figured out.

            You’re also confused about application of ‘magic’ in science. YOU do that, not us. If we don’t understand something, we scientists will propose a tentative model to explain how something works (ALL hypotheses and theories are tentative models). Unlike your magic, which can NEVER be questioned, ‘ours’ is tentative and open to critique. That’s why Gould tried to take down Darwinian selection. That’s why developmental biologists questioned how selection improves traits that are developmentally and genetically constrained. And it’s why epigeneticists are proposing Lamarckian (not Darwinian) mechanisms for how new traits are passed on. At least we’re open minded enough to ponder whether we’re right. Please shine that harsh light of introspection on your own beliefs for once. Just once. Or are you too emotionally attached to it?

            You’re ignorant about the origin of DNA. Irreducibly complex? If so, then why are ALL of its parts formed through simple physics and chemistry processes in space? You’re also ignorant about our ability to create DNA. Read Craig Venter. He synthesized (CREATED) and entire synthetic genome for a new kind of life. It worked.

            10 vital interdependent organs? You are obviously unfamiliar with how this works. Interdependency isn’t just in organs. It’s also in genetic regulatory networks. Interdependency evolves. It’s not there initially, but selection favors the stability that comes with it. New concept for you.

          • Peacharoo

            “You’re ignorant about the origin of DNA. Irreducibly complex? If so, then why are ALL of its parts formed through simple physics and chemistry processes in space?”

            HUH??? We are talking about Specific INFORMATION!!!! Not “Parts”

            “10 vital interdependent organs? You are obviously unfamiliar with how this works. Interdependency isn’t just in organs. It’s also in genetic regulatory networks. Interdependency evolves. It’s not there initially, but selection favors the stability that comes with it. New concept for you.”
            HUH???
            Please explain, How does a lung “Evolve” and keep the creature alive?
            How does a Stomach “Evolve” and keep the creature alive while it is “Evolving” Heart? Skin? Brain? kidneys? Mouth? Veins? Blood?Reproductive system? Etc Etc Etc.. They ALL have to be in good working condition working together or we DIE… It is science fiction a la Dr Frankenstein to believe otherwise…
            Who believes this Nonsense??

          • Gert

            You never answered my question. Why do you have a problem with scientists trying to figure out how the world works by assuming that it works WITHOUT magic. Even if they are wrong, they don’t START with the assumption of magic. You, on the other hand, START with magic and then scream at others for employing magic. Your brain is broken my friend.

            ABout DNA, you claimed that it is irreducibly complex. I was just pointing out that you are ignoring that no, actually, all the very complex parts (guanine, cytosine, adenine, etc.) are assembled by natural processes in space. That’s not trivial. You want more? OK, guess, what? Half of DNA is still fully functional informational carrier called RNA. In English, this means you can take your supposedly irreducibly complex DNA molecule and reduce it by half and it still functions. Some viruses use it instead of DNA. So POOF to your claim. It’s just wrong.

            Not sure I can explain to you how organs evolve. I have to use concepts you never heard of before. Every organ you mentioned has intermediate steps in evolution. A lung is just an outpocket of the esophagus for holding air. Some fish mouth breathe because it’s more efficient for gas exchange than trying to get oxygen from water, especially when the water has low oxygen. Ever heard of a lungfish? It’s exactly what it sounds like – an evolutionary intermediate.

            All those systems have to be working in you or they die, but they don’t all have to be working in human form in an evolutionary ancestor. They didn’t. There are primitive relatives to vertebrates called hemichordates, which, in their larval form, have some of the organs you listed and in simpler form but not all.

            I don’t blame you for not knowing all this stuff, because who has time to read that much, but I do blame your obscene arrogance and hypocrisy. You think you know more than everyone yet you’ve not spent more than a few minutes studying it. You complain that scientists believe in magic (obviously, that’s the exact opposite of what science tries to do) but then you are perfectly OK with magical creation.

            Have you EVER asked a serious question about whether your religious dogma is true? One? I dare you to do that.

          • Peacharoo

            You keep on ignoring the 800 lb. gorila in the room..
            How do you account for the specified INFORMATION encoded into the DNA genome?
            Which came first, the Proto Chicken or the Egg? If the answer is Egg, How do you account for the Genetic INFORMATION / Blueprints inside of the Proto Egg of the Chicken OR Its FIRST Egg-Laying Ancestor??

          • Gert

            I’ll answer your big question, and you answer mine.

            I don’t know how the first genome was assembled. Nobody knows. But we do know now that the building blocks do self-assemble. And we now that half a DNA molecule does what a DNA molecule does plus a little more and is the precursor into DNA. Both facts were once thought to be big, impossible steps in evolution. Knowing this, there’s no reason to do as you do – raise the white flag and declare magic for everything you haven’t personally figured out. That’s very self-centered and arrogant to think that just because you haven’t figured it out, no one can, not even a century from now. The position of science is “I’m not ready to give up trying to explain this with simple physics and chemistry.” That’s not magic.

            Science certainly hasn’t figured this out yet, but there are some decent hypotheses. That’s how ALL science starts. Look up the iron-sulfur world hypothesis. The first information system probably wasn’t DNA or even RNA, just as the first computer didn’t have a keyboard or a monitor (it was a pile of stones). That means if you’re interested in how DNA started, you have to think outside the box.

            Now my question. Please answer it. Have you EVER asked a serious question about whether your religious dogma is true? One? I dare you to do that.

          • Peacharoo

            Darwinists / Atheists have written the book on MAGIC.. What I would
            consider to be Hypocrisy on Steroids..It goes something like this

            In the beginning NOTHING (Or a miniscule dot) Exploded and created
            all of the matter in the known universe.. no “Magic” needed LOL..

            THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines
            of specified / irreducibly complexity were able to mindlessly
            create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water… when Man, with all
            of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to
            artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN
            TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!! No “Magic” there ..LOL

            Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their
            support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and
            GO EXTINCT.. Which was the “Order” for their “Evolution”? Stomach
            first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all “Evolve” TOGETHER??
            No “Magic” Required” LOL

            Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg??
            OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for
            that “Proto” Chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT
            THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh??

            Or

            How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA
            fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING
            COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo… No Magic required there….

            I suggest you Atheists / Darwinists take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth
            We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it..

            I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori
            assumption that Abio / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of
            science (Which it is NOT) but because…

            “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

            RICHARD DAWKINS

            All the Best Blitzy

          • Gert

            Read what I wrote. Science has nothing to do with magic. Every explanation in science refers to material causality that we have figured out PLUS hypotheses about material causality for things we haven’t figured out. Material causality is NOT magic. Maybe we’re wrong and completely naive (that’s why I and many scientists are agnostic about non-material causality), but scientists also acknowledge the limits of what they understand. That’s why it’s called a HYPOTHESIS. Hypotheses are tentative, open to inspection, and readily discarded. And that’s why scientists vigorously defend the scientific method, because anything that doesn’t start with tentative claims that are open to inspection and being discarded is DOGMA. You believe in magic AND dogma that some human made up.

            Now my question. Please answer it. Have you EVER asked a serious question about whether your religious dogma is true? One? I dare you to do that. I answered yours very clearly.

          • Peacharoo

            “You never answered my question. Why do you have a problem with scientists trying to figure out how the world works by assuming that it works WITHOUT magic. Even if they are wrong, they don’t START with the assumption of magic.”
            No, they start with the assumption of Evolutiondidit by way of Methodological Naturalism..
            And THAT is what I have a problem with..Shouldn’t scientists assume NOTHING yet discount NOTHING and go with where the facts and evidence lead them instead of making ASSUMPTIONS?

          • Peacharoo

            “The difference between us is that when you don’t understand something,
            you immediately assume it must be magic. Scientists don’t.”

            Darwinists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. What I would consider to be Hypocrisy on Steroids..It goes something like this

            In the beginning NOTHING (Or a miniscule dot) Exploded and created
            all of the matter in the known universe.. no “Magic” needed LOL..

            THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines
            of specified / irreducibly complexity were able to mindlessly
            create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water… when Man, with all
            of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to
            artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN
            TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!! No “Magic” there ..LOL

            Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their
            support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and
            GO EXTINCT.. Which was the “Order” for their “Evolution”? Stomach
            first? Brain second? Lungs third? Or did they all “Evolve” TOGETHER??
            No “Magic” Required” LOL

            Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg??
            OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for
            that “Proto” Chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT
            THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh??

            Or

            How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA
            fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING
            COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo… No Magic required there….

            I suggest you Atheists / Darwinists take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth
            We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it..

            I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori
            assumption that Abio / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of
            science (Which it is NOT) but because…

            “Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

            RICHARD DAWKINS

            All the Best Blitzy

  • robertleo

    The theme park as to the life size Noah’s Ark proves only one thing that it can be duplicated. So I can understand Bill’s Nye reasoning from a scientific point of view.
    One thing I am reminded off is that the world before the Flood reasoned that for centuries the laws of nature had been fixed. The recurring seasons had come in their order. Heretofore rain had never fallen; the earth had been watered by a mist or dew. The rivers had never yet passed their boundaries, but had borne their waters safely to the sea. Fixed decrees had kept the waters from overflowing their banks. But these reasoners did not recognize the hand of Him who had stayed the waters, saying, “Hitherto shall thou come, but no further.” Job 38:11.
    As time passed on, with no apparent change in nature, men whose hearts had at times trembled with fear began to be reassured. They reasoned, as many reason now, that nature is above the God of nature, and that her laws are so firmly established that God Himself could not change them. Reasoning that if the message of Noah were correct, nature would be turned out of her course, they made that message, in the minds of the world, a delusion–a grand deception. They manifested their contempt for the warning of God by doing just as they had done before the warning was given.
    They asserted that if there were any truth in what Noah had said, the men of renowned–the wise, the prudent, the great men–would understand the matter.
    Had the antediluvian believed the warning, and repented of their evil deeds, the Lord would have turned aside His wrath, as He afterward did from Nineveh. But by their obstinate resistance to the reproofs of conscience and the warnings of God’s prophet, that generation filled up the measure of their iniquity, and became ripe for destruction.
    So now will Jesus descend from the heavens so every eye will see him believable?

    • Don Marfia

      “The earth had been watered by a mist or a dew” and where exactly did you get this from? Where is there any scientific evidence whatsoever to support this? We have evidence of rain/snowfall from hundreds of thousands of years ago by examining sediment layers and ice cores taken from the arctic, where is your evidence of rainfall only starting 4-6 thousand years ago?

      • robertleo

        You accept the science of evolution and that’s OK but I accept Creation science and the earth is not yet 10,000 years of age and that’s OK.
        “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Genesis 2:5, 6

        • Don Marfia

          No, actually my acceptance of evolution, being provided by evidence, and your acceptance of creationism, being provided by a book written by ancient goat herders, are not both okay. Mine, when taught to children, encourages them to ask questions and seek answers from the earth and universe around us. Yours, when taught to children, discourages them from asking questions and stunts their learning: it is a form of child abuse.

          Tell me again how our ideas are equal and okay?

          • Peacharoo

            “No, actually my acceptance of evolution, being provided by evidence”
            Actually, come to think of it, can you provide some Empirical Scientific Evidence to support the hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all the flora and fauna either extant or extinct on planet Earth?
            Don’t worry, You wont be able to, Because… I hate to tell you the bad news… THERE IS NONE..
            Abiogenesis / Darwinism is merely a religion of metaphysical naturalism based on wishful speculations and hopeful assumptions.. We have been Brainwashed and Indoctrinated into believing it has anything to do with science.. It has ZERO to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with….
            “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”
            RICHARD DAWKINS

          • Don Marfia

            There’s actually a lot of empirical evidence that supports evolution. I don’t know why you keep attacking Darwin so hard, we used his theories as the basis for which we studied evolution, but if you stopped at him it’s no wonder why you are so confused.

            I’m not going to do your work for you, if you really cared to know why evolution is so concrete you would look into it yourself. I’m not going to attempt to explain why evidence is important to someone who doesn’t value evidence. That’s just an exercise in futility. Much smarter men than I have tried, but you prefer to mock them than listen.

            Have a good life, and I know you won’t be too disappointed when you die: dead people don’t feel.

          • Peacharoo

            There’s actually a lot of empirical evidence that supports evolution.

            What do you mean when you use the dupicitous, purposely vague, and ambivalent term “Evolution”

            Are you referring to finches beaks, moth colors, and bear coat and dog ear variation?

            OR are you referring to

            The hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis
            followed by Darwinian common ancestor for all the flora and fauna either
            extant or extinct on planet Earth?

          • Don Marfia

            I think you know exactly what I mean. The context of this conversation is not vague in any way. You have a cute little phrase that you keep using here to show your disdain for the scientific process that has resulted in the the current hypothesis of man’s origin in line with the theory of evolution that we already know to be true. What we do know for a fact, is that man and ape came from the same common ancestor, though the exact mutation that created the first “human” and “chimp” would be close to impossible to find.

            My question for you, since you guys keep griping over finding EVERY single intermediary fossil in order to find evolution conclusive, is why you would make the leap to “a magical creature nobody has ever seen or can see created everything” based on 0% factual evidence, when we have evolutionary evidence that fills in about 70% of the information we need?

            I mean, the bible says god created Adam and Eve from the dust, in his own image? So then why would we find all of these fossils and bones of half man, half chimp ancestors buried in the exact sediment layers they should be found in accordance with our hypothesized timetables? Did your god also evolve from a chimp ancestor? Seems to me like a flawed design plan for a being that knows everything and can do anything.

          • Peacharoo

            “What we do know for a fact, is that man and ape came from the same common ancestor,”
            PURE AND UTTER HOGWASH.. WHO TOLD YOU SUCH RUBBISH? AND BETTER YET, WHY DID YOU BELIEVE THEM??

          • Don Marfia

            Because of the proof we have in intermediary fossils and the fact that we share 97% identical DNA. That’s pretty basic.

          • Peacharoo

            “The fact that we share 97% identical DNA”
            3% is Millions of base pairs.. A MASSIVE difference..
            We all Eat, Breath, Ingest and Absorb the SAME elements!
            Evidence for Common designer using the same building blocks
            because they WORK!

            “Because of the proof we have in intermediary fossils”

            Prominent “Evolutionary” Paleontologists don’t agree!!

            Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

            “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

          • Peacharoo

            “My question for you, since you guys keep griping over finding EVERY single intermediary fossil in order to find evolution conclusive”
            Naw,, Just ONE would do… LOL

          • Don Marfia

            There are plenty to choose from, take your pick. If you can’t be bothered to do some quick Google search research then I cannot be bothered to do it for you.

          • Peacharoo

            There is ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support your Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian Common Ancestor for all..

            Nobody has ever provided any and neither will you..
            Doesn’t that fact make you at least consider why that is so?

            Ever look into NDEs?

  • The_REAL_Voice_of_Reason

    Yet you felt compelled to waste the energy it took to make multiple posts in regard to it.

  • Gus

    It’s weak pseudo science like this that passes for the real thing that causes so much confusion and conflict and is the reason we can’t have nice things.

    • Robert Doell

      Pseudo science = evolutionary science. How could some else’s belief cause you so much trouble and conflict? How could it result in not having nice things? You are completely mixed up as defined unreasonable.

      • Gus

        Dude the guys entire argument is based on weak leading suppositions. You don’t science a lot do you (or grammar it seems)? “We can’t have nice things” is a euphemism for, “we aren’t progressing as a culture”, because we have trite like this holding back progress forward. We keep being mired in superstition masquerading as science. I think you left school a year or two too early. I could do an entire take down of every flawed argument but it would be in vain as you wouldn’t even try to assimilate it so I won’t bother. But if our culture is to advance we need to learn to think clearly and remove superstition from the equation. Give it a try. you might like it.

        • Robert Doell

          You are full of it. Where are the examples that this culture has been held back. You are bulldozing over any social norms held in the past. Christians have not held anything back. Who the heck are you to dismiss me as your intellectual inferior. If you would use examples of how your ideas are so superior to others which challenge your limited intelligence, as you have only been taught 1 point of view, your opinions might be considered, until then ta ta.,

          • Gus

            Somehow my last post has been deleted. Don’t know how or why. But don’t care, I’m done speaking with theist imbeciles.
            Enjoy your superstition kids. And don’t forget your lucky rabbits foot when you play outside.

          • Peacharoo

            When you are lying in your death bed breathing your last. say a little prayer to Darwin and Dawkins, see if they can help save you! Just kidding… All jokes aside, why do you think that YOUR religion of Metaphysical Naturalism is better then the Genesis account?

            You do realize that the Mindless MYO mud to Man Myth / hypothetical hypothesis of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common Ancestor for All has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it, dont you? Have you REALLY taken a good look behind the curtain? Or does your emotional attachment to Darwinism prevent you from doing so because you are afraid what you will find?

            Remember, The ONLY reason Abiogenesis / Darwinism was ever invented was to try to remove the Judeo Christian God of the Bible from man’s conscience…. It has ZERO to do with Science.. It Never Did….

            “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”

            RICHARD DAWKINS

            How long do you think you have left? 50 years? 40?
            Wake Up! The clock is ticking…

          • Don Marfia

            Using fear of the unknown to push your opinions does not strengthen your argument.

            What is it with Christians fantasizing about other people dying? It’s almost like they’re Muslim or something… oh wait, they never like that comparison.

          • Peacharoo

            NO “FANTASIZING ABOUT IT, SOMEDAY WE WILL ALL DIE.. WHETHER YOU WANT TO FACE IT OR NOT,

            I am happy to have Jesus as my saviour, He DIDNT believe in Darwinism Either… I

            27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

            When you are lying in your death bed breathing your last. say a
            little prayer to Darwin and Dawkins, see if they can help save you!
            Just kidding… All jokes aside, why do you think that YOUR religion of
            Metaphysical Naturalism is better then the Genesis account?

            You do
            realize that the Mindless MYO mud to Man Myth / hypothetical hypothesis
            of Abiogenesis followed by Darwinian common Ancestor for All has ZERO
            Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it, dont you? Have you REALLY
            taken a good look behind the curtain? Or does your emotional attachment
            to Darwinism prevent you from doing so because you are afraid what you
            will find?

            Remember, The ONLY reason Abiogenesis / Darwinism was
            ever invented was to try to remove the Judeo Christian God of the Bible
            from man’s conscience…. It has ZERO to do with Science.. It Never
            Did….

            “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”

            RICHARD DAWKINS

            How long do you think you have left? 50 years? 40?
            Wake Up! The clock is ticking…

          • Don Marfia

            You are reveling and delighted at the thought of atheists saying prayers to Dawkins and Darwin (which we would never do, because prayer is an exercise in wasted energy) right before they die: so yes, you are fantasizing about people dying and going to hell.

            Besides, it’s pretty easy for Jesus not to believe in Darwin’s theories seeing as how Jesus never existed.

            Why would I worship a god with less morals and understanding of the universe than I have? If you wanted to impress me with your god’s superior nature, don’t you think you could have created a god that doesn’t sound like a tantrum throwing child in one half and a hippie passing out flowers in the next? I mean, isn’t it even a little suspicious to you that your book says his live is unconditional, then they give two different criteria that you have to accomplish in order to earn his love?

          • Peacharoo

            I earned my atheism. It was a hard-fought battle against every person of influence in my life. It was a conclusion seeded out of desperation and bloomed into logical necessity. No believer can say the same, I promise you that.
            You are 100% Correct Don.. Our salvation we could NEVER Earn… It is a glorious gift that we humbly accept with much gratitude!

          • Don Marfia

            Yes the sheep analogy is very much fitting. The gratitude you show is not unlike that of a sheep to it’s shepherd. What you seem to forget is that that gratitude extends right up to the point when the shepherd leads the sheep to be slaughtered.

            You can quip back with all of your cute little Christian phrases of comfort you want, they are all designed to makes you feel more comfortable in the shackles you voluntarily place around your wrists and ankles, I would never take a man’s unnecessary comforts. Don’t think for a second, however, that I envy your ignorance. I can no sooner pull the wool back over my own eyes than I can will myself to entertain any other fantasy as anything more than just that: a fantasy.

            Back to the original topic at hand: evolution. It’s evolution where humankind came from? The fact is, we don’t know. You don’t know. I don’t know. We don’t know. Is evolution real? Yes. We have evidence for evolution and we can observe it happening in the world around us. With that same knowledge we can also observe how slow it happens, and can also come to the conclusion that given that we know the earth is roughly 4.543 billion years old, give or take a few million years, that is and amount of time in which evolution might be able to make these changes. The point is all of these hypothesis use real, empirical data to build the basis for their ideas. They may be found to be wrong. Who knows, maybe aliens kickstarted the planet and created a bunch of stuff before dying out or flying away. Maybe, and this is a big stretch, one of the 6,000+ religions still on this planet got it right. Maybe one of the ancient dead religions your religion is based on got it right.

            Let me borrow a fun little exercise you Christians like to use from time to time: Pascal’s wager. The neat thing is that Pascal used it to incorrectly come to the conclusion that belief in god was safer than to not believe in god, because if god exists then you’re going to be in some trouble come judgement day. There are currently over 6,300 religions on this earth today. There are many more dead religions as well, but we’ll use 6,000 because it’s a nice number and is plenty more than I need to use anyway. What are the chances, you think, that you happened to be born in the right country, at the right time, that the majority of the population happens to have the right religion? Of 6,000 religions to choose from, how many of them have you studied? How many Hindus have you asked about their personal relationship with Vishnu? Now, add to that within each religion there are also different denominations, or sects. Also, within each denomination there are also differing personal beliefs. The Baptist Church down the road from the Baptist Church you attend believes everyone in your church is going to hell because you have gay members. So now, not only do you have to pick the right religion from 6,000, you also have to pick from over 24,000 denominations (and that’s conservative, giving each religion an average of only 4 denominations), and then you have to reconcile your chosen denomination with your own personal beliefs and choose a church that speaks to you personally. Pascal’s wager just became a big, confusing mess.

            Life is not binary. Right and wrong is not objective. You should not murder, good guidelines to follow, but what if the man you murder was holding a machete to your 7 year old’s throat after just killing your wife? There are millions of shades of grey in this world, but at the end of the day we are all just navigating this giant mess with nothing but our own convictions to guide us.

            That’s why I wouldn’t take your bait of “did you have a personal relationship with Jesus”. To answer your question, yes, I did. However if you want the truth of it all, I no longer look at that time as my relationship with Jesus (because I don’t believe in god or Jesus as the son of god any longer) but rather as a period of time when I took great comfort in religion and have since grown out of. I believe in consensus with the scientific community that we will find more answers in evolution than we currently have, even if (as often is the case with science) they aren’t the answers we were looking to find. I can believe that because we’ve already found a lot of evidence to support Darwin’s theories, even if they don’t have the full, far-reaching implications that we initially may have hoped. It will lead to more questions, but we’ll look for answers to those too. At least we’re making forward progress.

            Creationists, however, have absolutely no evidence to support creationism except, “we don’t know Howe it works, it’s too complex: must be god” and you don’t realize that even the Christian next to you is imagining a slightly different god than you are imagining. Our ideas of who god is changes so wildly from person to person because the only evidence we have for his existence is the way you feel about him. That’s why I read the Bible over and over and why I ultimately had to throw it out as superstition. I wander to know who god is, but every chapter of the Bible paints wildly conflicting accounts of what the nature of god is, Anna’s if I was a betting man I would be willing to place money on the fact that god’s character probably took on the shape of whatever man was writing about him at the time. That’s why Paul’s letters all have a slightly homophobic tinge to them and why Moses’ god loses his patience with the Israelites as time goes on. That’s why they made the council of Nicaea, to try to put together a Bible that consistently paints god as a god of love. Unfortunately for them, their limited understanding of modern morality allows us to still see past the curtain to realize that a timeless god wouldn’t have these same blemishes on his character that your biblical god still possesses after all these years.

            So keep chanting about your mud man myth or whatever dogma you keep spewing, we’ll just keep looking for answers without you.

        • David Miller

          Your language suggests that you know about as much on the subjects of science and grammar as any meme-cultured teenager. Your argument is so full of holes and false bravado, it’s almost entirely sure that you know you’re wrong, and you can’t face that fact.

      • NManning

        I’m betting you do not even understand Axe’s claims, you just like them because they prop up your ancient middle eastern fairy tales.

        • David Miller

          Is that why you have to resort to such sorry excuses for arguments?

  • ARA5353

    When you get 3 competent engineers or scientists in a lab to consider any process, you will get 12 differing and contradictory opinions on how to proceed or what the result will be. Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.

    • NManning

      Not in my experience. Unless the engineers are creationists.

      • David Miller

        Do you have any experience?

      • ARA5353

        I was told this by one of the engineers at the nuclear research lab where I work. No creationists there.

  • Robert Doell

    Scientists are every bit like Muslims who have been indoctrinated/Brainwashed into believing and understanding the world and Universe from only 1 perspective. They refuse to consider any other perspective on threat of losing their accreditation the respect of their peers and at the risk of losing their research and governmental funding.
    Science is Supposed to be OBJECTIVE and based on OBSERVATION of FACTS. Scientists’ Hatred of GOD and JESUS and CHRISTIANS and their Perspectives drives them Obsessively to disregard any mention of Creation or Intelligent Design and Drives them to IGNORE the MASSIVE Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution where fair minded curious scientists would at least investigate and inquire at the weaknesses of any theory.
    From elementary school to High school through a University Bachelor degree and certainly at the Masters and Phd levels Students are delivered only one repeated message or Mantra which they MUST all repeat or endure low grades or outright failure. Science and Scientists have always been incredibly inflexible and intolerant of alternate explanations even those unconnected to any religious connection.

    • NManning

      Perhaps because “alternative explanations” are code for emotionally-driven baloney spewed to protect an ideology?
      I get a laugh out of claims like this – the fear of losing funding especially. It is almost as if anti-evolution zealots have ZERO understanding of how scientific research operates.

      • David Miller

        Kafkatrapping, tu-quoque, reframing, buzzwords and catchphrases… if you can’t back up your argument with logic or evidence, you won’t be taken seriously. Social engineering, in an argument, is for those who know how weak and unverifiable their position is.

    • Don Marfia

      Compares scientists to muslims > reveals two unfounded biases at once. Good luck with that one.

    • Peacharoo

      Yup, All of the Cults have the same thing in common.. They call Jesus a Liar about who he said he was..
      “Before Abraham was born, I AM” they say Nope, Jesus, you Lie… Destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up (Which he DID) They say, Nope, Jesus you Lie, We know better than you…
      Muslims, Darwinists, JW, LDS, CS, New Age, And all of the rest are all the same kind of Dog.. Just with different fleas..

    • Peacharoo

      Like the Darwinian / Atheist (Same thing) guru Richard Dawkins said in a brief moment of candor…
      “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”
      It never had anything to do with science, any anyone who removes the blinders and takes an honest look at the mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis / Darwinian common ancestor for all…

  • Big Kangaroo

    Have you studied ANYTHING on genetics and evolution in the last 20 years?

    • David Miller

      I have; have you?

      • Big Kangaroo

        Then your article makes no sense. And yes I have. I came to understand evolution the way one would any field of science. Understand how it is actually substantiated.

        • Stephen_Phelan

          It depends how you define “evolution”. If what you mean by the word is that species change over time due to mutations and selection for traits, then you’re on pretty solid ground and the design guys won’t disagree with you. If by evolution you mean, like some other people on this thread and like Nye, that we all came from the same single cell organism and *therefore* the idea of a Creator is silly, then you don’t understand the boundaries of your field and its explanatory limitations. The reason so many Christian scientists (including Catholic priests) have made such important contributions to physics, biology and other fields is not because they hold a contradiction, but because they understand the limits of scientific explanation and can proceed along the scientific method (first codified in its popular form by a Christian) like any other scientist.

          But when, like Nye, you stretch what you think “evolution” explains beyond its empirical basis, you err. That this article makes no sense to you demonstrates that you don’t have the education in logic and semantics to understand the difference. You would ask questions like “Why did Darwin call his book ‘The Origin of Species’ when he had nothing like proof of the origin of a single species?” You might also arrive at an answer like “Well, he did find some interesting things that needed to be addressed, and he made some mistakes. And some who tried to support his theory committed fraud (piltdown man, etc.) in order to do so, demonstrating a non-scientific ideology that was committed to forwarding this view for some reason. But from what he found we can come up with an alternative narrative for creation and our place in the physical world.” Even this is fair, but realize that you go beyond science to find this narrative. Don’t pretend as if “science” has proven anything of the kind and act, as Nye does, like a stammering twit who pretends to be unable to believe that any thinking person could still believe in the Creator.

          The narrative interprets the science. Realize that you’re working from a narrative that is not, in fact, based in science; have some humility and try to understand other narratives rather than dismissing them out of hand. They matter in that our language we use to interpret science matters on things beyond the science itself, and be honest about it.

  • Eldjr

    Someone that can’t even spell his expletives correctly [fourth word should have two “t”s in the middle] is unlikely to grasp what the gentleman was saying, but hey… it might have been a typo and you might have a 130+ I.Q.

  • vulpes123

    LOL – And yet, not a single valid study or even a conclusive argument found … there is a lot of repetition of invalid arguements. Once you remove the invalid argument that science does not yet “know: something … one is left with nothing … again.

    • David Miller

      Evolution, in a nutshell

  • MAM

    utter drivel

    • David Miller

      Make your case, then

  • Don Marfia

    Bahahahahahaha. Not even worth trying to have a discussion with people like this.

    Hilarious read though.

    • Stephen_Phelan

      I’d run away if I were you, too.

      • Don Marfia

        Sorry about your phallus, must be difficult trying to make up for it by acting tough. 😛

    • Karri Effie Nelle

      Its hilarious and terrifying at the same time… Ignorance truly IS bliss.

  • Peacharoo

    What didnt you like about it? Too much science?

  • robertleo

    Don Marfia, children are the most well educated students when they attend Christian schools. You can ask any adult that has gone from grade school to universities. I think of Dr. Ben Carson right now who attended Christian schools.
    Christian school does not remove science as you know it from being studied. That’s the difference where non-Christian school removes the possibility of Creation Science.
    Unless the Holy Spirit changes your life and it’s by your invitation only you will always find it difficult to believe that the Bible was written by men as the Spirit moved them to pen what was inspired.
    As for believing what the Bible revels as truth I can on say that it is evidence that appeals to the reason. God says in His Word, “Come let us reason together.” He will reveal Himself if your at all interested for He will never force Himself on anyone. You see, faith!

    • Don Marfia

      That’s actually not accurate. Students that come from private schools, get a better education, yes, because they are funded. Christian school has no bearing on a child’s education except to give them a detriment in science classes. You use feelings, not statistics, to back up your claims.

    • Don Marfia

      And I lived as a Christian for 25 years, and the only thing revealed to me was how ridiculous the whole thing is once I finally read the Bible from beginning to end 3 times.

      • robertleo

        Bravo Don, once you read it He said His work will not come back to Him void. “So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.”
        I once went into the Bible in the same way you did back in the 60’s looking for evidence to my theory and received just information and no proof that He existed.
        It was not until 1977 that I reread it again and I told Him, I would believe that whatever I read in this book I would believe that it came from Him.
        And once His Holy Spirit comes upon you and He did with me, you will never forget the experience.
        From what you said, it was just a book. Three times that is more than some Christian today has ever done.
        You know that today if a child grows up with a good dad they trust no matter what discipline you might administer. After the correction is made they will trust you and continue to love you.
        And Jesus said (paraphrasing the verse) to the onlookers when He was speaking that whoever does not accept the Word of God like a child will not understand it.
        And remember the guy He brought back to life when visiting his home one of his sisters was all upset because she was left to do all the work to feed the hungry visitors when Jesus said to her that you worry about many things but your sister has chosen the right thing by being interested in His Word and it will not be taken away from her.
        Don your not far from the kingdom of God.

        • Don Marfia

          See my above comment to peacharoo.

        • Peacharoo

          And once His Holy Spirit comes upon you and He did with me, you will never forget the experience.

          Indeed… The same exact thing happened to me….

          • Don Marfia

            Did you want to tell me again how your experiences and opinions invalidate my own?

            So then either god is not consistently keeping his word to meet up with those who call on his name like he says he does (because I can assure you my cries over those 25 years were genuine, heartfelt pleas), or he doesn’t exist and you are experiencing a normal phenomenon that affects those in large groups of like-minded individuals.

          • robertleo

            Don, you have one of the greatest testimony stories I have ever read and my heart goes out to you in all your sincerity.
            This paragraph you wrote, “If god is real, and wishes to have a relationship with me like he says, then he would talk to me through a burning bush, or blind me on the road and have a donkey talk to me, or send an angel to wrestle with me, or put literally any effort whatsoever into having a relationship with me. We know he’s supposedly capable of doing these things, he apparently did them all the time in the Bible. What changed? Are we not worth the same shows of love that they were? I find it very hard to believe an all-knowing, all-powerful god couldn’t find a better method.”
            Do you want that kind of experience? Are you seeking to be shaken and given proof as did Paul on the Damascus road?
            I can only say, why not? I would and I did receive this kind of awakening but I would prefer the still small voice rather that the thunders of Sinai.
            Here is how I sum up my quick story. I had a supernatural experience in which I met Jesus, who gave me a few premises on which to rethink my life. I didn’t study myself into the arms of Jesus; instead, Jesus revealed Himself to me. Then I studied myself into a firm intellectual foundation for the belief. I didn’t find the truth, the truth found me.

            Seems God did that with you from what you wrote and yet there is a barrier that was created. It could be from you or it could be from Him. He has ways of doing things that we find hard to comprehend.
            You also wrote, “What kind of father would god be considered if he was a human man?”
            He was when He walked on earth before they kill Him because He revealed God that did not agree with their interpretation. Is that not what an Atheist does?
            And He knew they would try to take His life because as you remember that He said that no one can take His life because He gave it freely for all of us. Pilate tried to do the same thing. And told Pilate that he could not do what he wanted to do unless His Father allowed it. Do you see who is in control here? It reads like you are tying to be in control. That’s OK, but!

            Not too long ago I was awaken to an understanding where God gave me an inquiry to my many questions right out of the least known prophet Habakkuk in chapter one.
            “Be utterly astounded! For I am doing a work in your days which you would not believe, though it were told you.” And in chapter two, “The just shall live by faith.” Faith here also means trust. I pray for this daily for faith and trust.
            “No, if god wants to earn my heart so bad, he knows where to find me.” And He does. Let’s us pray when He does you will become one of His greatest servants.

          • robertleo

            Praying that Don will also.

      • Peacharoo

        So Did you have a relationship with Jesus?

        • Don Marfia

          My long and very detailed post about my life as a preacher and worship leader and my deconversion to atheism was deleted by page admins even though I followed posting guidelines tells me that they would rather not post the truth here in these forums and also makes me not want to have discussions here on this message board. Filtering people’s comments because they aren’t saying what you want them to is classy, admins.

          Basically, I spent 25 years doing what you are supposed to, said the prayer of salvation on my 7th birthday, became heavily involved in the church. Baptised when I was 16 and “filled with the holy spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues” when I was 18. I was a children’s pastor from 12 to 18, then became a drummer in the worship band and toured with a Christian rock/worship band for 7 years. I prayed every single day for that 25 years, and even attributed a lot of things to god that I couldn’t explain.

          The problem is, belief use not a light switch, it’s not something you can just decide to turn on. What finally made me an atheist, ironically enough, was reading the Bible from beginning to end. I was so confused at the character of god changing so much so rapidly throughout it that it gave me a lot more questions than answers. Every pastor I talked about it with, years streaming down my face because I wanted to believe but couldn’t anymore gave me the same response “pray, read your Bible, and all god to reveal himself to you” so that’s exactly what I did.

          I fasted for a week, prayed nonstop (begged and pleaded, actually) for god to reveal himself to me, and read the Bible so much that I read the entire thing cover to cover twice more in that one week alone. The result: nothing. I heard nothing. I felt nothing.

          I talked with a few more pastors and they had no more words of comfort than before. That’s how I became an agnostic. It was 3 more years of studying all works religions and specifically Christian history and biblical history that solidified me as an atheist.

          Now, before you write me off by saying I was doing it wrong, let me ask you this: why do you hold your god to a lower standard than you would hold another person? What I mean by this, is what kind of father would god be considered if he was a human man? I don’t know about you, but if I found out I had a father I had never seen before, but everyone tells me that he loves me and wants to have a relationship with me, I’m going to be skeptical. Then I find out that he only left me one book, which was written by several other people, and that it’s my job to seek him out and he might reveal himself to me through abstract ways? No thanks, that’s not a father I want to love me, let alone someone you will ever convince me actually loves me. You know what a loving father does? Talks to his children. Is there for them, even when they don’t want him to be (especially when they are children). God is at best a deadbeat father, and at worst doesn’t exist. Why is he worthy of your worship, again?

          If god was real, and earnest to have a relationship with me like he says, then he would talk to me through a burning bush, or blind me on the road and have a donkey talk to me, or send an angel to wrestle with me, or put literally any effort whatsoever into having a relationship with me. We know he’s supposedly capable of doing these things, he apparently did them all the time in the Bible. What changed? Are we not worth the same shows of love that they were? I find it very hard to believe an all-knowing, all-powerful god couldn’t find a better method.

          No, if god wants to earn my heart so bad, he knows where to find me.

          Also, I know all of the apologetics for your faith because I used to use them myself, but if you want to have that conversation I’ll be happy to rebut them one by one for you.

          • Peacharoo

            That is quite a long and detailed way of answering my question of “Did you have a relationship with Jesus”…

            Why didnt you just say No?

            The journey that you described is Religiosity and NOT Relationship..

            “We know he’s supposedly capable of doing these things, he apparently did them all the time in the Bible. What changed?” His Son arrived on the scene to save the day,,

            “No, if god wants to earn my heart so bad, he knows where to find me.”

            And THAT sentence pretty much sums it up, Only God can know your heart, but it sounds like you think that the omnipotent Creator of the universe needs to come running to YOU…. as if YOUR soul has more value to him than the other 20 billion or so souls he has created with a free will to seek him out or reject him.. If you have Always had that kind of attitude then you probably never experienced Gods true forgiveness and indeed his presence in your life.. You appear to expect him to fit into what YOUR notion of him SHOULD be instead of what it is!

            The fact that you are open enough to speak about it shows that your conscience has not been completely seared and therefore there is still hope..

            The only reason the Fraudulent Lie Of Mindless MYO Muds to Man Myth was ever invented was to make people like Richard Dawkins happy..

            “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”

            Richard Dawkins..

          • Don Marfia

            I was pointing out the dichotomy between saying your god is love, or that he loves us, and what the word love actually means.

            You can try to speak Christianese and gloss it over, but the Bible says god wants a relationship with us and that he loves, that he is love itself, but under any scrutiny it’s pretty easy to see that it’s simply not true. Go ahead, try to justify the sick, twisted interpretation of love that lets an all-knowing, all-powerful god who claims to be our perfect father but seems surprised at what he knew would happen and then straight up murders 99.99% of his creation that he himself declared “good” just a few chapters prior. I’ll wait.

          • Peacharoo

            So your paradigm is, Don wouldn’t do it that way, so God wouldn’t do it that way..
            Did it ever occur to you that God doesn’t Murder anyone but merely shortens their life span which is his divine right to do if he so wishes? did it ever occur to you that the world might have become So Evil and Violent that if God didn’t intervene everyone would have been killed anyway and God would have had to Create man over again? Do you assume to know all of the details?
            I am not saying you are one of those people who are militant God haters / Atheists who merely SAY that they were a Christian in order to promote doubt so as to deceive others because “Misery Loves Company” But I have met MANY of them and they are merely wolves in sheep’s clothing.. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that..
            So when I asked you if you had a relationship with Jesus. Why didn’t you just say No?

          • Don Marfia

            Did it ever occur to you that a perfect god would be incapable of regret? Yet the Bible very explicitly says that god regret his decision to ever make man, implying that he had thought he had made a mistake. It actually says in Genesis the flood was his intention to start over from scratch until Noah convinced him to spare his family, which your parlay on the subject seems to imply you may not have ever actually read the flood story in Genesis for yourself “if God didn’t intervene everyone would have been killed anyway and God would have had to Create man over again”.

            Did I have a personal relationship with Jesus? Yes, I believed I had at the time. All the signs and all of my actions indicated that I did. Had I not read the Bible myself so thoroughly, had I not asked so many questions, or had one pastor/christian/person in my life had better answers for me at the time, I might still have a personal relationship with Jesus.

            I didn’t just say no, like you keep trying to imply I should, is because that part of my life is just as real to me now as it was to me then. You cannot invalidate 25 years of my life and my personal experience in an attempt to discredit my voice now. It was who I was for those 25 years that allowed me to become who I am now, and it’s the reason your Christian apologetics that are designed to skirt all of the important flaws in the Christian narrative don’t work on me: I used them all myself for a good 15 of the 25 years I was a Christian.

            Call it murder or divine intervention all you want, but the fact is either way it shows your god isn’t perfect. Why would I worship something that isn’t perfect, let alone even good?

          • Peacharoo

            “Did I have a personal relationship with Jesus? Yes, I believed I had at the time.”

            Is that a Yes or a No? It is a simple question that you keep on avoiding, But that’s OK..

            “Did it ever occur to you that a perfect god would be incapable of regret?”
            I don’t know.. I do know that Our language would be difficult or impossible to describe the emotions of God, but it would not surprise me as he said he created man in his own image..
            Either way, it sounds like your issues are more around the fact that you strongly dislike God more than whether you believe he exists.. It appears that you realize that he exists, but have come to the conclusion that you don’t like the way that he does things and you prefer to be the captain of your own ship and don’t want to have to live by his rules…
            There are plenty of Satanists out there who share your sentiment, They KNOW that God exists, They just prefer to follow someone else..
            Darwinism is indeed a religious Belief in Methodological Naturalism based on nothing but wishful speculation and hopeful assumptions.. But it sounds like it is attractive to you so as to allow you to continue your militant mini war against a God that you detest…
            I have a lot more respect for you that the Oval Earthers who try to Marry the Lie Of th Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Darwinism with Genesis.. They Delude themselves into trying to believe it is possible for the Earth to be flat AND round AT THE SAME TIME..
            Evolution is a Fraudulent Lie straight from hell

          • Don Marfia

            No. I don’t believe he exists in the slightest. The thought of an omnipotent creator making man in his own image, desiring a relationship with them, killing all but one family of them, then 2,000 years later sending his son to be murdered before promptly disappearing and never performing another visible miracle again is so absolutely absurd I can’t believe there are still human adults that believe it. The problem is not that I believe your god exists and dislike him, but that if such a god DID actually exist he would absolutely be a creature to dislike. This is a god who can literally do anything, anything at all, and yet chooses to remain completely unseen and unheard of for thousands of years while children die every day in the worst imaginable ways. And then western theology actually teaches that he loves you and wants to give you the desires of your heart and that somehow translates into hating, fearing, and shaming atheists, homosexuals, muslims, and pretty much anyone who doesn’t believe the same thing you do? I know humans are flawed and it’s this sin nature bull that you guys use to justify everything, but really?

            If it was god’s plan to sacrifice his son all along, why didn’t he just do that in Noah’s day? What about Adam and Eve? Are you seriously trying to tell me that he creates these two children in the garden, leaves a loaded shotgun in the MIDDLE OF THE GARDEN, and then leaves them alone for long periods of time? Doesn’t that just sound like he was setting them up? I mean, he KNEW they were going to do what they did. That’s just terrible parenting. You simply don’t leave your children alone with things that will kill them, especially if you KNOW that they are inclined to play with things they shouldn’t. Then what? Humanity is ruined now and just covered in sin so god leaves them alone? I know I’m simplifying the whole story quite a bit, but can you honestly say that given all the power, all the wisdom, and all the time in the world you couldn’t come up with a better plan than that? How many billions of souls were sent to hell with no chance of redemption simply because these two people sinned, back before they could even have any clue what sin actually was? Remember, they were the first people to EVER sin. Nothing had even died before then, how were they supposed to know what dying is? Not to mention the bible says they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that to me says that they didn’t really know what right and wrong were at the time until they actually ate the fruit. Can two people that don’t know or understand what right and wrong is have free will? I could literally go on for hours about all of the flaws in Genesis that indicate god is anything but a perfect, loving being, but I know you don’t want that.

            The problem is not that I dislike god, I dislike the character god is supposed to possess. His character is so… fundamentally human that the whole thing smells like a fake. Literally the only evidence for the bible being the word of god is that it literally says it is the word of god in the bible. If an all-knowing god actually did write that thing, he is terribly short-sighted. There should be concepts in the bible that are so universally true it would take us years to discover their full meaning, but instead we have a book that is so horribly dated and behind the times that we now have entire religions based on making excuses for the horrible barbaric concepts that are in it. They don’t call it Christian apologetics without reason. No, your god is simply too small to actually deserve the title of ‘god’.

            I don’t have a war against god, because that’s the easiest war I’ll never have to fight. I don’t fight things that don’t exist. What DOES exist, however, are people that believe in it. The really annoying thing about that is that even as the number of Christians declines at the fastest rate it ever has before in history, they seem to be trying harder than ever to stay relevant in a world that no longer cares to hear what they have to say; not unlike a cornered, wounded beast.

            I’ve already wasted enough time here, I’ll leave you to your ritualistic chanting. Repeat after me, “Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth, Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth, Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth…” Hahaha

          • Peacharoo

            “Humanity is ruined now and just covered in sin so god leaves them alone?”
            No, Jesus showed up to save the day and he also brought us the “Comforter” (Holy Spirit of God)
            The Flesh is DEAD… The Spirit is where it all is at..

            “killing all but one family of them,” No, as he lives outside of time, he didnt Kill them, THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD.. You act as if the gift of life is something you deserve becasue you are so awesome.. He just sped up the process..

            “This is a god who can literally do anything, anything at all, and yet chooses to remain completely unseen”… “If it was god’s plan to sacrifice his son all along, why didn’t he just do that in Noah’s day?”

            Are we back to the ever so arrogant “Don wouldnt do it that way so God wouldnt do it that way..

            Your problems seem much deeper than “I believed in him for 25 years” or “If God wants to seek me, he knows where to find me” It is apparent that there was no room for 2 Gods in your life YOU and GOD… So you decided YOUR way or the HIGHWAY…

            Why do you believe so strongly in Darwinusm when there is ZERO empirical Evidence to support it? I know why, and so do you.. (of course you could do what NO ONE has EVER done, show me that I am wrong and just Provide said evidence.. but you wont, You CANT.. it Doesnt exist..

            “Darwin made it possible to be an Intellectually fulfilled Atheist”
            Richard Dawkins

          • Don Marfia

            “sped up th process” is a real neat way of saying drowned to make it sound like your god isn’t a giant bag of d*cks, murdering his own creation simply because they didn’t love him how he wanted to be loved.

            I also like how you literally answered not a single query but the same few you’ve attempted to answer before. What’s the problem, has your pastor not taught you how to answer those critical questions yet?

            But please, tell me I have such a high opinion of myself while I present you with my life story and you attempt to mock me for it. I’ve presented you with nothing but stories and questions, where is your animosity coming from? How very Christian of you.

          • Peacharoo

            No animosity Don.. If I didnt truly care about you, why would I be responding to you?
            I have ZERO to gain in this conversation. I already know that the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is a Fraudulant Lie from Hell.. And No one ever has been able to provide empirical scientific evidence to support the idotic hypothesis of abiogenesis followed by darwinian common ancestor for all and you of course , wont be able to provide any either, because it isnt about science,, it is all about “Darwin making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”

            I already mentioned to you.. People living in sin are Already Dead to God, That is why Jesus said “You must be born again” and God must be served in Spirit and in Truth” you must be “renewed by the transforming of your mind” .. You are focused on Carnal things that have no lasting value.. If you are not alive in Christ you are Dead as a doornail as well as everyone else who rejects Gods Son and his truth..

            You didnt answer my question. .. Did you have a personal relationship
            with Jesus? Yes? No? or You Dont Know… BTW “I dont know” is the same
            as No.. Because someone who does have the relationship Knows it with
            100% certainty.. You see, we cant fool God..

            Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father buy by me”

            “They are darkened in their understanding and alienated from the life of
            God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of
            their hearts.”

            It sounds like your heart has been hardened Don..

            I have no high opinion of myself, I look at myself as a beggar letting another beggar know where to find food.. i am no better or worse than you or any of the 20 billion souls that God has given the opportunity to Seek him in truth or Reject him for whatever reason they want to..

            Drowning is pretty quick, sure you suffer for awhile, but then you go to sleep and die..
            It sure sounds a lot more humane than what 99% of the Darwinists believe should be perfectly legal with what happens to a young person by way of getting “Pro Choiced” to death…

            Which specific questions would you like answered Don.. I dont have all of the answers, but if I can I will try to answer your questions..

          • Don Marfia

            And Dawkins quote is actually a compliment to Darwin, saying that it was his hypothesis on evolution that allowed us to seek out the proper evidence. Nobody claims to know for certain where we came from (unless you’re inclined to believe illiterate goat-herders with less knowledge than a modern 5th grader), but the evidence is becoming more conclusive every day.

          • Peacharoo

            “but the evidence is becoming more conclusive every day.”
            That is an ignorant Lie and you know it,, There is ZERO empirical scientific evidence to support the hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO mud to man myth… will you be the FIRST to provide some?
            Good Luck! LOL

          • Larry Firstchild

            Hi Don,

            Religious activity, which I see much of in your past as a professing Christian, is not the best gauge for measuring authentic belief and trust in Jesus, which is the most important characteristic of a true Christian.

            There is something missing from your story which you most likely would never reveal on a forum such as this. You imply that solely based on rationality, you were led away from your Christian faith and compelled to embrace Atheism. I doubt it. I am skeptical of your claim. I sense that there is something else underlying and motivating your insistence on Atheism that goes beyond rationality or following the evidence objectively as you claim to do. I sense an emotional (not rational) inclination is what drives you away from the God of the Bible and towards Atheism. The rationality comes afterwards to justify and reaffirm that decision.

            What might be driving that emotional response? My guess is that it s an idol (something you cherish more than God and more than truth itself). Something that you now love more than God. Something you have always loved more than God even when you were a “devout” Christian. You might have been doing a lot of religious activity, but your heart was far from loving God and truly believing in His Son. There is something else you have always loved more than God and that is the root cause of your departure away from Him.

            See, that thing, that idol, is your true god and has always been your true god; it might be money, sex, pleasure, power, personal happiness, popularity, social acceptance, security, respect, freedom, etc – which are all good gifts from God but when they are exalted above Him, they become idols and cloud our ability to rationalize clearly about Him. What are you exalting above God? If you are not willing to let go of that idol in your heart of hearts, if you are unable to see His infinitely greater worth and beauty compared to those things, then you were never Hos to begin with. This is the differentiating characteristic between those who know Him and those who are not Hos, even if they are doing all kinds of religious works.

            You ask, what changed? Well, not much. You are still serving your idol (whatever it is) and exalting it above God but now you’re no longer pretending to love or know the God of the Bible through religious activity. You probably feel more at peace that you no longer have to put up this pretense. By forsaking God, you exposed your truest heart…that you never loved or knew Him as your supreme pleasure in the first place.

      • fullerhonda

        Me thinks you were a nominal Christian. Once you submit to Jesus Christ, once you really die with him on that cross, you will never want to leave him. (For some of us I think it takes a little longer to die on that cross, like the two thieves on either side of him). Once you’re there (reached that point) he’ll reveal to you more than you can imagine and a love you have never known.

        • Don Marfia

          Read below to see how “nominal” my Christianity was, but I’ll remind you that your god claims to be the only one who can know the hearts of man, so I’ll kindly ask you not to commit the sin of judging whether I was a proper Christian or not.

          Do you Christians read the Bible? This is all in there, I shouldn’t have to tell you that.

          • fullerhonda

            Hello, Don. I disagree that there’s such a thing as a proper Christian. There are Christians and non-Christians. Christians have union with Jesus Christ and those in union with him gathered together are the Church. I have not had time to read your previous comment. I didn’t mean to impugn you. I have concern for you. So I will read your comment when I can to get a better understanding of your situation.

          • fullerhonda

            Ok. I read your account of losing your religion. I have a few things to say with regards to your story.
            I wasn’t raised in a family that went to church. At some point my older brother was befriended by a Nazarene man who would drive out to our country home to take us to his church for Sunday School and then back home. I don’t recall a thing from that experience except my teacher chastising me for having a statue of the Catholic Patron Saint (can’t remember name) given to me by an elderly Greek woman who had befriended my family. I couldn’t understand her displeasure and it rather turned me off. I was young.

            I went to a one-room school house until fifth grade. We had a young man who came periodically with Bible stories. I guess he was a preacher. I liked it. What I knew about religion, Christianity specifically, I gleaned from the culture at the time, which was of Christian character. Ah, those were the days. But I had no religion. We had no Bibles at home that I recall. If we did I wouldn’t have wanted to read them. I remember opening a children’s Bible at someone’s home and seeing the illustration of Adam and Eve almost naked–but not. Now that interested me.

            But I always believed in God until one day when I was twenty or twenty one I went a park to think through God and came away deciding there was no God. I never told anyone my experience and conclusion; if I had it wouldn’t have meant anything anyway. I actively disbelieved in God. I never thought of myself as an atheist because I saw that as a religion and I was dead-set against religion. I was so adamant about not believing in God that didn’t want anyone else to believe either. Then something happened. I began to think my children were being deprived of knowing something about Christianity so they at least had a choice. Someone suggested the Quaker Church. Living in Pennsylvania at the time there were plenty Quaker Meetings. I didn’t go for myself. I went for my children. Little did I know that contemporary Quakers are anything but Christian. Still, I sat in Meeting those first weeks thinking I was too far gone to ever believe in God again.

            Enter the story of the Quaker, Mary Dyer, who returned to Massachusetts back in the 1600s knowing full-well she would be hanged for trying to proselytize the Congregationalist. When I heard that story, I wanted to know what religion it was that a person found more important than her life to tell people about. I wanted that religion. But know one in that Meeting could tell me anything. They didn’t know their own religion’s history.

            Someone gave me a small booklet titled Early Prophetic Openings of George Fox. I read it eagerly and my spirit was quickened, but there was one thing he said that I couldn’t make sense of. I’ll quote it. It’s long but worth your time (while my gibberish isn’t).

            ” And I saw the mountains burning up and the rubbish, and the rough and crooked ways and places made smooth and plain that the Lord might come into his tabernacle. These things are to be found in man’s heart. But to speak of these things being within seemed strange to the rough and crooked and mountainous ones. Yet the Lord said, ‘O Earth, hear the word of the Lord!’ The law of the Spirit crosseth the fleshly mind, spirit, and will, which lives in disobedience, and doth not keep within the law of the Spirit. I saw this law was the pure love of God which was upon me, and which I must go through, though I was troubled while I was under it; for I could not be dead to the law but through the law which did judge and condemn that which is to be condemned. I saw many talked of the law, who had never known the law to be their schoolmaster; and many talked of the Gospel of Christ, who had never known life and immortality brought to light in them by it. You that have been under that schoolmaster, and the condemnation of it, know these things; for though the Lord in that day opened these things unto me in secret, they have since been published by his eternal spirit, as on the housetop. And as you are brought into the law, and through the law to be dead to it, and witness the righteousness of the law fulfilled in you, ye will afterwards come to know what it is to be brought into the faith, and through faith from under the law. And abiding in the faith which Christ is the author of, ye will have peace and access to God. But if ye look out from the faith, and from that which would keep you in the victory, and look after fleshly things or words, ye will be brought into bondage to the flesh again, and to the law which takes hold upon the flesh and sin and worketh wrath, and the works of the flesh will appear again. The law of God takes hold upon the law of sin and death; but the law of faith, or the law of the Spirit of life, which is the love of God, and which comes by Jesus (who is the end of the law for righteousness’ sake), this make free from sin and death. This law of life fleshly-minded men do not know; yet they will tempt you, to draw you from the Spirit into the flesh, and so into bondage.”

            It took me a very long time to comprehend what Fox meant by dying to the law, etc. because I think it took me a long time to die on the cross. But all the rest of what he said in this passage and in his journal I understood and took him at his word. Indeed, when I finally died on the cross, i.e., fell to my knees (something I had resisted doing because it I thought it not Quaker of all things), the Lord opened to me things I can’t easily put into words. And the openings keep coming.

            Get The Journal of George Fox, edited by John L. Nickalls and read for yourself. In the first few pages he recounts his own troubles trying to find someone who could “speak to his condition.” And then on page 11 he tells why no one could help him. But it isn’t George Fox you will be enamored of.

          • Don Marfia

            Reading your account, and one thing is very, very clear: you and I are completely different people in every way shape and form. I would never bring my children to a church, because the morals taught in church are severely outdated and barbaric. Psychology has proven time and time again that: 1) Beating your children is unnecessary, and actually harmful to their psyche. Taking the time to explain things to them teaches them how to reason and think for themselves. Beating them only proves that you are physically stronger than they are and teaches them how to get away with transgressions, not stop doing them. Children of strict parents are much, much better at lying. Again, this has all been shown in clinical studies with empirical data to back them up. If you’re actually interested in reading them I’ll link them for you, just let me know. This is in direct contrast of the Bible’s teaching to “spare the rod and spoil the child”. 2) Scientists and psychologists have also shown that religious morality teaches people to behave with a fear-based motivator. This is extremely dangerous, as everyone knows actions that come from fear are often unpredictable and volatile. Oftentimes, people who have been subjected to fear-based morality are a danger to themselves and others, especially when their actions are called into question. I think the current climate of the United States specifically, but the Earth in general, is enough of an indication of what fear-based morality achieves. 3) Religion teaches morality based upon a binary system of good and evil, but that is literally almost NEVER the actual case with any decision you’ve ever made. Killing a person is universally agreed upon as an “evil” thing to do, but if that person is Hitler, well… As humans, we are rarely, if ever, presented with black and white decisions. There are infinite shades of grey in everything we do. Teaching children morality using a binary system of right and wrong leaves them ill-prepared for life as an adult, where the decisions they make will most assuredly affect a multitude of lives other than just their own. Telling them lying is wrong, or a sin, for example, creates quite the conundrum when that person is forced to lie to protect a co-worker or a loved one. There is not a single “sin” in the bible that cannot be used in an example where it would absolutely be the correct thing to do. Teaching children how to think and weigh out the consequences of their actions on the lives of others is crucial, and the simple fact is a child who is taught to think of morality as shades of grey instead of black and white will be better equipped to handle life. But I apologise for my digression.

            Atheism is not a phase for me, it is a conclusion. I am absolutely convinced that there is no god, or that if there is, he/she/it is not something that we need to concern ourselves with (as it is obviously not concerned with us). It is not something I contemplated on a park bench one afternoon and arrived at, but something that I researched and studied (by studying all of the religions of the world, very fascinating stuff). Atheism is most definitely not a religion, as it is literally the absence of religion. Atheism is no more a religion than not playing football is a sport. Atheism is a conclusion, and not one that I ran towards. No, I was very reluctant to leave my religion behind. Every friend I had in my life, my family, and my wife (I was married, at the time), were all Christians. I grew up attending church 3-4 times a week, and when I wasn’t there, I was wishing that I was. I loved the church, I loved the bible, and I loved god. Now that I’m looking at it more clearly, I loved the feeling of being a part of a community that “knew”.

            While I appreciate your passion for something you clearly believe is real, to me, it is not. It is absurd, even. There’s a saying in many atheist communities that the fastest way to make a person an atheist is to have them read the bible. It’s what made me an agnostic, at least. So when you tell me to read the bible or to read the writings of famous Christian apologists, many of which I have read, it’s a bit ironic to me.

            I do not mean for any of what I’m saying to sound condescending, I believe everyone deserves respect and I try my best to show it to those who’ve done the same. The irony is that the same way in which you all speak of Christianity and finding god as a transformative process, I found the same in relieving myself of religion. It was as if a great oppressive weight was lifted from my shoulders the moment I declared I was no longer a Christian. I literally lost everything with that declaration, my friends, most of my family, and my wife. I went through a really bad depression, because everything I’d known in my life was suddenly gone, I essentially started over in life. However, my mind was free. My mind was free to ask all of the questions I’d had since I was a child. Soon, I was able to dive into the topics of evolution, morality, world religions, and many, many more topics without feeling the guilt and condemnation that would normally come when I read something that contradicted the bible. I no longer had to justify why I thought homosexuals deserve the same basic human rights and decency the rest of us enjoy, or why evolution is a scientific theory (disprove it and collect your nobel prize), or even why Pascal’s Wager is such a flawed and broken mental exercise! I was free to ask questions of the world, and even seek out the answers, without the weight of my eternal soul resting in the balance.

            There is nothing beautiful in the bible for me. They are stories passed down orally from generation to generation by ancient middle-eastern goat-herders filled with superstition and not the slightest clue about how the universe works, and that’s okay. We don’t know, definitively, where we came from. We may never know. That’s okay too. But neither you or I have those answers and it’s pretty arrogant to me to think that your religion out of 6,000+ currently in existence got it all right, especially once you’ve studied a large number of those religions and can trace them all back to even more ancient religions that say similar, but not quite the same things.

            Don’t worry about me, I can promise you that my ‘soul’ will never be saved again. I’ve blasphemed the Holy Spirit more times than I can count, just to be sure. 😀 Please, don’t pray for me, there are far more people that could use those prayers than I could (and I don’t believe they do anything anyway). All the best.

          • fullerhonda

            Many statements, no support. Atheism is a religion, you just can’t bring yourself to accept the truth. You had it wrong when you (mockingly) suggest proving evolution is wrong or however you put your trite challenge. The counter is the challenge: prove Darwinian evolution is capable of explaining all it claims to explain regarding the origin of the universe and life.You’ll not be the beneficiary of Nobel fame insofar as even hinting of the failure of Darwin’s theory is forbidden narrative in the collectivist’s realm.

            Furthermore, you interjected a series of subjects not mentioned by me and then went on to repeat trite statements on the validity and superiority of professionals in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and the sciences. Two things I would remind you of: every one of them (and you) was born into this world and will die out of it, which is my way of saying their (and your) horizon is limited to the time in which they exist (ed). In other words, they’re no brighter, knowledgeable, or wiser than people before them. And because they were born into something, i.e., the world, they have no power, save that of deception which isn’t their power either, but that’s a discussion for thoughtful persons from which I deign to exclude you. As for your silly notion that George Fox was an apologist only supports my determination to exclude you from serious, thoughtful discourse.

            I will pray for whomever I want and you little person will not nor cannot know for whom I pray or when, unless I divulge the news. But I depart from spending any more time with an agent of deception.

          • Don Marfia

            So you didn’t want the supporting articles and scientific papers that very meticulously show the studies conducted, what exactly they were measuring, and the reasoning behind the conclusions they came up with? Darn, I was really hoping that I’d found someone who doesn’t reject evidence before they’ve even seen it…

            I love how as soon as I told you my ‘soul’ isn’t worth saving you went into full-on a$$hole mode. Wish I didn’t expect that, but it never seems to fail. It’s almost as if you lose interest in talking to people once they either don’t share your beliefs or have told you there’s no way they are ever going to believe what you believe. Been there, done that, found it wasn’t for me. No harm, no foul.

            Atheism is not a religion, unless you are attempting to redefine the word in the English language. I reject all religions, I reject all gods, I reject all rituals and unbiased beliefs. Tell me exactly how refusing to play football is a sport again? I would very much like to hear your reasoning on this one (you know the whole many statements, no support thing).

            I do, in fact, mockingly challenge you to disprove evolution. Seriously, show that evolution doesn’t actually take place. We’re all waiting, and have been for over 100 years. Many greater minds than yours have tried, but there’s a reason it’s still a scientific theory in much the same way gravity and a round earth are all scientific theories: because they haven’t been proven wrong yet to this day. And no, it is not a scientific theory that all life evolved from primordial ooze, that is a hypothesis, one of many proposed ideas of where we came from. For all we know, you could be right. A god could have created us. An alien could have created us. Any of the any of the gods from any religion ever could have created us. The problem with the creationist hypothesis is that there is literally no evidence to support believing that everything was formed with any kind of order or design at all. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and more of those years than not the earth was a chaotic ball of impossible conditions not suitable for any kind of life. We have evidence of this by examining sediment layers, and through multiple methods of dating techniques (carbon, xray, radiation, etc.) There is no massive scientific community that hates religion and attempts to prove it wrong at every turn, no conspiracy here. The scientific community is an amalgamation of independent groups, representing several countries, religions, those without religion, and various organisations. So when we can find information like, “An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.” with sources backing up all of those citations, you will forgive me for not taking your claims seriously. Remember, these are all people that have independently come together to reach these results. The number one logical exercise is tracing effect back to cause, and the number one way to find that is to find the motivation. Let me ask you, what motivation would scientists, especially so many have to squash creationism?

            Wait, did you seriously just say that we are no more knowledgeable than those that come before us?! So you don’t prescribe to the notion of “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it?” You don’t believe that we as human beings have the capability of increasing our field of knowledge by building upon the knowledge of those who came before us? Why the hell do you read at all then? The average IQ of human beings has actually increased significantly in the last 100 years alone, let alone the hundreds of thousands of years since we first appeared on the scene. I’m not sure I even want to attempt to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t believe that we are any smarter than our ancestors. The fact that technology alone gets more and more impressive every year proves that human beings have increased in knowledge and information from generation to generation. The smartphones in our pockets would not be possible if it wasn’t for the accumulative knowledge of previous generations being built upon to increase our collective threshold of what’s possible. In medical school they don’t teach the same concepts that they taught 10, 50, 100 years ago, because those concepts have been fleshed out and expounded upon so thoroughly that by the time you complete your degree program the knowledge you learned at the beginning is pretty outdated. Please, supply me with any evidence, even an anecdote, that coincides with your point.

            “An agent of deception” is fancy Christianese way of saying ‘someone who disagrees with me’. If you run away from conversations that don’t line up with what you believe, then you very well might be correct that you are no more knowledgeable than your ancestors…

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            You’re awesome Don. Its not worth trying to reason with people who have their hands over their ears singing LALALALALA, trying to deny reality. I hope their kids get a proper education, and aren’t brainwashed too much.

        • CGates

          @fullerhonda You think nothing of the sort. In fact, you have no criteria by which to make any such judgement of that type. It’s akin to claiming that Don was a “nominal Jedi” or a “false Thulian.”

          What you mean to say is that you have unsubstantiated beliefs which sometimes make you feel good, like LSD or alcohol, and you cannot see how it is possible that anyone get high as a kite or drunk as a skunk and not enjoy it, so they must have gotten some “bad stuff.”

          You are confusing certainty (a feeling state) with knowledge (an epistemological state). One can actually know something without having the feeling of certainty, and many people have the feeling of certainty without the slightest grounds for knowledge.

          • fullerhonda

            Thank you for your comment, uninsightful as it was. I might have found it profitable if you had been more specific and clear in your statements. Keep that in mind when you write again. God bless you.

        • Indytims

          What utter nonsense.

    • fullerhonda

      So read the Bible in the same Spirit as those who wrote it. Let the Spirit interpret and open its meaning to you.

      • robertleo

        That is how it normally works and it always does but at times the Lord will send someone to explain what one is reading as He did for the Ethiopian. Remembering it’s evidence that appeals to the reason. All one has to do is read Daniel 2:31-35 and 36-45 that explains kingdoms to occupy history, Babylon, Medes and Persia, Greece and Rome before any of these kingdoms ever existed. History proves this to be so. Daniel is a study all to itself. Not easy to explain in this little block.

        • CGates

          But you MUST also remember, “Hereupon the two deities took counsel, saying: “The children to whom we have now given birth are not good. It will be best to announce this in the august place of the Heavenly deities.” They ascended forthwith to Heaven and inquired of Their Augustnesses the Heavenly deities. Then the Heavenly deities commanded and found out by grand divination, and
          ordered them, saying: “They were not good because the woman spoke first. Descend back again and amend your words.” So thereupon descending back, they again went round the heavenly august pillar. Thereupon his Augustness the Male-who-Invites spoke first: ” Ah! what a fair and lovely maiden!” –Kojiki, Courtship of The Deities: The Male-Who-Invites And The Female-Who-Invites

          The Kojiki is far too deep for a pagan to understand completely, but if one is worthy and sets on the task with a good heart, some little wisdom may be gained by the ignorant mind.

          Or, read “What Is Life?,” 3rd Edition by Jay Phelan and take notes.

  • Kristin Johns

    There is a factual reality beyond the naturalistic reality we work with in science, and faith will always be required. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb.11:1). If God could be “proved” naturalistically, He would only be a part of nature, and not its Creator.

    • fullerhonda

      Good point.

  • Kevin Morgan

    I watched the debate and was amazed that Bill Nye had never apparently thought about how real design works. He apparently received his education in a bubble, accepting evolution as a type of mythology.

    • Hugh Beaumont

      When you watch these debates, it soon becomes apparent that their main weapon is ridicule, not science or rationality.

      • Kevin Morgan

        Ridicule works in science. It works in religion. It works in politics, such as through the “court jesters” of Saturday Night Live and the Late Show … with certain people, that is.

        • Hugh Beaumont

          If you mean it’s an effective tool for manipulating an audience, then I agree. But it’s been said that Insult is the instrument with which bad causes attack good ones. I tend to think that the one who ridicules is the one bereft of any facts.

          • Kevin Morgan

            Well, that certainly can be. Sometimes people think the other view is funny because it does not fit their way of thinking. So, it is not always a lack of facts but using different assumptions. The facts require interpretation and one’s worldview is drawn on to tip the scales in interpreting the facts.

            Unfortunately, it was the ridiculing of the materialistic viewpoint by a well-meaning creationist magazine that created sympathy for the evolutionary viewpoint for someone close to me.

    • Karri Effie Nelle

      That’s because there is no design! Its very amusing that you say HE was educated in a bubble. This page is scary, I thought it was a joke at first.

      • Kevin Morgan

        You must live in the same bubble as Bill Nye. Design is ubiquitous. It is evident on the macro level, micro level, cellular level, DNA level, subatomic level. On whatever level, exquisite design is evident–unless your philosophical assumptions will not allow it.

        • Karri Effie Nelle

          So what would a world that is NOT designed look like?

          • Kevin Morgan

            Chaotic, not systemic.

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            How do you know this isn’t chaotic? What are you comparing it to?

          • Coolant

            non-existent. Too many parameters and please don’t use the After-the-Fact argument of circular-reasoning. “we are here, therefore that is the reason we are here”. It doesn’t answer the why. If you were there before the creation and saw it happen the way it did with all the improbable parameters lined up (defying the Law of Single Chance) you would not use the After-the-fact argument. The chances of hitting a target with an arrow are exactly 1:1 if the target is the only thing that can be hit. If you were to be dealt a Royal Straight Flush a thousand times in a row you would not use the After-the-fact argument, you would assume the deck is rigged. A rigged deck is created by design and information…same as the universe.

  • Elliot Handler

    A very refreshing article to read. The other points to consider regarding the invalidity of evolution are: 1) the fossil record gives no evidence of evolution. Species remain true to their genetic codes. 2) since there is all of his complex life in existence which is in harmony with each other, meaning that there are undeniable symbiotic relationships life on our planet does have, to what purpose would a random process provide such diverse and complex things. 3) Why is the life so perfectly existing. Looking at ourselves, the complexity of the human body is virtually without flaws. If this were a random act witout design there would certainly be evidence of defects and residual artifacts of failed trials if our existence were due to a random and ptobability based process. Further Darwin had his theories at a time when there was an interest to find an answer but not enough information and knowledge to make a good explaination. And just as Issac Newton had made determinations made at his time in history based on the best information available at the time, his ideas of physics were a small part of the truth of physics. Darwin too was only privy to a small bit of evidence and knowledge. Even today we struggle to find answers to observations we have made regarding our universe like dark matter. Scientists struggle to give theories to dark matter even though we do not have enough understanding to properly describe and understand it. Any person who calls themselves a scientist, should look objectively and be humble in that he or she should never be blinded or prejudiced by real information and evidence or they are not a scientist.

    • Don Marfia

      1) Evolution doesn’t change a species genetic code. A fish, born a fish, will die a fish, leaving behind a fish fossil (if we’re lucky). You will never find a half fish, half tadpole fossil because the transition is so slow that each random trait that was passed on wouldn’t always conform to an expected flow of events. We have plenty of evidence of intermediary fossils between water-land transition creatures, but each one fits with its respective species until it doesn’t. Some of the fossils we have now may actually be transition fossils between two species, but without knowing exactly what to look for (and we rarely do) it would be hard to tell that it could actually classify in another sub-species group. Evolutional theory isn’t perfect, nothing in science ever really is, but that’s why we use it to refine or knowledge of the world around us.

      2) Relationships are actually very easy to explain. A lot of people mix up cause and effect for this one. Evolution is a random mutation, yes, we see it happen all of the time, but the effect that mutation has on the organism is permanent. It may even be passed on to the next generation. If that trait helps that organism to survive, then that organism is going to live long enough to pass on the trait, which will then boost the survival of it’s offspring. Sometimes the mutation causes the organism to survive longer in a different environment, so the organism moves to this new environment and takes on a new role there, adding a whole new link to the food chain. As they diversify and spread out, they will form new symbiotic relationships with their new environments and organisms that they interact with. It’s like water: it takes on the form of whatever environment/container you place it in, but that doesn’t mean that the container was designed for that water specifically.

      3) Again, life is so harmonious because it has had about 4.5 billion years to make tiny, gradual adjustments. Think of it like a big box of rubble. When you first toss all of the rubble into the box, it’s going to be a haphazard mess, little pieces and big pieces alike all strewn about with no organization or purpose. However, if you were to vibrate the box over, say 4.5 billion years, eventually all of the littlest bits would settle to the bottom and the larger bits would rest on top. If someone came across that box in your attic, it would make sense for them to look at it and think it was a zen garden, organized just so for their viewing pleasure. The rubble would take on the form of the box, filling every nook and cranny.

      Also the human body is terribly inefficient and far from perfect in design, it’s why we are still evolving to this day: there’s always room for improvement. For instance: diseases. We invented modern medicine and specifically vaccines because our bodies have a nasty habit of getting irreparably sick. A good designer would have left out things like cancer.

      • Elliot Handler

        I appreciate your thoughts on my post. Darwin posed his theory about 150 years ago. Based on his observations, he came up with at the time what he could. If you read his writings and letters, Darwin himself had doubts about evolution. Due to the lack of fossil evidence, a theory of short rapid evolutionsry changes was posed years after and still there is no evidence to support this rationalization to try to help support evolution. Still there does not exist anywhere any fossil evidence to support evolution. There would be some forms of evidence of life that showed the transitions from different species becoming another. Along the way the idea of phylogeny recapitulates phylogeny was also posed to show how life as it grows from it’s embryonic state, changed through the states which pointed to evolutionary changes as the life form developed into it’s final form before birth. This was also discarded as more of the true nature of the process was discovered. The human body is an incredibly complex biological machine. If you read and learn about the wonders discovered in recent years about our bodies, you can understand how amazing and well designed we are. DNA was for a while thought to be only partially used in the process of forming each of us, but it was discovered more recently that 100% of our DNA is useful material. The original theory that assumed some of our DNA was junk was again to support evolution, but as the true nature was revealed, once again evolution was disproved. As far as the imperfections that we do all have, well one of the things I strongly suggest you read is the bible, and then you will understand why we do have the imperfect nature that exists in man. As far as priority of reading material, the bible should be on top of your list. It is a brilliant and factual book, and if you do read it, you will find that it is very revealing and illuminating, and there are no contradictions in it. You need to do your researching and much more meditation to understand things better. Thank you for your resonse.

      • Coolant

        Mutations are almost always harmful. There are no truly helpful ones we’ve been able to identify. Even the ones that are supposedly are helpful are in themselves harmful in other ways that would be deadly to a supposed species that depends on them. Please provide a list of beneficial mutation that have no negative consequences?

        And, even if you had beneficial mutations you would need several like mutations at the same time to create the kind of change necessary. Since we know the average transcription errors in copying DNA which is 10^7, only 4 mutations would need 10^28, and that is only if those mutations are all mutually beneficial. Since the vast majority (if not all) mutations are harmful, any beneficial mutations would pass in the dying off of any potentially new species.

        Your point about putting rubble in a box has already been de-bunked, because it’s already been said by Fred Hoyle that if all the parts of a Boeing 747 were caught up in a whirlwind would it remarkable come out a plane? Would a thousand whirlwinds create a plan, how about a billion? The fact is, no amount of time would be enough.

        Lastly, your point about cancer fails as well. There is evidence that more and more mutations are occuring, so if you go back to beginning of life (an actual Adam and Eve) they would have no mutations. The bible has the answer (just like it does for everything) that man sinned, perfect that God created became imperfect. It was not God who messed up, His plan and creation was perfect, it was man’s rebellion.

        Prima Facie + Occum’s Razor favors a Designer.

        • Karri Effie Nelle

          What a crock. This is Ken ham (ignorant) parroting. Compete lack of understanding of mutation and natural selection.

          • Coolant

            Please give examples of undisputed positive mutations.

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            Native Nepalese people move oxygen in red blood cells differently to everyone else. It’s why they can live at high altitude without feeling it. It’s a mutation only found in that community. And that’s in humans! Shock horror! As I already said, you really should try to use the Internet for education instead of just fiction reading.

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            Whether you not like it or not, evolution is real, and we are still evolving. You can put your hands over your ears all you want.

    • David Butler

      1. Well, yes it does. Faunal succession is alone, a great indicator of it, although it is of course, circumstantial. But then you have the biogeography of the fossil record and extant life, which creates corroborating additional evidence for evolution. You’d be hard pressed on just these alone to not come away with a theory that doesn’t at least resemble evolution.
      2. Natural selection is essentially responsible for this. All life on the planet is governed by the climate, available resources, etc. This ‘harmony’ is nothing less than a forced co-existence.
      3. I wear glasses. Most life has flaws. Some less apparent than others. If I was born more than say, 200 years ago, I’d probably have died by the time I was 10 due to an accident or other associated problems with bad eyesight. The inability to fend for myself would probably speed my end.

      • Elliot Handler

        Hi, to start faunal sucession only shows the presence of the plant and animal life in the successive layers of sedimental strata. Mostly it is the evidence of the climatic situation in certain time periods or the proliferation or decline of particular species. There is no evidence of sucessive change in species slow or fast. One thing you should realize is that the probability of the simplest life forms, the most basic ones is greater that all of the matter in our known universe. Magnify this by the orders of magnitude that man represents on a scale versus this simple life probability numbers and it approaches an almost infinite number. Virtually impossible to be a random undirected result. What drove the elemental forces to lead to life and mankind? Why aren’t there non living, much less complex and more probable things in existence like basic electronic structures and other much simpler mechanical examples of what we have discovered. I use the term discover because we imitate what we observe in nature. We really create nothing in the truest sense. We learn from what we discover and imitate or incorporate examples from nature. Evolution was a theory posed at a time very early in our discovering process that assumed it would be proven, but more often than not, it is being shown by modern evidence that it’s validity falls short of it’s expectations. People assume it to be a truth just as 1+1=2. If you are really interested in finding the truth about evolution, you must be objective and honest. That is what a scientist is suppoed to do. The universe is a vast and there is still so much to learn. Making hypotheses and being impatiently trying to answer questions without real facts makes no sense. Once again I recommend you to consider the bible since if you will be objective, it answers many question regarding creation, and if you want to be objective and consider creation and intelligent design, the bible is the place to go.

  • j anime ramen

    I watched bill at school when I was little and he seemed like a nice man but now when I see him he just looks like hes a lost soul with out god and ridled with lies and hate for god its sad really.

  • Hugh Beaumont

    There are some insurmountable problems in logic with the evolution theory. For instance, if it takes so long to evolve, how did the species live long enough to improve itself in the first place? It wasn’t just the “fittest” who survived – they all survived – until they died, like all living creatures. But how did they survive at all if they needed the next evolutionary step in order to do so?

    • Karri Effie Nelle

      When you have zero knowledge of a subject, its a good idea to start with a google search and try to understand it, even just a little, before misrepresenting it as having ‘insurmountable problems’ – the insurmountable problem is your ability (or willingness) to read and learn!! You are confusing Natural Selection and Evolution. They are not interchangeable terms. Individuals do not evolve. Its the combination of dna in the offspring from different individuals that leads to evolution, by the process of Natural Selection. It takes generations to see a change.
      Just the same way way people breed different types of dogs, or horses – they need to breed several generations, they don’t get a new trait out of the one dog before it dies (which is what you are describing), they breed dogs together and then keep breeding the dogs that have the traits they want to keep – that’s how natural selection works, but without the human interference.

      • Hugh Beaumont

        Ahhh…pat yourself on the back, lady – and don’t read anything current on evolution – I imagine you don’t like funerals. Hey – is that missing link still missing? Hahahaha!!

        • Karri Effie Nelle

          What missing link?

          • Hugh Beaumont

            The one that used to be in your textbooks – like Haeckel’s embryos – you guys are great with the cartoons.

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            Are you seriously referencing work from 1866??? You haven’t read anything more recent? You know it you went to University and referenced anything over 10 years old, you’d lose marks. You are referencing something over 100 years old, that didn’t agree with Darwin anyway.

          • Hugh Beaumont

            Liar.

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. – Rousseau.

          • Coolant

            unfortunately for Darwinists, we are over 150 years past his theory and we have less undisputed transitional fossils today than we had in his day. The many fossils he referenced as transitional have been proven not to be. Major reps from museums including the Museum of Natural History in England which houses the largest collections of fossils in the world have said they cannot produce any undisputed transitional fossils. Add in the fact that DNA was not understood in Darwin’s day, and neither were molecular machines in DNA that are irreducible complex. To Darwin the cell was a blob not having the complexity of what we now know as more complex than a city like New York.

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            Where are you getting this information?? It’s rubbish! DNA has confirmed Darwin’s theories – every fossil found had been in the right order, in the right place – every fossil is a transitional form, evolution is a very slow process, there is no one single missing link, every one found is a step in the process – irreducible complexity is not a scientific term, and was ridiculed in the dover trial for the garbage it is (real scientists don’t even discuss it). We know so much more now than Darwin did in his time, but now theories has not been proven wrong once yet and have become Scientific Theories since his death, which is the highest order there is. You speak confidently, but you sound like a parrot – Saying words you don’t understand to the amusement and approval of others.

          • Coolant

            please provide examples of undisputed transitional fossils

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            They all are! Learn to use Google!

      • Coolant

        Natural Selection by itself isn’t enough. There has to be a mechanism to generate changes in the DNA. That’s why some scientist invoke mutations. However, mutations are extremely harmful. When is the last time you heard someone say they are going to get xrays so they hopefully can get some good mutations? Or how often is it said in the delivery room about a new born that the parents hope the baby has some good mutations? How often do you purposefully lie out in the sun to get sunburned hoping to get good mutations?

        Not to mention, there is no evidence whatsoever that natural selection/evolution/mutation or whatever you want to call it can generate information required in DNA which is a language. How can non-material information be created by materialistic processes?

        And breeding dogs is within species. The Law of Heredity prevents cross-speciation.

        • Karri Effie Nelle

          That’s not how it works.

          Seriously, spend a few minutes on Wikipedia actually reading what these terms mean. You can’t prove it wrong just by making up your own definitions. Just because you don’t understand it (or more likely, don’t want to) doesn’t make it any less true. There’s a massive lack of scientific understanding here.

          You should be taught this stuff in school!

          • Coolant

            The DNA is set, done, finished for each species, and the only way to “evolve” is for mutations to delete, or change (not add) information to the DNA. Mutations only cause harm. That is science. They have imposed mutations on literally millions of fruit flies and there has never been any useful mutation. Why do you think scientists have created Neo-Darwinism? Because Natural Selection by itself doesn’t cut it. Any supposedly advantage to anything supposedly “evolved” is from genes already provided for in the DNA – it’s already there. For the moths on trees example from Darwin, the moths that had darker wings already had that gene provided for in the DNA. They did not acquire new DNA (information) by “evolving” into having darker wings. And, when the environment changed around them, those moths with darker wings were more easily seen and became prey for birds reducing the population of moths with darker wings…but they never changed into a different species.

          • Karri Effie Nelle

            As I said, try actually learning what the terms means. Most of what you describe here is incorrect – your understanding is lacking. DNA is not set or done. Mutation does out always cause harm! You Just don’t understand what you are talking about. Seriously. Do some study from sources other than creationist websites, they are the worst at making up lies about the facts of life.

Inspiration
St. Paul Takes a Knee
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us