Darwinists Beg the Question: Common Descent or Common Design?

By Jonathan Witt Published on September 6, 2017

I look a lot like my dad because, yes, he’s my dad. I’m descended from him. Darwinists often point to similarities across species, classes and phyla, and argue that this proves we’re all descended from a common ancestor. DNA, for example, crops up practically everywhere in the living world.

But to say such things prove common descent ignores another possibility. A common feature may be due to common ancestry. But it might instead be due to a common design strategy. Think of cars. A Jaguar and a Mustang share many features — four wheels, rubber tires, two axles, windshield wipers, lights, gas engines. That doesn’t mean the Mustang evolved from the Jaguar. No, designers reuse design features proven to work for specific engineering needs.

We see this pattern even across disparate technology platforms. In one case the wheel is used and adapted for a water mill. In another case for a bicycle. In another, for a truck.

Looking for the Truth, Not Rigging the Answers

What does the evidence suggest is the better explanation for the origin of new plants and animals in the history of life?

So, what about with living things? Might a designer have used and reused a good design concept in widely different biological contexts? The only way to jump straight from biological similarities to evolution is to rule out the design hypothesis from the start. But if we’re debating evolution vs. intelligent design, then ruling out design is just question begging. It’s a way to shut down debate and protect modern evolutionary theory from critique.

Someone could object that the design hypothesis “isn’t science.” But that just dresses the question-begging up in a lab coat. It’s still question-begging. And it’s no way to advance knowledge. Science should be about truth-seeking and evidence, not rigged games.

What does the evidence suggest is the better explanation for the origin of new plants and animals in the history of life? Is the best explanation blind evolution, or intelligent design? And what new findings might count in favor of one over the other? Those are the kind of questions an unfettered, truth-seeking scientific culture is happy to explore.

The Case of So-Called “Junk DNA”

Return to the example of DNA. DNA contains information that codes for biological machinery and form. We’re told chimp DNA and human DNA are 98 percent similar. That’s supposedly what you’d expect if humans evolved from a chimp-like ancestor. But that figure plummets if you compare bigger units of DNA. And since DNA codes for function, we should expect chimps and humans to share a lot of similar software. Our DNA “software,” after all, is coding for things like blood and bone and muscle, arms, legs, fingers and toes, eyes and ears, mouth and nose. These are all things chimps and humans have in common. Should we fault the designer for sticking with a superb system when it came time to design human beings?

A related argument for ape-to-man evolution is that stretches of DNA in humans and chimps seem to be shared bits of& junk DNA, bad code left over from a genetic mutation long ago, from before chimps and humans split from their common ancestor. No designer would have put the same lines of junk DNA in chimps and humans, the argument goes. It’s pretty convincing on first blush. But today the whole idea of junk DNA is in retreat as geneticists discover more and more uses for stretches of DNA once considered useless.

Darwinian theory led its champions to expect, and predict, that most of our DNA would prove to be junk left over from a blind process of trial-and-error. Intelligent design theorists predicted that “junk DNA” would prove to have function. The former led to a failed prediction. The latter led to a successful prediction. Sounds like good science.

 

Jonathan Witt, Ph.D., is a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, and co-author of A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature (IVP).

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.
  • JohnYouAreSoCorrect

    Evolution is confusing!
    Did early humans come from bees, or pigs, or horses, or apes?

    –If people evolved from apes, then where are the ape towns full of constructed homes populated by hundreds of highly social & interdependent citizens? To find such animal communities, I think one should look for a beehive.
    How come bees–with brains the size of pin heads–figured out how to accomplish all that, but our supposed highly intelligent relatives can’t?

    –If people evolved from apes, then why don’t apes sweat like us? No animal sweats as much as we do. The only beasts that come close are horses.
    How come our alleged relatives are completely missing such a vital component of our physiology, yet horses have something kinda like ours?

    –If people evolved from apes, then why don’t surgeons replace failing human hearts with ape hearts? Modern medicine has found in the humble pig the heart that is most like ours.
    How come our supposed relatives’ hearts are so different from ours, yet pig hearts are more similar?

    Did early humans come from bees, or pigs, or horses, or apes?
    None of the above.
    The Biblical book of Genesis tells us where early humans came from.

    • tether

      Now let’s not confuse people with truth. They are completely content believing that the theory of evolution is true and even accepting that at some point in the process there was a huge leap forward.
      And they definitely don’t want to hear that there are trees standing upright that are buried in layers and layers of sediment we are told took millions of years to happen, Yet the trees did not rot away over these millions of years but are rather well preserved as if some historical event pushed all this sediment over them in an instant. Something you might see if say there was a huge amount of water rushing thru like maybe a big flood or something. But they could never accept such an idea because that would imply the Bible might be true.

      • What do the biologists say when you bring up polystrate fossils? Do they scratch their heads and say, “Wow–I never thought of that! That makes me question biology.”?

        Or do they explain to how how polystrate fossils came to be?

        • tether

          Bob big scientific sounding words scare them.

          • GLT

            tether,

            “big scientific sounding words scare them.”

            Grow up!

        • GPS Daddy

          Well, just like the rest of evolutionary biology (macro evolution), they just come up with some story and then say… it science.

          • Explain to me your view of science. Do some parts deliver truth about nature while others don’t? How do you tell which is which?

          • GPS Daddy

            There is science and then there is scientific interpretation. Science requires confirmation by demonstrating that your theory is correct. The theory must be falsifiable. Darwinian evolution is not falsifiable nor can we test it. There is no laboratory test that can be done to show its true. One is left with telling a story to connect pieces of information life the fossil record. In order to use Darwinian Evolution to connect these dots one must first assume Darwinian Evolution is true. Scientific interpretation requires a world view by which you interpret the science. Take for example time. Is there temporal becoming or is time static? What physics theories are used to support which view?

            But take an intelligent designer. We know that life is designed. That easy. Its clearly seen and needs no experimental confirmation. The reason it needs no experimental confirmation is that humans are apply designed to recognized design. There is no college degree needed. No special training needed. This is a very fundamental part of who we are. Kids get it. If you want to investigate the scientific approach to evolution may I suggest the book, “The Scientific Approach to Evolution” by Rob Sadler.

          • Someone needs to read beyond the Discovery Institute and Institute for Creation Research web sites. No, your intuition isn’t helpful in evaluating what’s correct within science. That’s why people spend years getting degrees.

            may I suggest the book, “The Scientific Approach to Evolution” by Rob Sadler.

            You mean the Creationist, not-biologist Rob Stadler? No thanks. I’ll go to the qualified scientists.

          • GPS Daddy

            Yes, Bob, we are designed to know design.

        • Kevin Quillen

          is the explanation like the Oort cloud? The thing that “must” exist, because it has too for our theory to work.

          • Give it a try. Go look up explanations for polystrate fossils and see if there are plausible scientific answers.

    • And Genesis has given us so much valid science!

      (No, wait. I’m thinking of science. Science has given us so much valid science.)

      • GLT

        Bob Seidensticker,

        “And Genesis has given us so much valid science!”

        Well, it did tell us the universe had a beginning, so it got that much right. As it was never written as a science text, but rather an explanation of origins, it is not logical to critique it based on science.

        • I agree—Genesis isn’t a science book. You’ll have to help me explain that to the young-earth Creationists who disagree.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “You’ll have to help me explain that to the young-earth Creationists who disagree.”

            I don’t personally know a single young Earth creationist who thinks Genesis is a book of science. They think it is consistent with science, but is not intended to be a book of science.

          • MR

            I often have people tell me that “the Bible’s not a science textbook” But the Bible is actually a textbook of historical science—and the only such textbook that is totally reliable and infallible. –Ken Ham

          • yes, good example.

          • GLT

            MR,

            “But the Bible is actually a textbook of historical science,…”

            the Bible certainly is history, of that there is no doubt.

          • MR

            For the gullible, perhaps.

          • GLT

            MR,

            “For the gullible, perhaps.”

            If you claim it is not history, please demonstrate how it is not history.

          • MR

            If I gave you a book that opened with a talking lizard, and had a talking horse and was full of magic and told you it was history, you’d likely think me gullible, too.

          • GLT

            MR,

            “If I gave you a book that opened with a talking lizard, and had talking horse and was full of magic and told you it was history, you’d likely think me gullible, too.”

            That is not even close to providing a demonstration the Bible is not history. Sorry.

          • MR

            M’eh. My point stands.

          • GLT

            MR,

            “M’eh. My point stands.”

            That’s mature. Your point never had legs to begin with, so it is hardly still standing.

          • What does the Bible look like? It looks like mythology and legend, just like the holy books from all the other religions (the ones that are made up, unlike your religion).

            That doesn’t prove that it’s not history, but the ball’s in your court to show otherwise.

          • RuthER

            Jesus, a historical figure, spoke about the Flood and about Jonah living trapped inside a big fish. Another point is that modern science owes its roots and advances primarily to those who did not question that there is a designer of an orderly universe (such as Sir Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei). These scientists and others who believed Jesus is the Son of God brought the western culture out of the Dark Ages.

          • MR

            Some dispute that Jesus was a historical figure. A flood that science has shown didn’t exist, crazy stories like a person living trapped in a big fish, talking snakes and donkeys and various tales of incredible, unprovable claims are all clues that the Bible is not a history book. If I were to go to the book store, I will not find the Bible in the History section.

            Modern science owes its roots to people who were curious about the world who happened to be Christian. Science also has roots in Muslims, the Chinese and others who didn’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Science is thanks to their curiosity, curiosity that sometimes went against their beliefs, not because of their beliefs.

          • Uh … quite a bit of doubt, I think.

          • I don’t personally know a single young Earth creationist who thinks Genesis is a book of science. They think it is consistent with science, but is not intended to be a book of science.

            We must run in different circles. The YECs that I hang out with (no, I’m not one myself) think that whatever the Bible says, whether it’s science-y or not, is true. 6 literal days of creation, Man from dust, Garden of Eden, global flood, and all that—they think that’s all history.

          • MR

            Just have to hang out here for a bit and he’ll run into a few.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            You were talking about science and Genesis, not history.

    • John Connor

      And an imaginary being who poofed an entire world and its inhabitants makes so much more sense!

      • GLT

        John Connor,

        “makes so much more sense!”

        If you mean it makes more sense than life springing blindly from non-life and through a mind boggling array of serendipitous events came to form the world we see today, yeah, it makes more sense that an intelligent force is responsible.

        • John Connor

          It was definitely sarcasm

          • GLT

            John Connor,

            Sorry, difficult to tell sometimes when comments lack intonation.

        • I’m still puzzled why you pick on evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis isn’t figured out yet, so it’s reasonable to see it as mysterious and incredible. And yet quantum physics is far more so. Why don’t you focus your skepticism on that?

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “Why don’t you focus your skepticism on that?”

            Why are you so concerned on where I focus my scepticism?

            “Abiogenesis isn’t figured out yet,…”

            Life come only from life. Life does not come from non-life. That being the case, abiogenesis is not likely to be figured out as it does not happen.

          • Why are you so concerned on where I focus my scepticism?

            Weren’t you all a-flutter about consistency on my part? I’m just returning the favor.

            But this isn’t to be annoying. If you make your argument because you’re a servant to a Christian agenda (for example), that makes your statements suspect.

            To take an extreme example, Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute is another one of those few biologists who reject evolution. He has an agenda. I know because he has said so (to his credit). So when he says, “Evolution fails for reasons X, Y, and Z,” I know that that’s likely his agenda talking, not evidence.

            “Abiogenesis isn’t figured out yet,…”
            Life come only from life. Life does not come from non-life.

            Write your paper and collect the accolades. If this is just your famous common sense speaking again, I don’t have much use for it without evidence backing it up.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “I’m just returning the favor.”

            In what way have I demonstrated inconsistency in my position?

            “If you make your argument because you’re a servant to a Christian agenda (for example), that makes your statements suspect.”

            Please, don’t be ridiculous, you have an agenda just like everyone one else. You’re a servant to an evolutionary narrative and that makes your comments suspect for exactly the same reason as you want to make mine suspect.

            “He (Jonathan Wells) has an agenda.”

            Of course he does and as I said, so do you.

            “I know that that’s likely his agenda talking, not evidence.”

            Actually this is a very hilarious comment as well as extremely ironic. Your idea of abiogenesis is the one having no evidence whatsoever to support it and yet you accuse Wells of holding to an agenda which brings his integrity into question? That is beyond ridiculous.

            Evidence is neutral, it is not on one side or the other, it is the same for everyone. It is the agenda an individual brings to the table; ie; their presuppositions, which determines the interpretation of that evidence.

            “If this is just your famous common sense speaking again, I don’t have much use for it without evidence backing it up.”

            Has life at any time been witnessed or demonstrated to come from non-life? No. As such, it is not my ‘famous common sense speaking’, it is the demonstrable, observable and repeatable evidence speaking. You know that thing you say you rely on, the scientific method? Life has never once been observed to arise spontaneously from non-life. Nor has life been generated via the efforts of science despite the efforts of many to make it happen. How much more evidence do you need? Yet it seems you hold to the belief abiogenesis will one day be explained while living under the delusion you do not have an agenda. I’ll retire to bedlam.

          • Thanks for your time.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “Thanks for your time.”

            Time to run? You’re welcome, take care.m:)

      • Jim Walker

        If you don’t believe, you can always sell your wares to liberals elsewhere.

        • John Connor

          Not a liberal

      • GPS Daddy

        Still condemning 70-year old grandmothers to financial devastation for not providing flowers to a wedding?

        • John Connor

          Shouldn’t have gone into business if she couldn’t follow the rules and regulations. No sympathy

          • GPS Daddy

            Darkness dude. That is complete darkness in your heart.

          • John Connor

            Nope. Following the laws of the land isn’t darkness at all. Nice histrionics though…..

          • GPS Daddy

            Laws can be dark. And the US does have some dark laws. But that has nothing to do with the condition of your heart, John.

          • John Connor

            Opinions vary.

      • Kevin Quillen

        you mean like the big bang?

  • GPS Daddy

    Understanding that there is a designer behind life is clearly seen from life. Humans are apply designed to know this. Life always comes from life. Intelligence always comes from intelligence. Person-hood always comes from person-hood.

    • And minds are always stored in brains. Yeah, I like where you’re going with that.

      • GPS Daddy

        You acknowledged the existence of the non-physical spiritual word… unless your going to use those silly word games that new atheists like to do. But you seem much more intelligent than that.

        • No, I don’t acknowledge the existence of a spiritual world. I’m an atheist.

          • GPS Daddy

            Yes, Bob, you did. When you differentiated the mind from the brain.

  • ImaginaryDomain

    I love this topic. Evolution requires that small, incremental steps are held over eons of time and accumulated to form ever-increasing complex structure. Now say it with me: the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us uniformly through repeated observation that this cannot and does not happen. In every instance of observing complex structures, they degrade over time – they don’t get more complex! Entropy is a greased pole.

    And then of course there is the issue of irreducible complexity. Until a complex system as a whole provides some evolutionary benefit, the system is blind to evolution and will not be passed on to future generations. So, according to evolution, all of the millions of random mutations that lead to the formation of the first eye were somehow held in stasis over millions of years while the whole eye system was developing. Sounds like phooey to me ( and by phooey I mean a direct violation of entropy)…

    • SophieA

      I, too, enjoy recounting the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but, sadly laws (of any kind) don’t seem to matter to loony Leftists any longer as they march in lock step with every delusion known and unknown.

      • ImaginaryDomain

        Boy is that true…we can’t even agree on which bathrooms to use anymore.

      • Do you make the same mistake (closed vs. open system) that ImaginaryDomain does?

        • You left out something very important, Bob. However I’m not surprised because it’s a very common fallacy. An open system is a necessary condition for overcoming the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but it’s not a sufficient one.

          Adding energy to materials only increases order (decreases entropy) when there is a mechanism to capture and direct that energy. An internal combustion engine in a manufacturing plant can create products. However pouring the same amount of fuel onto the raw materials and lighting it will destroy them rather than fabricating them into more complex products.

          In contrast, machines and life forms incorporate mechanisms to capture energy and use it to increase order. Evolution theoretically might increase order, but that couldn’t even start until living organisms came into being. And without any natural mechanisms in place to capture energy to to produce an original living organism, it wouldn’t exist.

          Or to put it another way, the body my soul inhabits might be the result of 3.8 billion years of undirected evolution from some last universal common ancestor. But the odds of the first life form coming into existence without any help are way worse than winning 100 Powerball lotteries in a row by buying just one ticket for each one.

          • Evolution theoretically might increase order, but that couldn’t even start until living organisms came into being.

            So you’re saying that evolution needs abiogenesis beforehand. Yes, I agree.

            But the odds of the first life form coming into existe nce without any help are way worse than winning 100 Powerball lotteries in a row by buying just one ticket for each one.

            So you’re OK with evolution but not with abiogenesis?

            I don’t see much point in arguing the abiogenesis question. I presume you’ve got nothing riding on your position that abiogenesis is impossible. If in 10 years there becomes a consensus view, you’ll just drop that issue and find another puzzle that science hasn’t answered yet.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “If in 10 years there becomes a consensus view, you’ll just drop that issue and find another puzzle that science hasn’t answered yet.”

            Consensus provides answers? How does that logic work? If the scientific consensus were to become the Earth was flat, would the answer actually be the Earth was flat? Why is it evolutionists are so pitifully poor in the area of critical thought?

          • Consensus provides answers? How does that logic work?

            Laymen have no better approximation to the truth than the scientific consensus. Scientists themselves don’t need to care, but we do.

            Why is it evolutionists are so pitifully poor in the area of critical thought?

            Why are Creationists so arrogant to declare that they understand biology better than the consensus of biologists?

          • JohnYouAreSoCorrect

            Why is Bob so clueless that he isn’t aware of the many times scientific consensus has been wrong through the ages?

          • Ryan

            If he admitted he was aware of it, he would no longer have an argument.

          • Is this hard or are you just determined to make it so?

            Yes, of course the consensus has been wrong. I don’t believe and never said that the consensus was always right. I simply said that the consensus is the best bet we laymen have to reality. Said another way, we laymen have no option but to accept the scientific consensus as the best provisional statement of truth that we have.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “Laymen have no better approximation to the truth than the scientific consensus.”

            So you accept what science says without reservation simply because you think you have no right to question what they say because you’re a layman? Okay, fine.

            “Why are Creationists so arrogant to declare that they understand biology better than the consensus of biologists?”

            Where did I say that? I said consensus, in and of itself, does not provide factual answers, not the same thing at all. Apparently you have reading comprehension problems as well.

          • “Why are Creationists so arrogant to declare that they understand biology better than the consensus of biologists?”
            Where did I say that? I said consensus, in and of itself, does not provide factual answers, not the same thing at all. Apparently you have reading comprehension problems as well.

            Apparently so. I could’ve sworn that you said, “Yet evolution would ask us to accept the idea that incredibly complex living systems came about through blind, mindless forces lacking any form of intelligence. You are going to accept that as fact simply because you are a layman? Can you not think for yourself? Can you not apply reason and logic to what you are told and draw logical and reasoned conclusions? You are incapable of thinking for yourself simply because you do not hold a science degree?

            My bad.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “My bad.”

            Correct, your bad. My comments which you quote do not in any way say what you imply they are saying. For me to comment on the fact we should not blindly accept whatever evolutionary biologists say is not the same as declaring everything they say as wrong. You really do have reading comprehension problems.

            GLT: “Yet evolution would ask us to accept the idea that incredibly complex living systems came about through blind, mindless forces lacking any form of intelligence. You are going to accept that as fact simply because you are a layman? Can you not think for yourself? Can you not apply reason and logic to what you are told and draw logical and reasoned conclusions? You are incapable of thinking for yourself simply because you do not hold a science degree?”

            Explain how that comment states I know better than the consensus view of biologists? It states I take what they say and apply common sense and logic. If what they say does not stand up to common snese and logic, why should I accept it as true? Simply because they have degrees in biology? Does a dgree in biology, or any other field, render one infallible and totally without bias? It would appear you really are not capable of thinking for yourself.

          • My comments which you quote do not in any way say what you imply they are saying. For me to comment on the fact we should not blindly accept whatever evolutionary biologists say is not the same as declaring everything they say as wrong.

            I agree: you never said that everything biologists say is wrong. And I never said you did.

            You really do have reading comprehension problems.

            Yeah, it sounds like this conversation has reached its end. I imagine the insults aren’t far behind.

            Explain how that comment states I know better than the consensus view of biologists? It states I take what they say and apply common sense and logic.

            Right. You reserve the right to act as Judge and Jury of All Science, deciding which science is valid and which is nonsense, based on your own application of common sense and logic.

            I can’t dream of having so much hubris.

            If what they say does not stand up to common snese and logic, why should I accept it as true?

            Because they understand the data and you don’t? Or perhaps this was a trick question.

            Does a dgree in biology, or any other field, render one infallible and totally without bias?

            Nope. Yet another thing I never said.

            I’m simply saying that, while the scientific consensus isn’t always correct, that’s the way to bet.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “I agree: you never said that everything biologists say is wrong. And I never said you did.”

            You said in a comment directed to me: “And I’m not a biologist, so I refrain from telling the entire field of biology that they’re full of crap.” I took that to mean you felt I thought the entire field of biology was crap. If that was not what you intended by that statement, I apologize for my assumption.

            “I imagine the insults aren’t far behind.”

            Not from me.

            “Right. You reserve the right to act as Judge and Jury of All Science, deciding which science is valid and which is nonsense, based on your own application of common sense and logic.”

            So if a biologist tells you something which is contrary to all your experience and contrary to simple logic you accept it as true simply because he is a biologist and you are not, is that what you’re saying?

            “I can’t dream of having so much hubris.”

            It’s not hubris, it’s called using the brains God gave you. The scientific consensus was the vast majority of our DNA was junk and not worthy of attention. A few scientists who rejected the consensus found it was not junk and triggered a revolution in genetic research. Were they guilty of hubris?

            “Because they understand the data and you don’t?”

            First, why do you presume only biologists are capable of understanding the data? Second, the data is the same for all biologists whether evolutionist or creationist, it is the interpretation of data where the differences arise.

            “Nope. Yet another thing I never said.”

            But it is heavily implied by your comments in which you defer to biologists simply because they hold a degree and you do not.

            “I’m simply saying that, while the scientific consensus isn’t always correct, that’s the way to bet.”

            Which again raises the question, if the scientific consensus was to swing to the belief the Earth was flat, would you bet money on it being flat?

          • You said in a comment directed to me: “And I’m not a biologist, so I refrain from telling the entire field of biology that they’re full of crap.” I took that to mean you felt I thought the entire field of biology was crap. If that was not what you intended by that statement, I apologize for my assumption.

            OK, fair question. Let me clarify: when you reserve the right to reject evolution, you would, with that rejection, be telling the field of biology that you think they’re full of crap on the subject of evolution.

            So if a biologist tells you something which is contrary to all your experience and contrary to simple logic you accept it as true simply because he is a biologist and you are not, is that what you’re saying?

            ?? No, that’s not what I’m saying. Why are we having such a hard time communicating? Maybe if you’d respond to me instead of some caricature, we could make forward progress instead of my having to waste time stomping out the nonsensical brush fires you keep starting.

            We’re talking about the entire field of biology. That field has a consensus (in this case, evolution). No one is talking about a single biologist saying anything (except you, with your straw man).

            It’s not hubris, it’s called using the brains God gave you. The scientific consensus was the vast majority of our DNA was junk and not worthy of attenti on. A few scientists who rejected the consensus found it was not junk and triggered a revolution in genetic research. Were they guilty of hubris?

            Why is this hard? Scientists aren’t the topic. laymen are the topic. I’m saying one and only one thing: laymen are obliged to accept the consensus of the entire field of biology. Note the two italicized bits. You don’t seem to want to understand what I’m saying.

            Suggestion: maybe it’ll help if whenever you see “scientific consensus,” you read that as “consensus of all the people who actually understand the evidence.” I’m not in that group. If you don’t have a terminal degree in the field, then you’re not either.

            But it is heavily implied by your comments in which you defer to biologists simply because they hold a degree and you do not.

            Wrong again. I defer to biologists for the very simple and obvious reason that they understand the data and I don’t. When I get that PhD in biology, then I’ll be able to jump in there and critique their evaluation. Until that point, I have the humility to understand my limitations.

            “I’m simply saying that, while the scientific consensus isn’t always correct, that’s the way to bet.”
            Which agai n raises the question, if the scientific consensus was to swing to the belief the Earth was flat, would you bet money on it being flat?

            Which again brings my answer: yes.

            Fill in the blank: “Even though I’m not an expert in a particular scientific field, I will reject the consensus in that field because ___.”

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “when you reserve the right to reject evolution, you would, with that rejection, be telling the field of biology that you think they’re full of crap on the subject of evolution.”

            No, I would be saying to them I don’t agree with your presuppositions and therefore I don’t agree with your conclusions. Quite a different thing altogether. All evidence is neutral, it is our starting presuppositions which determine how that evidence is interpreted.

            You talk as if biology is dependent upon the evolutionary narrative. While evolution desperately needs biology, biology has absolutely no need for evolution.

            GLT: “So if a biologist tells you something which is contrary to all your experience and contrary to simple logic you accept it as true simply because he is a biologist and you are not, is that what you’re saying?”

            Bob: “No, that’s not what I’m saying.”

            Bob: “I’m saying one and only one thing: laymen are obliged to accept the consensus of the entire field of biology.”

            As it is common ligusitic practice in situations like this to refer to an entire discipline as if it were an individual my question is valid in that it asks whether you accept the consensus view simply because you do not hold a degree in that field of study? The following statement by you is indicative of many such comments you have made which would tend to support that conclusion.
            You said, “I’m saying one and only one thing: laymen are obliged to accept the consensus of the entire field of biology.”

            Why? Why are layman ‘obliged’ to accept the consensus view in biology or any scientific field for that matter? Are layman somehow disqualified to question scientific positions simply because they are layman? Do you apply this standard in every field of life? Do you never question the legal system because you are not a lawyer? Do you never question the government because you are not a politician? Of course not, so why do you see it as a necessity to not question biology, for example, if you think the conclusions reached by the discipline are wrong?

            You use the term the entire field of biology, it is not the entire field. Granted it is a large majority, but it is not the entire field, far from it.

            “If you don’t have a terminal degree in the field, then you’re not either.”

            Applying your line of logic Darwin should be ignored as he held no scientific credentials whatsoever, as should Lyell and Huttion in regards to geology. Why do atheist pay heed to Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking, etc., when they make philosophical pronouncements when none of them hold degrees in the subject? If you’re going to make the argument you are attempting to make, you must be consistent and you are not.

            There is a big difference between being humble, vis a vis your knowledge, and accepting without question anything you are told simply because you do not have a formal education in a particualr field. Does holding a Phd guarantee the holder is correct in his conclusions? Does not holding a degree guarantee an individual is wrong in his position? The obvious answer to both questions is, no. You make the assumption because an individual does not possess a degree in a particualr subject, he is therefore incapable of understanding the subject and unable to comment intelligently regards that subject. That is palpable nonsense.

            GLT: “Which agai n raises the question, if the scientific consensus was to swing to the belief the Earth was flat, would you bet money on it being flat?”

            “Which again brings my answer: yes.”

            You’re serious, you would bet on the Earth being flat if a consensus among scientists was reached that it was flat? You seriously have that little faith in your own abilities to look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions? That is really quite sad.

            I’m sorry, but I simply cannot put myself in the position where I would accept without question any position when the arguments for it are contrary to common sense and logic, simply because a majority says I must.

          • No, I would be saying to them I don’t agree with your presuppositions and therefore I don’t agree with your conclusions. Quite a different thing altogether.

            So we just agree to disagree? You’re happy with biology bumbling along advancing the ridiculous idea of evolution? I’d have thought you’d be a little more agitated that they used their platform to push this nonsensical idea.

            All evidence is neutral, it is our starting presuppositions which determine how that evidence is interpreted.

            What false starting assumptions does biology have?

            You talk as if biology is dependent upon the evolutionary narrative. While evolution desperately needs biology, biology has absolutely no need for evolution.

            Unless evolution is correct. In that case, biology desperately needs evolution.

            As it is common ligusitic practice in situations like this to refer to an entire discipline as if it were an individual

            In this situation, that is quite confusing. When you talk about single scientists, then you can run afoul of the Argument from Authority (“Dr. Jones is smarter than both of us put together, and he agrees with me, so you’re wrong!!”).

            my question is valid in that it asks whether you accept the consensus view simply because you do not hold a degree in that field of study?

            Correct. If I were in their league, (1) I wouldn’t be a layman (and my argument has been solely aimed at laymen) and (2) as a scientist, I would be free to follow the evidence, unconcerned with the consensus. Of course, knowing that the vast, vast majority of modern biologists who came before me accepted evolution would suggest that that’s where my research would lead me.

            And BTW, I wonder why you pick some consensus statements (I know you reject evolution, but perhaps others?) to complain about but not others. For example: quantum physics is the height of ridiculous. Why not go after that one? If I didn’t know you better, I’d say that you had an agenda, not that you were following the evidence, using common sense, and thinking for yourself, as you’ve claimed.

            Why? Why are layman ‘obliged’ to accept the consensus view in biology or any scientific field for that matter?

            See my last line, the fill-in-the-blank one.

            Are layman somehow disqualified to question scientific positions simply because they are layman?

            Question all you want. Marvel at how silly or sensible scientific conclusions are. Just have the humility to avoid declaring that somehow you’ve figured out the flaw in their thinking, which tens of thousands of biologists before have missed.

            Do you apply this standard in every field of life?

            Just science.

            You use the term the entire field of biology, it is not the entire field. Granted it is a large majority, but it is not the entire field, far from it.

            Far from it? Maybe I’ve been misinformed then. List for me the biologists who reject evolution.

            Applying your line of logic Darwin should be ignored as he held no scientific credentials whatsoever

            Things are different today. I’m focused on the consensus of modern science.

            Why do atheist pay heed to Dawkins, Krauss, Hawking, etc., when they make philosophical pronouncements when none of them hold degrees in the subject?

            Just science.

            If you’re going to make the argument you are attempting to make, you must be consistent and you are not.

            No, I’m pretty sure I am.

            Does holding a Phd guarantee the holder is correct in his conclusions?

            Just science.

            Does not holding a degree guarantee an individual is wrong in his position?

            No, and you could be right that evolution is bunk. But how would I know? The scientific consensus isn’t guaranteed to be correct, but that’s the way to bet.

            You make the assumption because an individual does not possess a degree in a particualr subject, he is therefore incapable of understanding the subject and unable to comment intelligently regards that subject. That is palpable nonsense.

            Also, not what I said.

            You’re serious, you would bet on the Earth being flat if a consensus among scientists was reached that it was flat?

            Is the earth flat? How do you know? My guess is that you point to the scientific consensus.

            You seriously have that little faith in your own abilities to look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions? That is really quite sad.

            Thanks for the condescension. As I’ve made clear before, it’s not my abilities but my humility that’s the issue here.

            You obviously know how brilliant I am but, if you can believe it, I’m not perfect. Hard to believe, but there it is. And that compels me to admit where I must yield to those who are more knowledgeable than I am. Biology is one field where this is true.

            I’m sorry, but I simply cannot put myself in the position where I would accept without question any position when the arguments for it are contrary to common sense and logic, simply because a majority says I must.

            “Nothing could be more obvious than that the earth is stable and unmoving, and that we are in the center of the Universe. Modern Western science takes its beginning from the denial of this common sense axiom.” (Daniel J. Boorstin)

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            Science always bumbles along, that is its nature. Most discoveries in science are serendipitous.

            As for biologists using their field as a platform, so what, all people use platforms to spread their ideas, scientists are no different.

            “What false starting assumptions does biology have?”

            Biology has no false assumptions, or assumptions of any kind. The assumptions are applied by those people who are working within the discipline.

            If evolution was correct biology would be dependent on it, obviously. But my point is still valid. If evolution is not correct biology obviously has no need for evolution. The fact that many scientists from all fields practice science successfully without reference to evolution further exposes its tenuous nature as a necessity in understanding scientific investigation.

            “If I didn’t know you better,…you had an agenda,…”

            Of course I do, everyone does, including you and each and every scientist in the world. If one says they do not, they are not being honest with themselves. The truth is I used to be an evolutionist, even after becoming a Christian. It is when I started to look at the evidence, while working hard to keep an open mind, that I was led to where I am today. So the latter part of your comment is 100% wrong.

            Why do you apply your blind adherence to only science? As far as I know you are not a lawyer, yet you would question legal matters. You are not a politician, yet you question the government. I’m guessing you’re not a professional athlete but you know it would be agood idea to fire the coach. That is the very definition of inconsitency, So no, you are not being consistent.

            As for biologists who reject evolution, there are many and obviously I do not know them all or could I list them all if I did. However, here are a few names; Timothy Standish, Nathaniel Jeanson, Raymond Bohlin, David DeWitt, Lane Lester, Gary Parker, Robert Carter, Dean Kenyon. In fact, Kenyon was once an ardent evolutionist and co-authored the long used text book on the evolution of life, Biochemical Predestination.

            “Also, not what I said.”

            That was the comment you made to me when I said you believed becasuse one did not hold a degree in a particular discipline he was therefore incapable of understanding that discipline.

            However, that is exactly what you said. Remember this comment? Bob: “Wrong again. I defer to biologists for the very simple and obvious reason that they understand the data and I don’t. When I get that PhD in biology, then I’ll be able to jump in there and critique their evaluation. Until that point, I have the humility to understand my limitations.”

            “Is the Earth flat? My guess is you point to the scientific consensus.”

            Nope. Eratosthenes, a Greek mathematician from the 3rd century BC demonstrated the Earth was round. Consensus does not enter into the question, it can be empirically demonstrated and has been several times.

            “Thanks for the condescension.”

            I was not being condescending. I was simply expressing my surprise at the low esteem in which you seem to hold your own intellect.

          • “I don’t see much point in arguing the abiogenesis question.”

            Of course you don’t, Bob. The abiogenesis problem blows up Richard Dawkins’ quote, “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Without abiogenesis, evolution is moot.

            “If in 10 years there becomes a consensus view, you’ll just drop that issue and find another puzzle that science hasn’t answered yet.”

            Consensus views in science mean very little if not backed by empirical evidence. As Richard Feynman put it, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            Here’s a simple little test you can try. First individually ask a sample of engineers if they could reverse-engineer a Harley Davidson, one that will run, from standard industrial commodities–sheet metal, plastic copper wire, etc. Then ask some biochemists if they can guarantee to create a living and reproducing cell from amino acids, sugars, lipids, etc. After they say no, ask if they could just just disassemble and reassemble a simple cell so that it would live and reproduce for multiple generations.

            If something can’t be accomplished by guided effort using knowledge accumulated over long periods (e.g. DNA structure discovered in 1953–64 years ago) and very sophisticated technologies, the chance of it occurring by unguided processes and primitive mechanisms is astronomically low.

          • Of course you don’t. The abiogenesis problem blows up Richard Dawkins’ quote, “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Without abiogenesis, evolution is moot.

            Huh? There’s an unanswered question . . . so what? So therefore abiogenesis is impossible? Write your paper and collect the accolades.

            Consensus views in science mean very little if not backed by empirical evidence.

            Wow—who died and left you Judge of All Science?

            If something can’t be accomplished by guided effort using knowledge accumulated over long periods (e.g. DNA structure discovered in 1953–64 years ago) and very sophisticated technologies, the chance of it occurring by unguided processes and primitive mechanisms is astronomically low.

            “This problem is 60+ years old so it’ll never be solved”—do I have that right? I’ve never heard that axiom.

          • “Write your paper and collect the accolades.”

            No need to write any new papers, Bob. There are plenty of secular books already detailing the difficulties of abiogenesis. Try Eugene V. Koonin’s The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution–it’s available free online. There is very interesting material throughout, but especially see chapter 12, Origin of life and Appendix B, Evolution of the cosmos and life.

            Koonin does a lot of research on evolution and believes life started by natural causes. But based on what he’s found, the only way he can see abiogenesis naturally working is if the “many worlds” interpretation is true: “the hypothesis states there is a very large–perhaps infinite–number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.”

            The idea that there are multiple copies of both of us going around in parallel universes is bizarre. However the real problem from a scientific perspective is that the hypothesis is essentially untestable–it has to be taken on faith.

            You’ve heard the phrase, “If you can believe in X, then you can believe in anything.” In normal usage it’s metaphorical. However if X is the “many worlds” hypothesis, the statement may be literally true–in an infinite number of worlds virtually everything would be possible.

            Or consider the old question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” The many worlds hypothesis puts that on steroids: in addition to something coming from nothing and continuing to exist in the usual version, contrary to all experience in the present universe, also the nothing or something that came from it keeps generating more persisting copies all the time.

            “Wow—who died and left you Judge of All Science?”

            You seem to have overlooked the quote I provided from Richard Feynman: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            “‘This problem is 60+ years old so it’ll never be solved’—do I have that right? I’ve never heard that axiom.”

            Well you didn’t hear it from me because I didn’t say it–so you’re setting up a straw man. Actually I’m looking forward to when life will be created in a laboratory. The discrepancies between how that is accomplished in the near future and the conditions on the planet nearly four billion years ago could be very illuminating.

          • There are plenty of secular books already detailing the difficulties of abiogenesis.

            Agreed. So what do we conclude from that? You seem to be saying that abiogenesis is impossible.

            You seem to have overlooked the quote I provided from Richard Feynman: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

            So any current theory of abiogenesis is either wrong or incomplete? I agree. So what? Will that still be true in 50 years?

            If you’re saying that no theory of abiogenesis has been accepted, you’re obviously right. But are you saying anything more than that? You seem to want to conclude that there will never be a theory of abiogenesis.

    • Tom Rath

      To what closed system are you attempting to apply LT2?

      • ImaginaryDomain

        The old open vs closed system argument. It’s a dopey argument.

        ..there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily
        the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.
        …there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself…John Ross (Harvard Scientists who holds evolutionary views).

        An “open system” is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.

        However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy
        stored in petrol. (HT Darwinismrefuted dot com)

    • Good point about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, except that your concern applies only to closed systems. The earth is not closed. It has a rather substantial external source of energy. Can you guess what it is?

      Sounds like phooey to me

      Good for you! You’re not a biologist, but you’re going to reject the consensus view of biology anyway just cuz it makes no sense to you. I gotta admire that fearlessness in the face of a pointless and unwinnable battle.

      • ImaginaryDomain

        You’re not either Bob….and the “consensus view” is far less settled and far less pervasive than you would like to believe.

        As to your other snotty comments…go jump in a lake.

        • The issue isn’t whether the consensus is settled. It’s that we laymen have no better bet than the scientific consensus if we’re looking for scientific truth. It’s not guaranteed to be correct, but it’s the best we imperfect mortals have.

        • John Connor

          Says the person making snotty comments

      • GLT

        Bob Seidensticker,

        “The earth is not closed. It has a rather substantial external source of energy. Can you guess what it is?”

        Nice try, but unfortunately the facts get in the way of your supposed explanation. The sun itself is part of a closed system which is subject to entropy, the universe. As both the sun and the Earth are part of that closed entropic universe they are both subject to the entropy which is causing the universe to wind down. As such, your argument falls flat. Sorry.

        “but you’re going to reject the consensus view,…”

        And as we all know the consensus view is always correct. That is why we live in a geocentric universe, live our lives in bodies full of junk DNA and the appendix is nothing more than a vestigial organ left over from a long distant and forgotten ancestor. 🙂 Spend a little less time on Talkorigins, it will do a world of good.

        • The sun itself is part of a closed system which is subject to entropy, the universe.

          Right. And since the earth has loads of energy (external to it) coming in, help me explain to ImaginaryDomain that evolution has plenty of energy to work.

          As both the sun and the Earth are part of that closed entropic universe they are both subject to the entropy which is causing the universe to wind down.

          You mean that evolution can’t go on forever? That it must end when that source of energy ends? Again, I agree. But we’re not at that point now, and we haven’t been for the last 4 billion years (or so) of evolution.

          And as we all know the consensus view is always correct.

          Hold on—I get it! That’s sarcasm, right? Nice one.

          I believe you’re actually saying that the consensus view is sometimes wrong. Yep. But what’s the best horse for we laymen to bet on? I propose that the scientific consensus is our best approximation to the truth.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “And since the earth has loads of energy (external to it) coming in, help me explain to ImaginaryDomain that evolution has plenty of energy to work.”

            And why, exactly, would I do that when it is patently false? What part of ‘the entire universe is subject to entropy’ do you not understand?

            “But we’re not at that point now, and we haven’t been for the last 4 billion years (or so) of evolution.”

            We were at ‘that point’ from the moment the universe began.

            “Hold on—I get it! That’s sarcasm, right? Nice one.”

            Hold on, I get it! That too is sarcasm, right?

            “I propose that the scientific consensus is our best approximation to the truth.”

            I just finished demonstrating that was not really the case. The scientific consensus is nothing more than the scientific consensus. And when it comes to evolution, which is not science to begin with, but is in fact philosophy, consensus is even more questionable.

          • What part of ‘the entire universe is subject to entropy’ do you not understand?

            The part where that fact negates evolution’s ability to create order from disorder with an external source of energy.

            We were at ‘that point’ from the moment the universe began.

            I’m pretty sure that evolution on earth didn’t start with the Big Bang.

            “I propose that the scientific consensus is our best approximation to the truth.”
            I just finished demonstrating that was not really the case.

            You did? Sorry—I missed it. What is the better option than the scientific consensus for we laymen?

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “The part where that fact negates evolution’s ability to create order from disorder with an external source of energy.”

            Creating order from disorder requires intent and forethought, neither of which are components of the blind, mindless and goalless nature of evolution. Creating order from disorder requires intelligence, evolution possesses no intelligence.

            “I’m pretty sure that evolution on earth didn’t start with the Big Bang.”

            That does nothing to refute my comment.

            “You did? Sorry—I missed it.”

            More sarcasm. Try being original.

            “What is the better option than the scientific consensus for we laymen?”

            There is no shame in admitting you do not know the answer. Clinging to the scientific consensus impedes the growth of knowledge, it does not enhance it. Look at the advances made in genetics since the scientific consensus of junk DNA was blown out of the water. The simple facts are, evolution does not provide answers, it only provides just-so stories in a vain attempt to uphold its narrative of descent from a common ancestor.

          • Creating order from disorder requires intent and forethought

            Gotta disagree with you there. Dissolve sugar in water, and then let the water evaporate. You’ll see beautiful cubic crystals—order from disorder.

            That does nothing to refute my comment.

            Then I have no idea what you were saying when you mentioned “the moment the universe began.”

            There is no shame in admitting you do not know the answer.

            And science doesn’t know anything for certain. It is always provisional.

            Clinging to the scientific consensus impedes the growth of knowledge, it does not enhance it.

            Which simply avoids my point. I’m a layman; therefore, I have no grounds from which to reject the scientific consensus of a scientific discipline of which I’m an outsider.

            I’m a layman; the scientific consensus is all I have. Your point is good advice for the scientists themselves, though I’m sure they don’t need a reminder.

            Look at the advances made in genetics since the scientific consensus of junk DNA was blown out of the water.

            There’s no junk in DNA? The explain why some protozoa have hundreds of times more base pairs than humans do.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “Gotta disagree with you there. Dissolve sugar in water, and then let the water evaporate. You’ll see beautiful cubic crystals—order from disorder.”

            Your presuming the reaction between the sugar and the water is equivalent to chaotic disorder. On what do you base that presumption?

            “Then I have no idea what you were saying when you mentioned “the moment the universe began.”

            From a secular scientific perspective, once the universe began to exist it was in a state of entropy.

            “And science doesn’t know anything for certain. It is always provisional.”

            Then it follows the so called answers it provides are also provisional and therefore not actually answers in the common use of the term.

            “I have no grounds from which to reject the scientific consensus of a scientific discipline of which I’m an outsider.”

            Really? What about logic and common sense? All our observation and experience tells us complex systems always come about due to intelligent forces. Yet evolution would ask us to accept the idea that incredibly complex living systems came about through blind, mindless forces lacking any form of intelligence. You are going to accept that as fact simply because you are a layman? Can you not think for yourself? Can you not apply reason and logic to what you are told and draw logical and reasoned conclusions? You are incapable of thinking for yourself simply because you do not hold a science degree? Charles Darwin had no formal training whatsoever in the sciences, he was strictly a layman in that area, yet you accept what he said as proven fact. Why?

            “There’s no junk in DNA? The explain why some protozoa have hundreds of times more base pairs than humans do.”

            If an explanation is not yet available, it likely will be soon at the rate genetics is discovering uses for what had always been labeled as junk. Simply not knowing the function of a particular aspect of genetic material does not equate with no function. It was once believed the appendix was evolutionary junk. How did that work out? Again, this is a result of the closed minded thinking which permeates evolutionary thought. You would think they would have learned their lesson by now. Apparently not.

          • Your presuming the reaction between the sugar and the water is equivalent to chaotic disorder.

            Yes, I’m saying that sugar molecules in water have no order. They’re chaotic. When they’re in a crystal (after the water evaporates), they’re ordered.

            Then it follows the so called answers it provides are also provisional and therefore not actually answers in the common use of the term.

            Yes, of course: science’s answers are always provisional.

            You got something better?

            Really? What about logic and common sense?

            What’s hard here? Assuming you’re not a biologist, you propose to use your logic and common sense to reject the consensus of an entire field of science?

            Are you really that arrogant to set yourself up as judge and jury of all science?

            All our observation and experience tells us complex systems always come about due to intelligent forces.

            All our observations tell us that minds reside in brains. Do you also accept that?

            Yet evolution would ask us to accept the idea that incredibly complex living systems came about through blind, mindless forces lacking any form of intelligence.

            What’s hard? Every Creationist I’ve met is quite happy to accept that mutation and selection happen . . . they just want to imagine that it is somehow limited to variation within a species and that speciation doesn’t happen.

            You’re saying you won’t even take that position? If you do, then you’ve pretty much accepted evolution.

            To show that speciation doesn’t happen and that Creationism is correct, you simply have to show what magic force keeps mutation and selection within the bounds of each species.

            You are going to accept that as fact simply because you are a layman? Can you not think for yourself?

            Perhaps I have humility and you don’t. I have limitations. I’m not a pilot, so I refrain from going into the cockpit and giving the pilot the benefit of my wisdom when the air gets choppy. I’m not a surgeon, so I refrain from going into the operating room. And I’m not a biologist, so I refrain from telling the entire field of biology that they’re full of crap.

            But that’s just me.

            Charles Darwin had no formal training whatsoever in the sciences, he was strictly a layman in that area, yet you accept what he said as proven fact. Why?

            I couldn’t care less what Darwin says. No biologist today checks his hypotheses with the great man and changes it if it doesn’t fit orthodoxy.

            And conditions today are different now that there is a consensus on evolution.

            Simply not knowing the function of a particular aspect of genetic material does not equate with no function.

            I never said that it did. I’m simply saying that it seems likely that the marbled lungfish probably doesn’t need 40x the DNA of humans. Given our data now, there seems to be a lot of junk in there.

            It was once believed the appendix was evolutionary junk.

            It’s vestigial. Vestigial doesn’t mean junk.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “Yes, I’m saying that sugar molecules in water have no order. They’re chaotic.”

            WHAT! Sugar and water are both stable chemical compounds, there is nothing chaotic about either of them. Their combination is not chaotic and the resulting crystals are NOT an example of order from chaos. This is nothing but silly atheist rhetoric spouted without any logical thought whatsoever. That you believe this argument is simply laughable.

            “Yes, of course: science’s answers are always provisional.”

            As such, they are not necessarily factual as you like to claim, are they.

            “You got something better?”

            An open mind.

            “Assuming you’re not a biologist, you propose to use your logic and common sense to reject the consensus of an entire field of science?”

            Again you make the argument that because one is not a biologist he does not have the intelligence or the right to question the conclusions of one who is. Funny how atheist always like to claim they are intellectually superior yet they so easily accept whatever they are told as long as it fits their preconceived notions.

            I don’t care if an individual has multiple degrees in biology, if what they say does not withstand logical scrutiny I will reject it.

            “Are you really that arrogant to set yourself up as judge and jury of all science?”

            No, but neither am I a bond servant to every claim made under the banner of science, as you appear to be.

            “All our observations tell us that minds reside in brains. Do you also accept that?”

            I see the mind as separate from the brain. I don’t see that our observations tell us the mind resides in the brain. Our observations show us our minds use our brains. Quite a different scenario.

            “Every Creationist I’ve met is quite happy to accept that mutation and selection happen . . . they just want to imagine that it is somehow limited to variation within a species and that speciation doesn’t happen.”

            Yes, mutations occur, but not to the extant or with the frequency needed to support the idea of descent from a single common ancestor. Selection happens, but that does not mean common descent either. Variation is limited, as our observations and investigations demonstrate. It is actually the imagination of the evolutionist which wishes to believe there is no limitation.

            “To show that speciation doesn’t happen and that Creationism is correct, you simply have to show what magic force keeps mutation and selection within the bounds of each species.”

            Speciation is not equivalent to the wholesale change required by evolution. For evolution to be true A would need to become non-A. That simply does not happen.

            As for showing some magic force preventing such a transformation, it is observed everyday in the area of animal husbandry. Talk to any breeder of dogs, cats, cattle, horses, whatever you choose and each and every one of them will tell you there is a line which cannot be crossed. A mule is a perfect example.

            This is not hard, just do a little honest research and scuttle your addiction to Talkorigins.

            “And I’m not a biologist, so I refrain from telling the entire field of biology that they’re full of crap.”

            Where did I say the entire field of biology was full of crap. You atheists are all the same, you erect straw men and attack those because you really don’t have any arguments, only rhetoric. It may come as a shock, but not every biologist is an evolutionist. I hope you’re not one of those people who believe biology is dependent on evolutionary theory. Biology does not need evolution, but evolution needs biology.

            “And conditions today are different now that there is a consensus on evolution.”

            Consensus on any subject means nothing if it is not true. What part of that logic do you not understand? As I asked earlier, if the consensus among scientists were to swing in favour of a flat Earth, would a flat Earth become true? Good grief man, use your head and think a little.

            “I’m simply saying that it seems likely that the marbled lungfish probably doesn’t need 40x the DNA of humans.”

            That is not a scientific claim, it is a philosophical claim. If the marbled lungfish has 40x the DNA of humans the logical path to follow is to assume it indeed does need the additional DNA or it would not have it. To argue it is junk simply because you cannot comprehend why it has the additional DNA is not scientifically driven, it is ideologically driven.

            “It’s vestigial.”

            My gosh you are out of date. Like I said, quit reading the trash you find on Talkorigins. The appendix is not vestigial, it is a vital part of the immune system. Please, read something written within the last 30 years.

          • You are going to accept that as fact simply because you are a layman? Can you not think for yourself?

            I wanted to circle back on this one idea of yours (which I will call the Appeal to Ego). I’m quite comfortable with the answers I’ve given, but I wanted to look at this argument more closely. Here you’re presenting yourself in a very American way: “No one’s gonna tell this American patriot what to think!” and so on.

            I blog about Christianity and atheism, and it puzzles me why users of the Appeal to Ego (which I’ve seen countless times before) don’t feel some irony. They declare themselves independent thinkers when it comes to evolution (or climate change or any other scientific conclusion they don’t like), and yet they’re Christians. Isn’t the shoe on the other foot when it comes to religion?

            You’re an proud, independent American. No one’s gonna tell you what to think about science. And yet you accept the far nuttier claims of Christianity.

            That’s how childhood indoctrination works, I guess, so you’re now on the “vigorously defend my ideas, right or wrong” side of life, but I still would’ve thought you’d sense some irony.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “the Appeal to Ego.”

            Really, now you’re making up fallacies? It is a perfectly logical position and question. Do you really possess no confidence in your own abilities to reason, apply critical thinking and reach a conclusion?

            “Here you’re presenting yourself in a very American way:”

            Interesting observation. The only problem is I am not American. Cest’ la vie. However, feel free to try creating another pretend fallacy.

            “Isn’t the shoe on the other foot when it comes to religion?”

            No. Because one is a Christian does not mean he is incapable of independent rational thought. In fact, that is how I became a Christian; as an adult; through weighing the arguments and the evidence, both for and against. In my experience it is the atheist which is the furthest thing from a free thinker. They survive on tired worn out rhetoric and poor logic almost exclusively.

            “And yet you accept the far nuttier claims of Christianity.”

            Is there supposed to be an argument in there, or just an insult? Labelling someone’s beliefs as ‘nutty’ is hardly a logical and convincing argument. Was it not you who worried I would begin insulting you? Surely, you must appreciate the irony of that.

            So, do you wish to provide some cogent arguments against Christianity or are you simply going off onto the insult side of things?

            “That’s how childhood indoctrination works,…”

            Thank you for another fine example of lazy atheistic rhetoric. You assume all Christians came to their faith as a result of childhood indoctrination. Typical of a low functioning atheist you give no credence to the possibility a Christian can come to faith based on logic and sound reasoning after looking at all the facts and weighing the evidence. Too bad for you that many tens of millions, including myself, have come to Christianity following just that very path. Whereas atheists, being too lazy to investigate anything with an open mind, sit back and pretend they possess a higher intellect and have drawn their conclusions after exhaustive study. What a joke, nothing could be further from the truth. The end result shows you really have no sound arguments with which to attack Christianity, just your rhetoric about childhood indoctrination. The inevitable result is that when you run into someone who is capable of critical thinking and constructing logical arguments your rhetoric gets shown for what it is, weak to the point of absurdity.

      • RuthER

        There is no such thing as “consensus” if you are describing science. The purpose of science is to question preconceived notions in a quest for truth. Huge mistakes have been made when scientists or doctors or others leave no room for doubt (for examples, DEET is not a poison and its rejection has led to the deaths of millions via malaria; ulcers are caused by bacteria not stress: good news, and the scientist who discovered this gave himself an ulcer to prove it bc no one believed him; ETC). All evidence of the past few decades pretty much disproves evolution. Certainly there are scientists who do not think evolution is possible and there are a ton of unanswerable questions (where did the Superforce come from? Why assume that aging/dating methods is a constant?) There can never be a consensus.

        • There is no such thing as “consensus” if you are describing science.

          You mean as in “evolution is the consensus view of biology”? No, I’m pretty sure there is.

          What you might be saying is that consensus doesn’t affect the scientist in the same way it affects we laypeople. And that’s true—a scientist can follow new evidence and even overturn the consensus. But laypeople aren’t scientists. For them, the scientific consensus is their best guess at the truth.

          for examples, DEET is not a poison and its rejection has led to the deaths of millions via malaria

          Do mean DDT? It’s used much more judiciously today, but it’s still widely used. Careless use means that mosquitoes’ resistance to it happens faster.

          All evidence of the past few decades pretty much disproves evolution.

          And I’ll respond in the only sensible way a layman can: when the scientific consensus changes, I’m there. Until that point, I’d be a fool to reject it after my own inexpert analysis.

          There can never be a consensus.

          And yet there is. Not much of a mystery, it seems to me.

  • Tom Rath

    Reader’s Digest version:

    “It’s too confusing for me to grasp, so the explanation MUST be supernatural.”

    Fin.

    • GLT

      Tom Rath,

      “It’s too confusing for me to grasp, so the explanation MUST be supernatural.”

      But what if it really is too confusing for you to grasp and the explanation REALLY is supernatural?

    • ImaginaryDomain

      Yes, we rubes are just too busy being X-ist to look at things critically. Sheesh…go away.

    • ncsugrant

      Anyone who claims to “grasp” the answers to questions of origin is either the smartest person to ever live or one of the many who lacks humility to know what they don’t know.
      The statistical probability is not in your favor to be the former.

  • What you’re leaving out of the equation is time – the time line. When you layout the bone patterns of animals along a time line, you can see that the design developed and evolved with similar species in closer time proximity than different species. Darwinian theory may have some holes in it, but to jump to the conclusion that evolution is flat out wrong is a failure in reasoning.

    • RuthER

      If evolution were true, there should be millions of “missing links” found everywhere, especially in the last few decades with all of our other scientific advances. Still not a single inter species “missing link” has been found among the fossils.

      • Even if that were true, and it manifestly strikes me as wrong, (and I’m not about to go research it for you) what does it prove? Are you denying that animals fit into species and that older versions of those species existed? And that those earlier versions date back millions of years, a lot further back in time the Bible claims creation started? What are you trying to say? Are you saying the logical connections between species have no evolutionary link?

        • RuthER

          “Older versions of species” is not a change from one species to another. Not a bird to a reptile or a monkey to a human or a fish to a bird. We have no idea how many living things have gone extinct since the creation. And no one denies adaptation (best characteristics to survive the current environment of the species become dominant), especially considering that it has to do with different colors of humans. By the way, humans are all the same species (the human race, the only species with a soul, that acts on choice rather than instinct). However there were once different kinds of humans too, such as Neandarthals.

        • RuthER

          The foolishness of Darwin was to NOT believe the science of adaptation that had already been discovered by scientists in Darwin’s time. Darwin was not a scientist but an aristocrat (aka Elite) with too much time and money on his hands. His ideas caught on with humans eager to secularize human life and eliminate the supernatural and unanswerable questions and replace hope and order with finite emptiness and chaos.

          • Yes, I agree. Darwin was not an expert and made popular what was already mostly known.

        • RuthER

          “Older versions of species” is not a change from one species to another. Not a bird to a reptile or a monkey to a human or a fish to a bird. We have no idea how many living things have gone extinct since the creation. And no one denies adaptation (best characteristics to survive the current environment of the species become dominant), especially considering that it has to do with different colors of humans. By the way, humans are all the same species (the human race, the only species with a soul, that acts on choice rather than instinct). However there were once different kinds of humans too, such as Neandarthals.

          • OK, but how do you imagine new species came about? Yes, there are definite holes in Darwinism – especially the claim that the environment does not influence the gene selection – but one species has to lead to another. I can’t find any logical way out of that.

  • John

    Genesis is a good place to start and is fully backed up by the scientific and historical facts; the earth is relatively young, not millions or billions of years, disproving evolution. The rate of increase of salinity of the oceans is one clear indicator. The great flood is historically proven by examining the sediment at the mouths of all the great rivers, all coming from exactly the same period around 5000 years ago, and recorded by many different cultures with remarkable consistency. It takes a lot more faith to accept evolution than it does creation.

    • John Connor

      Really? Genesis is backed up by nothing other than the book it came from. Where’s your evidence of the earth being young? The great flood has been disproven over and over. Your personal opinion is a long ways from being fact.

  • tz1

    If Evolution is true, so is Eugenics. The races can’t possibly be “equal” since they had different pressures which selected different genes including for intelligence.
    OTOH, if humans are crated with a soul – a will and intellect that can trancend anything genetic or epigenetic. But that isn’t scientific.
    But no one will say evolutionists are Nazis. But they are even if they got a few details wrong.

  • Trilemma

    Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, chemistry and statistics, abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, some sort of creator being had to be involved in the formation of the first living cell.

    If a retrovirus inserts a bit of DNA into the DNA of a sperm or egg cell, then that bit of DNA at the same insertion point will be inherited by the host’s descendants. Humans and chimps share about half a dozen such insertions indicating a common ancestor.

    Life is a combination of evolution and creation.

    • GPS Daddy

      If by evolution you mean change, then yes, life changes. If by evolution you mean macro evolution in the Darwinian Evolution sense, then no, life has not evolved. We know that the changes are WAY to improbable to even rationally consider it. In addition we have never observed this kind of evolution and we have never found evidence of it that does not first require you to assume that macro evolution is true in order to conclude that we have such evidence.

      So were are only left with creation. Since we are only left with creation then natural law means something. To dismiss natural law is to dismiss the creator.

      • John Connor

        There is only the theory of natural law and creator. No proof or evidence. As far as evolution is concerned, you’re not very well read in it.

        • GPS Daddy

          Hmm, your clairvoyant? You have no idea how much I have read, John Connor. But the fact remains that macro evolution is nothing but an extreme interpolation is micro changes. This amounts to story telling. But we all need fairy tails to give us comfort, don’t we?

          • John Connor

            Your bible being a prime example

      • Trilemma

        Where do you draw the line between micro evolution and macro evolution? There is evidence that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Is that micro evolution?

        • GPS Daddy

          We have never observed one species changing into another (macro). We have only observes changes that are within a species like hair color, height, etc.. (micro). Those terms are readily know, Trilemma. As for as your example, you must first assume common decent in order for that to be evidence of common decent.

  • Pigdowndog

    Can’t wait for when a “Creationist scientist”, if that’s not an oxymoron, claims his/her Nobel Prize for debunking the Theory of Evolution.
    What are the chances?

    • davidrev17

      The Theory of Evolution itself – aka that all-encompassing, smoke-and-mirrors “naturalism of the gaps” non-explanation-explanation, referred to as the “molecule to man conundrum” – for all you, or any other ‘a priori’ faith-based metaphysical materialist scientist would know, could’ve actually been instantiated/driven by the omnipotent “Word” of the non-physical Creator God of the Holy Bible; seeing as though this no doubt unobserved event in earth’s ancient primordial history, was technically “downstream” from an even more challenging, and still-unresolved momentous conundrum – called the “origin of life”!

      I wish I possessed such an (unscientific) faith – in nothing × something? = everything; an act of which would make even the most fideistically driven, rock-ribbed Islamic homicide bomber green-with-envy, pigdowndog! Tell me: do you also have that same sort of blind faith in the “origin of the universe” too; namely the bizarre, logically incoherent notion that “the universe created itself from nothing” – a necessary staple in typical mind-numbing, atheistic metaphysical doublespeak?? Do tell, please…kuz you smart-folk never cease to amaze me.

      • Pigdowndog

        ” the Theory of Evolution itself – aka that all-encompassing, smoke-and-mirrors “naturalism of the gaps” non-explanation-explanation”
        Publish your peer reviewed evidence that debunks The Theory of Evolution then await your Nobel Prize.
        Good luck with that.

        “driven by the omnipotent “Word” of the non-physical Creator God of the Holy Bible; seeing as though this no doubt unobserved event in earth’s primordial history, was technically “downstream” from an even more challenging, and still-unresolved momentous conundrum, called the “origin of life”!”
        I have no idea what that tangled mess of words is supposed to mean as I’m only fluent in English and not gobble-de-gook.

        “”the universe created itself from nothing”;”
        Something no scientist has ever said. That’s a musing from the fevered mind of a creationist.

        “Hmmm… Do tell, please – kuz you ultra-smart folk never cease to amaze me, when you’re doin’ the ol’ hand-waving naturalistic two-step.”
        I’m assuming you think your strange rambling word salad method of communicating makes you think it’s clever.
        I have news for you you mate. It’s childish and fogs any point you’re trying to make.
        Must do better.

        • davidrev17

          Typical evasiveness & personal ad hominem attacks from the atheist – when confronted with the facts surrounding their mindless/foundationless worldview of naturalism!

          And “something no scientist has ever said,” you say? Then let’s start with the likes of say, two “crummy philosophers” (though brilliant scientists) like the physicists Stephen Hawking & Lawrence Krauss; whose somewhat recent ideologically incoherent pronouncements were exposed, then excoriated by their own colleagues.

          You can do the homework on their purely metaphysical statements – dressed-up, or disguised in sophisticated scientific mumbo-jumbo – then you can tell ALL humanity “scientifically” – just “how nature became,” or “went digital”??

          • Pigdowndog

            “Typical evasiveness & personal ad hominem attacks”
            What have I evaded and where are the ad hominem attacks?
            Paranoid much?

            “when confronted with the facts surrounding their mindless, foundationless, “smoke-and-mirrors” worldview of naturalism – aka “philosophy masquerading as science”!”
            As I said, “Publish your peer reviewed evidence that debunks The Theory of Evolution then await your Nobel Prize.” Good luck with that.

            ” like the physicists Stephen Hawking & Lawrence Krauss; whose somewhat recent ideologically incoherent pronouncements were exposed,”
            Just because you can’t understand them doesn’t make them “incoherent” and just who has “exposed them?

            “I’m an ultra-right-wing, bible-believing nut job!”
            Can’t argue with that as the evidence is overwhelming.

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            “and just who has “exposed them?”

            Work is your friend, look it up. You can find several articles critical of Krauss’ and Hawking’s nonsense. Start with John Horgan in Scientific American.

          • Pigdowndog

            Being “critical” is far from dismissing their findings.
            That’s how science works. Question everything.
            Don’t believe something on faith.

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            “Being “critical” is far from dismissing their findings.”

            Hawking’s comment about the existence of the law of gravity could and would result in the universe creating itself from nothing ranks among the most idiotic statements ever made by a supposedly intelligent human being. It displays a woeful ignorance of both the nature of the law of gravity as well as the nature of nothing. The law of gravity is incapable of creating anything, it is only an attempt to explain observed phenomena. Physical laws do not create, they only attempt to explain. Secondly, there would be no force such as gravity unless something was already in existence. Nothing in existence equals no gravitational force. How then would gravity bring into existence the universe from nothing when gravity itself could not and did not exist?

            I’m sorry, Hawking is not the genius people think him to be. He is nothing more than a pop scientist as demonstrated by this monumentally stupid attempt at an explanation as to how the universe could come into being from nothing. The fact you think this explanation carries any weight demonstrates your lack of critical thought as well.

            Both Hawking and Krauss were completely refuted, not simply criticzed.

            “Don’t believe something on faith.”

            It may come as a surprise to you, but you practice faith every minute of every day.

          • Pigdowndog

            I’m always amazed at the sheer arrogance of god-botherers and the lengths they go to just to defend their mythical friend.
            You have highlighted your idiocy by thinking you know more than two eminent physicists.
            There’s no point in carrying on replying to you as you are deluded on more than one front.
            Grow up.

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            “You have highlighted your idiocy by thinking you know more than two eminent physicists.”

            If these two eminent physicists told you the moon was a holographic projection and the Earth was flat, would you believe them simply because they were ’eminent’ physicists?

            It doesn’t matter how many degrees an individual may possess or how smart people may believe they are, if they say something idiotic, it is still an idiotic statement. Having a degree in physics does not make one immune to stupidity.

            If Hawking is the genius you think he is, perhaps you could ask him to use his genius to explain how gravity, the force created between objects possessing mass, would exist in a state of absolute nothingness?

            I am always amazed at how shallow atheistic thinking and reasoning is, how gullible atheists are and how they are willing to accept any amount of palpable nonsense they are fed if they believe it supports their myopic world view.

          • Pigdowndog

            “if they say something idiotic, it is still an idiotic statement.”
            Advice you need to heed.

            “a state of absolute nothingness?”
            Do some research.

            “how gullible atheists are and how they are willing to accept any amount of palpable nonsense they are fed if they believe”
            There’s that wonderful irony again.

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            “Advice you need to heed.”

            I’m not the one who made the idiotic statements. That would be Hawking and Krauss. You’re the one who fell for them.

            “Do some research.”

            I’m not the one confused over the difference between nothing and something. Again, that would be Hawking and Krauss and people like you who read their drivel and think themselves educated.

            “There’s that wonderful irony again.”

            It’s obvious you’re just the typical, run-of-the-mill atheist, you never have any arguments to present, only pitiful attempts at sarcasm and a condescending attitude stemming from a mistaken belief you possess a superior intellect. Yet that supposed vast intellect can’t scrape together even the simplest cogent argument. It truly is funny to watch atheists prattle about.

            Instead of trying to insult me, which is not working by the way, why not take your supposed superior intellect and formulate a logical argument in defence of Hawking and Krauss? Or are you using the typical atheistic ploy and just spouting rhetoric while in reality having no clue at all about the facts? I know where I would place my bet.

          • Pigdowndog

            “just spouting rhetoric while in reality having no clue at all about the facts?”
            As I said. Your “irony” gene is in fine fettle.
            As to your uneducated comments there’s no point in presenting facts and evidence as cognitive dissonance is your default position.
            I can’t be arsed carrying on reading your nonsense so don’t bother responding as I’ll just ignore you.
            Toodle Pip!

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            “As to your uneducated comments there’s no point in presenting facts and evidence as cognitive dissonance is your default position.”

            I must take the time to respond and thank you for confirming what was painfully obvious. You’re the typical low functioning atheist who spouts rhetoric but never has an actual argument to present. When challenged to actually defend your beliefs with a logically formulated argument you scurry for the hills as fast as your little fingers can type. The superior intellect of the atheist is a marvel to behold. Truly hilarious. Take care and maybe plan to read a book now and then. Perhaps you should start with an introduction to critical thinking.

        • GLT

          Pigdowndog,

          “Publish your peer reviewed evidence that debunks The Theory of Evolution then await your Nobel Prize.”

          There has been plenty of peer reviewed material published debunking evolution, it simply is reviewed by peers with degrees you believe are not valid because of their religious beliefs and found in publications you do not read. Neither of which matter in the least as you are not the judge of who is and is not qualified among degreed scientists.

          “”the universe created itself from nothing”;”
          Something no scientist has ever said.”

          “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” Stephen Hawking.

          Do you do any actual research or just spout rhetoric?

          “Must do better.”

          Now that’s humourous.

          • Pigdowndog

            “There has been plenty of peer reviewed material published debunking evolution”
            Link please, and I don’t mean one that leads me to AiG. A proper scientific one.

            “reviewed by peers with degrees you believe are not valid because of their religious beliefs ”
            Look up Kenneth R.Miller.

            “”Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” Stephen Hawking.”
            I think you’d better read that sentence again.
            It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

            “Do you do any actual research or just spout rhetoric?”
            Beautiful irony!

            Must do better.

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            “Link please, and I don’t mean one that leads me to AiG. A proper scientific one.”

            You will have to find the links yourself, this site does not allow people to embed links. You can check google for peer reviewed work by creationists. Every creationist who holds an earned Phd has produced peer reviewed research.

            “Look up Kenneth R.Miller.”

            I am quite familiar with Ken Miller, he is the biologist who made an absolute fool of himself when trying to refute Michael Behe’s mouse trap argument for irreducible complexity by demonstrasting the mouse trap could still function as a tie clip. Brilliant man, Miller.

            I also know Miller claims to be a practicing Roman Catholic, while at the same time rejecting what his faith clearly teaches, ie:, that the world as we see it is the creation of an omnipotent, loving God. Are you saying you will accept a persons Christianity as long as he toes the evolutionary line, but if he happens to be a Christian and rejects the evolutionary narrative he is then not qualified as a scientist due to that fact?

            “I think you’d better read that sentence again.
            It doesn’t mean what you think it means.”

            Really, then why don’t you explain to me what it does mean?

            “Beautiful irony!”

            Perhaps you should look up the definition of irony.

            “Must do better.”

            Did do better. It takes no effort to refute atheistic rhetoric. In fact, typing is the only thing which takes any effort when it comes to refuting atheistic drivel.

          • Pigdowndog

            If the link doesn’t work type in “Peer reviewed Creationists”.

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            “If the link doesn’t work type in “Peer reviewed Creationists”.

            Go ahead, I am not the one looking for the names, you are.

          • Pigdowndog

            “Go ahead, I am not the one looking for the names, you are.”
            Enough said.

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            GLT: “Go ahead, I am not the one looking for the names, you are.”

            Pigdowndog: “Enough said.”

            You’re completely confused, aren’t you? It’s really quite humourous.

          • Pigdowndog

            “You’re completely confused, aren’t you?”
            I have to admit you’re a master of irony.

          • GLT

            Pigdowndog,

            “I have to admit you’re a master of irony.”

            Due to your demonstrated confusion I’m left with the assumption you do not understand the nature of irony either.

Inspiration
The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us