Skip to main content
article icon

Evangelicals' free school would include creationism on science curriculum

News | Published in TES Newspaper on 4 February, 2011 | By: Richard Vaughan

Everyday Champions Church set to be latest in line of faith-based founders

An evangelical church, which intends to teach creationism as part of its science curriculum, has submitted a proposal to open a free school in Nottinghamshire.

The Everyday Champions Church in Newark handed its plans to open a 625-pupil secondary school in the area to the Department for Education last week.

The application came just a day before the DfE held its first free school conference, where education secretary Michael Gove said applications from creationist groups would be considered, with each judged on its individual merits.

According to the church, the Everyday Champions Academy will possess a "Christian ethos that permeates everything that happens throughout the school".

The church states that it believes the Bible is an "accurate" depiction of God's word, and that God is the "creator of all things".

Pastor Gareth Morgan, the church leader and the driving force behind the free school bid, confirmed that creationism would be taught across the curriculum, should the school be given the green light.

"Creationism will be taught as the belief of the leadership of the school," Pastor Morgan said. "It will not be taught exclusively in the sciences, for example. At the same time, evolution will be taught as a theory."

The church website carries a video that states: "If creation is true, there is a purpose to life. If evolution is true, there is no purpose to life." It adds that "if creation is true, then man is a fallen creature and we need a saviour. If evolution is true then man is an evolving creature and we don't need any saviour".

It is hoped that the school will open its gates in a new building by September 2012, offering places to both Year 7 and Year 8 pupils.

Earlier this month, the Everyday Champions Church held a community meeting where it laid out its vision for the school.

Pastor Morgan said that conversations with Newark and Sherwood District Council had shown that there would be a need for a 600-plus pupil secondary school in the area by 2015.

The National Secular Society urged Mr Gove to protect the science curriculum. Executive director Keith Porteous Wood said: "The secretary of state should emphasise that in regards to science, schools should teach the accepted theory of evolution and that any biblical teachings should be left to religious education.

"If creationism were taught in a science environment, there is a danger that it would be taught with the implication that it is the real explanation and that the scientific version was 'only a theory'," he added.

The academy is the latest in a line of proposed free schools with a faith-based ethos, such as the Tauheedul Islam Boys' High School, which has been proposed in Blackburn, and the Haringey Jewish Primary School in London.

According to the British Humanist Association (BHA), seven out of 10 free school applications have a faith-based ethos.

BHA head of public affairs Naomi Phillips said schools such as the Everyday Champions Academy reaffirmed the association's concerns over free schools.

"This type of school holds up our fear from when Michael Gove first put forward his proposals - that they would be schools with faith-based and sometimes extreme views that would largely be applying to take over the running of our state-funded schools," Ms Phillips said.

"This is despite Michael Gove saying that the Government would protect against creationists and other extreme religions ... It's clear there are no such protections in place."

A spokesman for the Department for Education said it did not comment on free school applications.

DUE DILIGENCE - 'Hijack' worry

Michael Gove said the DfE has set up a due diligence committee to root out extremism in schools.

Speaking last week, he said: "It will be the responsibility of that committee to monitor all applications for new schools. And to monitor existing arrangements in existing schools to make sure there are no risks of extremism taking hold.

"We're going to ensure that we have the resource here to help local authorities and others to deal either with a small group of governors hijacking a school or a group who are promoting a school who are inappropriate, whether they be religious extremists or political extremists."


Subscribe to the magazine

2.3 average rating

Comment (122)

  • This Government, even more than the last, is putting our children up for grabs by every religious crank going!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    11:12
    4 February, 2011

    DavidPollock

  • If Creationism had any logical foundation based upon objective knowledge instead of a few lines of scripture, I could understand a school teaching it, but it doesn't.

    Creationism should go the way of all failed theories.

    It is sad that despite our greatest minds and our computers teaching us much about the beginnings of our universe this mythology seems to continue on in our society.

    Isn't it time we left this fantasy behind and concentrated on useful school subjects?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    11:21
    4 February, 2011

    Starting101

  • Although Gove avoided a very concrete answer on this at Saturday's Free School Conference he did say that "theories" like creationism could not be taught in lessons about proven knowledge such as science. Also said creationism could not be taught as if it were on a par with scientific explanation. He seemed quite clear about this to me so I'm surprised that this application is being put in like this. I'd be very surprised if it got through in its current form.
    There's more on this in my live tweets from the conference @LKMco #freeschoolsconf

    Loic
    http://bit.ly/hrvpZL

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:24
    4 February, 2011

    LKMco

  • I wish to clarify the subject of Creationism in relation to our science curriculum. Department for Education guidelines state that they do not expect creationism and intelligent design to form part of any science curriculum developed by any state funded school that has the freedom to develop their own curriculum. However, they would expect to see evolution and its foundation topics fully included in any such science curriculum. Creationism will be embodied as a belief at Everyday Champions Academy, but will not be taught in the sciences. Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory. We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice.

    I would appreciate it if you could print to clarify for your readers.
    Kind regards,
    Gareth Morgan (Everyday Champions Academy - Free School Proposal)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:52
    4 February, 2011

    gemorgan

  • What utter nonsense. Creationism is NOT a theory, it is a HYPOTHESIS, and a completely unfounded one at that. The only exception to the rule that it does not belong in an educational environment is that it can serve as a fantastic example of scientific ignorance and bad critical thinking.

    Teach our children facts, show them evidence, don't close their minds using religiously inspired, unacademic twaddle.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:04
    4 February, 2011

    pauldakers86

  • Regarding Gareth Morgan's comment: "We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice."

    Will such noble sentiment extend to giving pupils of the proposed school an informed and unbiased choice of which religion or belief system (if any) they should follow? No.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:13
    4 February, 2011

    liveware

  • I'm opposed to any school promulgating dogma, seeing it as an abuse of power and a form of bullying.

    However, it should be remembered that science subjects in schools should never be about teaching "facts", but about critical thinking, scientific method and current "robust" theories.

    The word Evolution is used in such debats as both a theory and a measurable and demonstrable process. It is a mathematically demonstrable process which can be explained entirely using logic and a basic model which can be shown to fit the measurable world (sets of genetically diverse individuals, selection events, etc) but it is also a "theory" in explaining the origins of life - all be it a very sound one. The are alternative theoretical explanations for the origin of life on earth including panspermia, and "god did it" should probably be at least considered in any discussion of the origins of anything, but can be quickly dismissed as a hollow dead end in trying to understand the world as it quickly leads to the possibility that the world was only created a moment ago, fully formed with everything we see around us and that all of our memories and experiences have been created too.

    What I don't accept is the hypocrisy of a school being formed which would include any system of belief "embodied" in it and then feel it could still teach anything, any subject not just science, objectively.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:38
    4 February, 2011

    NickInDevon

  • Will the divine inspiration of the Bible be taught as a fact, a theory or as an hypothesis?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:42
    4 February, 2011

    NelRow23

  • And how exactly do people expect this Everyday Champions Academy to accurately teach evolution to their students when Gareth Morgan himself demonstrates in his comment here that he has absolutely no idea of what the definition of a scientific 'theory' is!
    No wonder he is a proponent of Creationism. He has no grasp of even the most basic scientific knowledge!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:10
    4 February, 2011

    deckchaironthebeach

  • Creationism is not a hypothesis, which may be defined as:

    "a proposition tentatively assumed in order to draw out its logical or empirical consequences and test its consistency with facts that are known or may be determined appears, then, to be a condition of the most genuinely scientific hypothesis that it be…of such a nature as to be either proved or disproved by comparison with observed facts" — J. S. Mill

    Creationism does not test its consistency against the observed facts, evidence or data, so it cannot be a hypothesis or a theory - it is a belief.

    It is a function of education to develop an individual's critical faculties, something the Everyday Champions Academy and 'Pastor' Morgan seem to have misunderstood.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:27
    4 February, 2011

    PaulBevis

  • I'm happy that Gareth should teach evolution as a 'theory', provided he also teaches that a 'theory' in science is not a wishy-washy guess, or an uncritically adopted tradition, but an overarching and internally consistent framework of concepts and relationships that accommodates all available data within the field in which it operates, that has a high level of explanatory and predictive power, and that is constantly open to review and revision in the light of new evidence. If he can demonstrate that creationism has these characteristics he can teach that as well, but I think he'll struggle. 'Predictve power'? Hmmm....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:56
    4 February, 2011

    cbaily

  • I hope the Everyday Champions Academy test the "theory" of gravity by throwing themselves out of a 10th floor window. Disgusting abuse of the educational system, we will look back someday on these organisations and wonder how the hell we allowed them to exist.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:14
    5 February, 2011

    flabbergasted_OMG

  • I reckon this school will suspiciously burn to the ground before it opens its doors - we have to protect the children

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:26
    5 February, 2011

    dutyofpoets

  • The church website carries a video that states: "If creation is true, there is a purpose to life - but you may never actually discover what the grand scheme has planned for you. If evolution is true, there is no *externally imposed* purpose to life, and you are free to choose the purpose(s) of your own life for yourself."

    There. Fixed it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:27
    5 February, 2011

    Cyberguy

  • Will th

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:39
    5 February, 2011

    paulka55

  • Will this school also be teaching the theory of the Easter bunny, tooth fairies & santa claus? As these would fit nicely with theory of creation, remember whether god exists or not he might as well not as his existence can't ever be proved!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:43
    5 February, 2011

    paulka55

  • "education secretary Michael Gove said applications from creationist groups would be considered, with each judged on its individual merits.
    According to the church, the Everyday Champions Academy will possess a "Christian ethos that permeates everything that happens throughout the school".
    The church states that it believes the Bible is an "accurate" depiction of God's word"
    Mr Gove, by supposing it possible for merit to reside in creationism, demonstrates his unsuitability for his post. Unable, as he is, to distinguish indoctrination from education and blind to the implications to society and to individual children of this perversion of scientific understanding. Evolution is proved in all the fields of research which in any way relate to it; Geology, Palaeontology, Genetics, Biochemistry and, of course Biology. There has been no disproof. Creationism has no proof whatever and that strongly supports the assertion that its proponents are unfit to teach any scientific subject at all. Will Pastor Morgan's absurd beliefs about the accuracy of the bible include the ethical pronouncements to be found in Leviticus? Does he regard slavery and genocide (of all but the 'chosen' people) as good? Is the wearing of clothes of mixed fibres and the cultivation of different crops in the same field a crime? Will children be taught that hell is 'real'? If the answer is 'no' to any of these things how does he decide which part of the bible is true and which false? What apart from his own individual choice gives authority to the 'teaching' he intends to foist on children at this school?
    With Mr Gove as 'education' secretary we can all expect a new dark ages. His is the most socially divisive and retrogressive education policy yet seen in the UK and shameful in its ignorance and stupidity.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:37
    5 February, 2011

    GeoffTo1

  • Yet again, the Creationists are playing with words. Evolution is a theory, yes. But a scientific theory as is Gravity and Electricity. In everyday language, Evolution is a fact with probably more evidence seen than any other scientific discipline.

    If he wants to teach alternative theories, how about the Stork Theory as well as child birth? Or Astrology instead of Astronomy. Alchemy instead of Chemistry.

    Please do not relegate our children's future to the past.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:14
    5 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • If science lessons would stick to the observable and testable facts in biology, this dispute would never arise. Micro-evolution fits this bill, because natural selection acting on genetic variations to produce small changes is observable and testable. But such changes are often reversible and empirical experimentation suggests this process is incapable of driving the increase in biological complexity that is required for macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is therefore a speculation based on micro-evolution that goes beyond the facts. It is comparable with creationism because both are based on unprovable assumptions. Creationism is built on the belief in a Creator, and macro-evolution is built on methodological naturalism - another unprovable assumption. In other words, one assumes a God and the other assumes no God. The choice is yours. The evidence can be used to support either. But because the whole of mainstream science now operates on methodological naturalism, the logical possibility of the input of intelligent design into the natural world is automatically excluded.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:49
    7 February, 2011

    aghalloway

  • aghalloway,

    micro-evolution? Macro-evolution? Sorry mate there is ONLY evolution. The idea of micro/macro was invented by creationists when faced with evidence they couldn't explain. Science does not recognise the difference; your attempts at throwing 'muck' at an evidence based peer reviewed scientific theory won't work.

    Quote: 'Creationism is built on the belief in a Creator, and macro-evolution is built on methodological naturalism - another unprovable assumption. In other words, one assumes a God and the other assumes no God. The choice is yours. The evidence can be used to support either.'

    This is simply presenting a story as 'equal' to an evidence based peer reviewed scientific theory; your story of creation has no evidence, the theory of evolution has far more evidence than you can ever imagine.

    Quote: 'But because the whole of mainstream science now operates on methodological naturalism, the logical possibility of the input of intelligent design into the natural world is automatically excluded.'

    A slight of the hand 'trick' easily spotted trying to PRETEND that 'intelligent design' has something to offer science. It hasn't; it lost all the theological arguments and science arguments many years ago.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:28
    7 February, 2011

    Brooke Bond

  • Gareth Morgan (Everyday Champions Academy - Free School Proposal)

    Quote: 'Department for Education guidelines state that they do not expect creationism and intelligent design to form part of any science curriculum developed by any state funded school that has the freedom to develop their own curriculum.'

    So you appreciate that creationism IS NOT science.

    Quote: 'However, they would expect to see evolution and its foundation topics fully included in any such science curriculum. Creationism will be embodied as a belief at Everyday Champions Academy, but will not be taught in the sciences. Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory. We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice.'

    Are you teaching creationism as a theory or as a story? In RE you can make up as many sories as you want but in science I know of no other 'theory' which is backed by the scientific world that challenges evolution or explains the vast amount of evidence we have. Exactly HOW can a student have a 'broad knowledge of all theories' if there is only one theory?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:35
    7 February, 2011

    Brooke Bond

  • re: GEMorgan, 'Creationism will be embodied as a belief at Everyday Champions Academy, but will not be taught in the sciences'

    This thinly-veiled attempt to.. well... draw a veil over the issue is laughable.

    It is patently obvious that what will happen will be that Creationism will be drummed into the children at this school over and over through biblical instruction. They will then be told in science class about the 'THEORY of Evolution' (wink wink) and told to 'make up your own minds about the issue' (wink wink)... 'Is Almighty God, your sustainer, your ever-watchful thought-judger lying in the bible? Or are humans descended from monkeys (sic)?'

    You must think the population of this country truly idiotic if you think that we will naively swallow such obvious attempts to muddy the waters. There are many who live in the UK who will fight tooth and nail to stop the indoctrination of children with discredited, unprovable hypotheses such as your Creation myth.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:50
    7 February, 2011

    JohnEdwardStrange

  • Dear Brook Bond, I'm afraid you are mistaken about the valid distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. It was formed by evolutionists, not creationists, and is still used by some evolutionists today. And there is a quantum leap of difference between the two.
    Secondly, the evidence for creation is all around you - it's called creation. How it got there is a matter of interpretation of the evidence. Macro-evolution is one interpretation. Special creation or Intelligent Design are others.
    As for the 'theory of evolution has far more evidence than you can ever imagine' - in fact the vast majority of evidence for evolution that you are alluding to is evidence for micro-evolution. The evidence for macro- is thin and getthing weaker by the day, as the latest research in genetics and cell biology uncovers ever increasing layers of complexity and information coding. As this knowledge increases, the power of the neo-Darwinian paradigm to explain it becomes more and more untenable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:33
    7 February, 2011

    aghalloway

  • re aghalloway : "Secondly, the evidence for creation is all around you - it's called creation."

    Ah yes , the argument from Humpty Dumpty! Even by creationists' standards, this line of yours is remarkably dim-witted.

    The basis of the issue here is : does the derivative mythology of ancient Hebrew tribesmen, documented in the book known as Genesis, provide 'evidence' of 'creation'. Clearly, to all but deluded fools, the answer is a resounding NO. It is a nice story, although it has to be admitted the ancient legends of other primitive civilisations are a more imaginative and interesting read.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:07
    7 February, 2011

    graymatter

  • re aghalloway : "....you are mistaken about the valid distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. ....And there is a quantum leap of difference between the two. "

    Wrong. Evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. Genes encode the basic characteristics of a life form, and there is no known mechanism preventing small changes (i.e. microevolution) from ultimately resulting in more significant changes (i.e. macroevolution).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:17
    7 February, 2011

    graymatter

  • @aghalloway

    "the evidence for creation is all around you - it's called creation."

    Oh please spare us. Most of what we see around us is explained perfectly by science and rational thinking. No god-of-the-gaps required.

    "And there is a quantum leap of difference between the two. "

    Okay, we are all ears, do tell.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:23
    8 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Thank you graymatter, I've seen the old micro/macro evolution argument applied before. It is also used alongside terms which try to say that the evolution of a virus (demonstrated in a lab) is somehow different then the evolution of man (difficult to demonstrate in a short time-period). Creationists attempt to explain away evidence that they can't ignore!

    I offer the example of the evolution of 'intelligence'; 2000 years ago humans weren't very bright & accepted the creation story as truth. Today we have evolved a level of intelligence which allows us to see the creation story as a myth.

    I do believe aghalloway may be right that the TERM micro-evolution was used by a scientist but not in this particular context.

    Quote: 'the evidence for creation is all around you - it's called creation'. I do wonder if aghalloway has ever heard of a circular argument? He/she says: 'cell biology uncovers ever increasing layers of complexity and information coding' as though he/she 'knows' what all those words mean. The theory of Darwin was one of the most revolutionary theories in history; even before DNA was discovered or mapped there was more evidence FOR evolution than for gravity! Shame on anyone wouldn't try to tell porkies in place of this theory!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:40
    8 February, 2011

    Brooke Bond

  • Quote: 'Shame on anyone wouldn't try to tell porkies in place of this theory!'

    That's easy for you to say!

    I meant to write: Shame on anyone who would try to tell porkies in place of this GREAT theory!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:42
    8 February, 2011

    Brooke Bond

  • It was the Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko who first made the distinction between 'macro' and micro' evolution in the late 1920's. It has been used more recently to distinguish between the time frames of geological time, 'macro' and within human life-time, 'micro'. Unfortunately, it has hijacked by creationists and, it seems, aghalloway in reference to microbial evolution that can be observed in the laboratory which, even they cannot disprove and to the large, most of which cannot be observed in a human life-time and so, its mechanism is unobservable. Therefore, godditit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:02
    8 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • @aghalloway

    <i>"The evidence for macro- is thin and getthing weaker by the day, as the latest research in genetics and cell biology uncovers ever increasing layers of complexity and information coding."</i>

    As far as I am aware, the evidence is fat and getting healthier by the day. Rather, modern genetic sequencing always show similarities between close phylogenetic species than they do with phylogenetically distant species. Please cite the research you are alluding to. You're not indoctrinating impressionable school children now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:54
    8 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Are people aware of the connections between the Tory party & creationism?

    Ann widdecombe, former Tory MP, recently used her Daily Express column to describe the creationists Noah's Ark Zoo Farm near Bristol as ''a moderate education-focused organisation that challenges children's minds and produces evidence from fossils to support it.''

    I'll bet Dave is pleased she is no longer a Tory MP!!!!!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Are people aware of the connections between the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) & creationism?

    In 2007, two DUP members raised the issue of creationism and intelligent design, questioning the availability of materials and resources for schools wishing to teach alternative theories to the evolution. Additionally, one of these members, MP David Simpson, asked for assurances that students who gave creationist answers to examination questions would not be marked lower for it. A spokesman for the DUP confirmed that these views are consistent with party policy.

    In May 2010, Nelson McCausland (the Culture Minister and the party's North Belfast MLA) asked Northern Ireland's museums to include creationism in their exhibits. He was berated by Richard Dawkins (among others), who said: "If the museum was to go down that road then perhaps they should bring in the Stork theory of where babies come from. Or perhaps the museum should introduce the flat Earth theory".
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We should really ask all politicians to give their views on creationism.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:28
    9 February, 2011

    Brooke Bond

  • Open letter to any creationist,

    Only the irrational should fear the rational.

    Wherefore morality. Is this the preserve of religious faiths? Where is the evidence? Are not believers just as likely to stray as are non-believers. When a child thumps another, do we say 'Don't do that because God will punish you" - or do we say "Don't do that, how would you like it if he did that to you". Which admonition will carry most weight?

    By all means teach religion as a topic in history,of how, as in so many other areas of learning, primitive views (the phlogiston idea, the earth centered universe, even the flat-earth concept) have ginen way to enlightenment.

    There is no evidence for a God, indoctrinating children in such concepts is abuse. Faith schools should be banned.

    It is not for the rational minded to disprove the outlandish claims of irrational people who just do not understand science. It is for the irrational people making the outlandish claims that what they are proposing is true,

    What you have forget to mention is that the world is 4.54 billion years old man is 2 million years old and monotheism is about 10'000 years old so it is clear from the available evidence that man is older than god.

    As for a young earth, according to your ideas the universe was made a few thousand years after man domesticated the first dogs & pressed his first wine............I'll drink to that!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:50
    9 February, 2011

    Brooke Bond

  • Those who would question a young age for this earth are those who deny the existence of God and His word. I defy any man whomever he or she may be to come up with any proof that this world is older than 6000 years! Don't think that radio-dating has proved it! The whole method is riddled with assumptions! Don't ever put up geological considerations as these are mere speculations.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:18
    15 February, 2011

    mikeviccary

  • @Mikeviccary.
    I think you have been indoctrinated into not trusting science as much as Gareth Morgan is with the Everyday Champions Academy. Radio Carbon Dating works, get over it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:15
    17 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • How astounding? Could the comments on this website be a reflection of our current education system? The comments would be funny if they weren’t so ridiculous!

    This is going to be fun :)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    @DaveGilbert (12:15 - 17 February, 2011)
    “Radio Carbon Dating works, get over it”

    What is that supposed to mean? Do you even know how carbon dating works? Are you aware that Carbon dating WHEN IT WORKS gives young ages thus proving that ALL living things are aged in thousands, not billions? It was abandoned by evolutionists because it was not giving old enough dates!

    Willard Libby and his associates discovered carbon 14 (C 14) as a method for the dating of earlier organic materials. But later research revealed that its inaccuracy increases in accordance with the actual age of the material (C.A. Reed, “Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East,” in
    Science, 130, 1959, p. 1630; University of California at Los Angeles, “On the Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dates,” in Geochronicle, 2, 1966 [Libby’s own laboratory]).

    Did you not know this? Do you know anything about C14 atmospheric equilibrium and how the earth magnetic field affects the formation of C14 etc.? Mikeviccary was referring to radiometric dating that works on a different principle than C14. How fascinating that you changed that to Carbon dating that supports the Creationist worldview and then had the audacity to discredit him by saying “you have been indoctrinated into not trusting science”.

    Seriously, you need to study this dating system much more before you type the next response, unless you need to ask a question for education purposes!!!

    Let’s move on...

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    @Brooke Bond (16:50 - 9 February, 2011)
    “When a child thumps another, do we say 'Don't do that because God will punish you’ - or do we say ‘Don't do that, how would you like it if he did that to you’. Which admonition will carry most weight?”

    This is a joke right? You dare use a principle that Jesus taught (Matthew 7:12) and then had the audacity to prove that Creationism (ie Bible, God, Jesus) is false! Don’t you know that if Creationism (ie Bible, God, Jesus) is false, then so is your statement and therefore your argument is useless?

    Mmmmm.....let’s move on.....

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    @graymatter (18:17 – 7 February 2011)
    “Evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. Genes encode the basic characteristics of a life form, and there is no known mechanism preventing small changes (i.e. microevolution) from ultimately resulting in more significant changes (i.e. macroevolution).”

    Is that you final answer? Don’t you know that the “DNA has crushed the hopes of biological evolutionists, for it provides clear evidence that every species is locked into its own coding pattern. It would be impossible for one species to change into another, since the genes network together so closely. It is a combination lock, and it is shut tight. Only sub-species variations can occur (varieties in plants, and breeds in animals). This is done through gene shuffling” (A.I. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, 1961, p. 31; *Hubert P. Yockey, “A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67, 1977, p. 398).

    Do you know anything about self correcting enzymes? If you’re that good, then perhaps you can explain to us how the ribosomes decode the DNA sequence when the decoding instructions are embedded in the DNA code itself. Perhaps you know more than Dr. Paul Davies (English Physicist Scientist, writer and broadcaster, professor at Arizona State University and the Director of BEYOND, 2005 Chair of SETI, he specialises in the origin of life) who said: “How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software, and where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody Knows.” (Life force, New Scientist 163 2204:27–30, 18 September 1999)

    I think we need more graymatter :)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    @DaveGilbert (12:23 – 7 February, 2011)
    “Most of what we see around us is explained perfectly by science and rational thinking”

    How is that support for the evolution hypothesis? Are you suggesting that if, for example, you know how a car is made, then that automatically means it has no designer? Is THAT “rational thinking”? I’m not sure I can help an evolutionist with such logic!

    I can see you have been very well educated (and not at all indoctrinated).

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    @DaveGilbert (15:54 – 8 February 2011)
    “As far as I am aware, the evidence is fat and getting healthier by the day.” (in response to genetics and cell biology)

    “As far as I am aware”? That sounds like an opinion not a scientific statement! Can you please give some example of this “evidence” you speak of and “how it’s fat and getting healthier”? Have you never read what Francis Crick co-discoverer of DNA said "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see is not designed, but rather evolved". Francis Crick is saying that he must KEEP IN MIND that DNA still evolved DESPITE the evidence crying out DESIGN!

    Perhaps you will believe G.R.Taylor who said “The fundamental objection to all these [evolutionary] theories is that they involve raising oneself by one’s own bootstraps. You cannot make proteins without DNA, but you cannot make DNA without enzymes, which are proteins. It is a chicken and egg situation. That a suitable enzyme should have cropped up by chance, even in a long period, is implausible, considering the complexity of such molecules. And there cannot have been a long time [in which to do it].” (Great Evolution Mystery 1983, p. 201)

    How is that making the evidence fat and getting healthier? Perhaps you will listen to M.P. Schutzenberger: “We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.” (Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution 1967, pp. 73-75)

    Think again!

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION

    This whole website is a waste of time. Uneducated, dogmatic, close minded, humanistic, evolutionists trying to impose their false religion on mankind! What’s worse, is that they deceitfully call it SCIENCE. It is nothing but a religious worldview that has NOTHING to offer to science or humanity other than lies. They use the principle of variation-within-a-kind ie small variations (micro-evolution) which is a fact; to promote the idea that one kind of animal can change to a completely different kind of animal (macro-evolution) which is a LIE. This has NEVER been observed, cannot be demonstrated or tested. Check out the definition of empirical science. You won’t find evolution in there!

    “Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the process of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by CREATIVE IMAGINATION.” capitals mine (N. Takahata A Genetic Perspective on the Origin & History of Humans. Annual Review of Ecology & Systems Atics, 1995)

    WHAT WAS THAT? It can ONLY be reconstructed in our IMAGINATION? We have to do WHAT? Be CREATIVE? Wow, that’s NOT SCIENCE, is it? CREATIVE IMAGINATION is great in story-telling for a myth or a legend. Wait... isn’t that what Brooke Bond and graymatter accused the Creation story to be. What a turnaround :)

    NO, Evolution is not SCIENCE, it’s a religion. You want to brain wash our kids with this stupid religion. I’m not being rude, you see, it’s stupid because no INTELIGENCE is allowed! Just a fact!

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I AM NOT DONE YET - OFFER YOUR PROOF HERE PLEASE AND REDEEM YOURSELF

    Ok, let's get down to business. If you want to prove me wrong and prove evolution to be remotely scientific, then all you have to do is to give me ONE solid/watertight/indisputable empirical evidence. Surely that cannot be that difficult. After all, I’m sure you will claim that there are millions of them. So go ahead, give me JUST ONE solid/watertight/indisputable evidence. You made your case loud enough on this website, now redeem yourself!

    Please be aware, that I reserve the right to add the contents of this website and your response to my collection of debates on my website for everyone to see!

    “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse, M. 2000. National Post. http://www.omniology.com/HowEvolutionBecameReligion).

    Wow, what a SHOCK. Until now, we all thought that Creationism is a religion. It turns out that evolution is a religion too. Surely, it should be taught in RE class! But wait, it gets better:

    “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, A physiologist for Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

    Wow, wow, I thought Creationism cannot be trusted. Is this guy saying that evolution is a lie? Does that mean that evolution doesn’t even qualify to be in RE class? It turns out evolution is a joke! That’s really funny!

    How am I doing? Do you think evolutionists love me now? :). Who cares, if we evolved then what is “love“ anyway? It’s just some chemical reaction that came together through random mutation, right? Having said that, why would we have these feelings anyway and how do we know that it’s a good thing? In fact, if evolution is true, how do we know if ANYTHING we feel is good or bad? Oh wait, it gets better, if evolution is true, then why do we think and why should we trust our thoughts (if it’s nothing but a chemical reaction evolved through random mutation)? I’m on a role, let me try another question: if evolution is true how can you tell the difference between absolute RIGHT from WRONG? Is it objective or subjective? Who cares anyway, I’m asking questions to a bunch of chemicals that can’t even prove they exist :)

    I hope you enjoyed this post as much as I did. Oh...that raised another question: if evolution is true, at what point did we start “enjoying” things and why?

    You know, I have a theory...... maybe we NEVER really evolved but instead we were designed! Oh, but what a ridiculous thought. That suggests that God exists. No way can we allow God to exist. It’s best to pretend that it’s a scientific impossibility :) Otherwise, He may ask us to do things we don’t want to do and be accountable to Him. Let’s believe in evolution instead, that will make God disappear and go away :) Yes, that’s much more logical. This way, we have an excuse to do what we want without God :)

    Just so you know, ignorance is neither an acceptable excuse in the court of law, nor is it on judgement day!

    If you enjoyed reading this post and like a challenge then let me repeat my question: I claim that there is NO evidence for evolution (NOT ONE). It’s just a religion. But if you disagree and want to prove me wrong, then please post ONE SINGLE solid/watertight/indisputable evidence so that I can have fun with it :)

    If you really are a very fanatic religious evolutionist and like empirical science, you might want to impress me by answering which came first -I really like to know :-)

    1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
    2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
    3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
    4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
    5. The termite or the flagellates in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
    6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
    7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
    8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
    9. The immune system or the need for it?

    Only empirical science please. Don’t give me personal opinion or exercise creative imagination. When you’re done, we can play some more.

    Have a good day :)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:01
    18 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • @JohnHarris
    I concede your first rebuttal intended for me. Yes, I meant radiometric not carbon dating. I am not a physicist. Just one who is passionate about science and hopes the enlightenment was not a waste of time.

    Your second point, is strange in that I never suggested that designed things didn’t have a designer. Nonetheless, despite what creationists tell us, evolution works perfectly well without one.

    Your third point again is strange and patronising. You obviously know what evidence for evolution is out there so why do you want me to show you? I wasn’t aware that I was writing a scientific essay. I don’t follow your quote mining of Frances Crick et al either. I am sure you are aware that I was referring to the fact that transitional fossils are being found all the time and with advances in comparative sequencing analysis.

    Your next strawman tirade that evolution is a religion begins to demonstrate your true agenda and I now realise now that perhaps you don't know what the evidence for evolution is after all.

    “They use the principle of variation-within-a-kind ie small variations (micro-evolution) which is a fact; to promote the idea that one kind of animal can change to a completely different kind of animal (macro-evolution) which is a LIE. This has NEVER been observed, cannot be demonstrated or tested. Check out the definition of empirical science. You won’t find evolution in there!”

    As aforementioned, comparative sequencing analysis does demonstrate the fact of evolution. Your quote from Takahata is 16 years old. Hardly up to date.

    I did enjoy your next rant. You want the evidence? I doubt whether you will be satisfied with what’s out there but here goes;

    Comparative sequencing analysis:
    Organisms that are evolutionary related show a higher degree of sequence similarity than those that are more distant.

    Fossils:
    The geological sequencing in the fossil evidence is always found in accordance with evolution. Scientists have never found a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer.

    Biogeography:
    The geographical distribution of species combined with plate tectonics provides evidence of how they came to be where they are. Plants and animals that live on islands provide a prime example of this.

    Vestigial structures:
    A human foetus will develop a coat of hair called the lanugo during its development only to lose it prior to birth (often premature babies are born with it).

    All of which fit well with the scientific method in that they are reproducible and they make predictions.

    Happy? I thought not.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:24
    18 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • All my responses below are addressed to DaveGilbert (14:24 - 18 February, 2011)

    Ok, let’s play :) You seem to be playing nicely, so I’ll play nicely back :) But I must point out, evolutionists make me laugh. They genuinely think they believe in science, when they just exercise another religion :)


    #############################################
    “Happy? I thought not.”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firstly, I’m very happy. I’m always happy. From the sound of it, the evolutionists commenting on this website are not just unhappy but indeed angry. Something they should examine very carefully. Perhaps they are unhappy because they believe in a lie. You see Jesus said the truth would set you free (John 8:32).

    Nevertheless, how apt of you to realise that I would not be impressed by your response. It’s mainly because you didn’t answer my question. You must have known that from your comment. I think you need to read my previous post again. I said you need to offer a solid/watertight/indisputable EVIDENCE. You either don’t have any such evidence or you are simply clutching at straws. I would hate to believe that evolutionists are being DELIBERATELY deceitful to promote their agenda without evidence.

    Oh, wait....just had a thought.....in your worldview, how do we even know that being deceitful is a bad thing? Seriously, add that to the list of questions that you haven’t answered yet!!!


    #############################################
    “I concede your first rebuttal intended for me. Yes, I meant radiometric not carbon dating. I am not a physicist”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firstly, whether you meant radiometric dating or carbon dating doesn’t really matter. You obviously know very little about this subject and yet you were very hasty in attacking mikeviccary because he conflicted with your worldview. You were not informative, respectful or even interested in knowing what he meant. A typical behaviour we see repeated on this and similar websites. That’s because you are not interested in SCIENCE, you are just interested in protecting your RELIGION. In MY worldview, such behaviour is considered bad form. I still don’t know how you (as an evolutionist) would even know that such a behaviour would be considered unacceptable. You should take advice from 2 time Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling who said “Science should be the search for truth”.

    This brings me to my next point really nicely :)


    #############################################
    “Just one who is passionate about science and hopes the enlightenment was not a waste of time.”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear DaveGilbert you really sound like a nice guy so I’m going to give you a chance to rescue yourself. Give me ONE example of anyone on this website who really demonstrated an interest in SCIENCE. You can’t even cope with the idea that evolution is being taught as a theory. You want it taught as a FACT. Fine, I’m ok with that BUT WITHOUT solid/watertight/indisputable evidence, I recommend you avoid calling it science. It’s embarrassing!

    If you are passionate about science, then get busy. You’re in for a shock. Evolution is NOT science any more than bear is a healthy bodybuilder’s protein milkshake :)

    Just for the record (although I have already explained this in my previous post). When I say evolution, I do not refer to the idea of variation-within-a-kind, but I refer to the idea that one kind of animal changing into a different animal.


    #############################################
    “Your second point, is strange in that I never suggested that designed things didn’t have a designer.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ok, let’s examine your full quotation: “Most of what we see around us is explained perfectly by science and rational thinking. No god-of-the-gaps required”

    This was in response to aghalloway when he said “the evidence of creation is all around you. It’s called creation”.

    This is not all that complicated. You’re telling aghalloway that no designer (creator, god etc.) is required BECAUSE most of what we see around us is explained perfectly by science. So what you are saying is that if you can explain it, it created itself (ie no designer required)! Isn’t that the logic you’re implying here?



    #############################################
    “Nonetheless, despite what creationists tell us, evolution works perfectly well without one. “
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ok, so let’s add another question for you to answer (or ignore). How did life first start (using empirical science)? When you have explained it, please demonstrate it, perhaps in a lab environment. Repeat the process so that I can see it at work. When you are done doing that, please proceed in explaining how we have changed from one kind of animal to another (using empirical science). After that, please repeat the process in a controlled lab environment so that I can learn from this wisdom of yours :)

    I think you will find that evolution stands no chance mathematically and scientifically. If this were a true scientific theory, it would have been thrown out by now. It is kept because it’s a religion. It’s much harder to get rid of a religion.

    “It is good to keep in mind . . that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro-mutations. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted.” (Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution).

    Stop wasting time. You say you like science, get busy and start learning. You will be surprised!


    #############################################
    “Your third point again is strange and patronising.“
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I apologise for being patronising. BUT if we have all evolved and we are nothing but chemical reactions then why is patronising a bad thing? Please add that to the list of questions you haven’t answered yet! You see, patronising is a bad thing in my worldview but if you insist on proving it wrong, then patronising becomes acceptable, so don’t complain about it :)


    #############################################
    “You obviously know what evidence for evolution is out there so why do you want me to show you?”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is NO EVIDENCE (NOT ONE). I asked you so that you can find out for yourself!


    #############################################
    “I don’t follow your quote mining of Frances Crick et al either.”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The point I was making with Francis was that he saw DESIGN when he looked into the DNA structure but evolutionists are so CLOSED-MINDED (please remember this) that DESPITE what the evidence shows, he is reminding himself and all his colleges that they must continue “believing” (ie have faith) that it was evolved. You see, this is an example of how science says one thing and evolutionists must go the other way. Evolution is ANTI-SCIENCE!

    Ok, finally, you accused me of quote mining, so let’s fix that. Here is the rest of the quote: “"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood."

    Does this help you? The rest of that statement says that they cannot figure out what happened and how evolution fits but despite that they INSIST that this dumb theory gives them some kind of “hint”. You see the theory is imposed on the evidence, NOT THE OTHER WAY ARROUND!

    Look, if you want to believe in evolution, be my guest. If you want to teach it in science class room, then go ahead, but it’s not science. It’s just another religion. Check out humanism. It is a perfect match. Most people behind this dumb evolution movement are humanist (which is a recognised religion). You say you like science, so get busy! You will be surprised! Trust me, nothing bad will happen :)


    #############################################
    “I am sure you are aware that I was referring to the fact that transitional fossils are being found all the time and with advances in comparative sequencing analysis. “
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your comment was in response to aghalloway regarding “genetics and cell biology” (15:54 - 8 February, 2011). Why would you give an answer to a different question? Nevertheless, please provide evidence of ANY transitional fossil that stood the test of time!


    #############################################
    “Your next strawman tirade that evolution is a religion begins to demonstrate your true agenda and I now realise now that perhaps you don't know what the evidence for evolution is after all. “
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tirade is not the appropriate word. Perhaps “frustration” would be a better word which is expressed due to all the rubbish that comes with the subject of evolution. I put it to you that you (as an evolutionist) don’t even have a firm understanding of what is being said. Let me ask you some questions. Which one of the following do you believe in and why? Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian, Lamarckism, Gradual, Punctual evolution etc.?

    The fact that there are these different opinions (regardless of whether they are refuted/rejected etc. or not) suggests that evolution was NEVER an exact science and it’s still not an exact science TODAY. But evolutionists lie to our kids and tell them it’s a FACT! SHAME! SHAME!

    Oh, did I already ask whether lying is acceptable in your worldview? I just don’t know how YOU would know it’s a bad thing? Evolution has no morals and no standard. That’s what you want to teach our kids! You tell them their animals and they behave like one. DOUBLE SHAME!



    NOW we come to the interesting part. Finally, my requested for solid/watertight/indisputable evidence has been provided below. I will finally get my long awaited answer about the FACTS that support evolution. Surely, I will not be able to refute the evidence that proves evolution to be a FACT and no longer a theory/hypothesis. Oh what joy :) We are ALL saved by this so-called “science” :). Oh, happy day :) But before we all go off to celebrate, let’s check them out......


    #############################################
    “Comparative sequencing analysis:
    Organisms that are evolutionary related show a higher degree of sequence similarity than those that are more distant. “
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This not PROOF, just a presupposition! Similarities PROVE nothing. This is certainly not a solid/watertight/indisputable argument. You are no doubt proposing that because we share a higher degree of sequence with a Chimp but not a flower (for example) that proves that we evolved and share ancestors with a Chimp. Really? Well we also happen to share about 50% of our DNA with bananas, does that make us half bananas (Jones J., quoted in: Wieland, C., Furry little humans? Creation 24(3):10–12, 2002). You are welcome to BELIEVE that, but that’s not science.

    This would be funny if evolutionist didn’t actually really BELIEVE (ie have faith, ie religion) in this rubbish. Look at what Darwin said:

    “It is a truly wonderful fact that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other.” (On the Origin Of Species)

    You see, we really ARE related to a banana. Isn’t THAT what Darwin is saying (animals and plants are related etc.)?

    No, similar sequence does not mean evolution is proven.

    “Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.’ (Sarfati, J., Refuting Evolution 2, Master Books, Green Forest, pp. 112–113, 2002.)

    A watermelon and a jellyfish are 98% similar! A cloud and an ice cream are 98% similar. Similarities mean nothing.

    I recommend you check out DNA gaps and understood the difference between coding and noncoding DNA. The results of sequence divergence yield different results depending on how these method are used.

    This is not the ultimate proof you should have offered and it’s certainly NOT solid, NOT watertight and TOTALLY disputable! Try again!



    #############################################
    "Fossils:
    The geological sequencing in the fossil evidence is always found in accordance with evolution. Scientists have never found a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You’re kidding me right? No wonder you think evolution is SCIENCE. You truly are brainwashed!

    Ok, I’ll keep this brief. Firstly, there is NO fossil evidence that supports evolution. There is a major conflict between the fossils and Darwin’s theory:

    “. . . there are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist writing in English (Carroll, 1988), French (J. Chaline, 1983) or German (V. Fahlbusch, 1983), denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory & the fossil record are in conflict” (Dr. D. Berlinski, Sept. 1996, p. 28)

    Are you aware that due to the conflict in fossil records is what caused S.J.Gould to propose the theory of punctual equilibrium? Their even teaching this rubbish in school AND in science classes :)

    “As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology. There are no obvious simpler or intermediate forms - either living or in the fossil record . . .” (Osorio, Bacon & Whitington in ‘American Scientist’, v. 85)

    The British Museum of Natural History has the largest fossil collection in the world. But when Luther Sunderland asked the senior paleontologist Dr. Colin Paterson why he did not show the missing links in his book he said:

    “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly included them.....I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil…” (Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, 1988, 88-90).

    Did you know that the British Museum have not added many more new fossils to their collection since that quote? You still won’t find the missing link there! There are no transitions between ANY species but we continue to teach this lie.

    “Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, & many theories abound . . .” (J.A. Long, evolutionist, 1995)

    Ok, let’s talk about the Cambrian layer. Do you know what the Cambrian explosion is? Are you aware that it does NOT support the Darwinian theory? Paleontologists name this layer “the Cambrian Explosion,” because a large number of complex creatures suddenly appeared in the fossil strata—with no evidence that they evolved from any less complicated creatures! Did it ever occur to you why we even HAVE fossils? Dead animals today don’t hang around after they die for millions of years until a new layer is deposited on them so that they can get fossilised, they would decompose first. That’s why a global flood gives a better explanation for this mystery which also explains the sorting which can be easily explained via habitat, mobility, environment and intelligence. AND that’s why you’re not likely to find a RABBIT in the Cambrian rock!

    In summary: “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown” (Dr. A.G. Fisher, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998 - fossil section).

    This is NOT evidence for evolution! Try again!


    #############################################
    "Biogeography:
    The geographical distribution of species combined with plate tectonics provides evidence of how they came to be where they are. Plants and animals that live on islands provide a prime example of this."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WHAT? Plate tectonics is your evidence for evolution? At best, it would only explain animal/plant transportation. How desperate are you to prove this dumb theory? Sorry, I said I’ll play nice. That was not really nice (although not all that bad)! Having said that, how do you know that not being nice is bad etc.etc.etc. (you know where this is going)?

    Assuming you are promoting the theory of Pangaea, are you aware that there is a limit to these movements? Just because they move a little, it doesn’t mean they move indefinitely! That’s just silly and illogical. If you see someone driving down the A1 at 70m/hour at Stevenage, would you automatically assume they came from Scotland about 8 hours ago and will end-up in London about a couple of hours later? NO, they probably just joined the A1 at the previous junction and will stop just after the next one!

    Are you aware that to make Pangaea work they shrank Africa by about 40%, got rid of Mexico and Central America. Europe and South America have been rotated counter clockwise and Africa clockwise etc. This is not SCIENCE, it’s just CREATIVE IMAGINATION!

    There is a much better theory. Perhaps there was a global flood that explains plants/animal transportation. Also, are you familiar with the continental shelves? By reducing the sea levels by 1500 feet, the cotenants become connected allowing migration. It’s even visible on google map. This will also fit with the geological layers and rapid fossilisation (that requires sediments, water and quick burial). Wow, wow, wow....wait a minute....was that Creationism? I can’t believe it, is Creationism turning out to be more scientific than evolution? No way! Maybe one day they will teach Creationism in science classes and evolution in RE classes. No wait, evolution will have to be in a special class labelled NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED! That’s funny :)

    We need more education and less indoctrination!

    Anyway, plate tectonics DOES NOT prove evolution! That’s just silly! Try again!


    #############################################
    "Vestigial structures:
    A human foetus will develop a coat of hair called the lanugo during its development only to lose it prior to birth (often premature babies are born with it)."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now, how did you know that this is my favourite? It takes a special kind of theory to actual promote the idea that we have vestigial structures :) What is even more humorous is that the lanugo hair is used as an example. Wait, I’ve got to stop laughing first so that I can start typing my response.........hang on......nearly there.....I’m back – lol :)

    I love the idea that vestigial structures are used to prove evolution. First of all, there is no such thing as vestigial organs. We need our appendix and we never had a tail (don’t make me lecture you on the Coccyx)! But EVEN if evolution is true, vestigial organs would be the WORSE EXAMPLE YOU CAN EVER GIVE! We evolve and gain everything by losing organs? In case you haven’t noticed, vestigial structures are the opposite of evolution, because if we keep losing organs then we eventually become extinct. That’s not how to evolve into something bigger and better. That’s how you say goodbye to species.

    Let’s visit the hair for a moment. You think lanugo has no role to play in the foetus? What a joke! I’ll keep it brief(ish).

    Lanugo hairs are the most interesting hairs of all (assuming you know what vellus and terminal hairs are). When a baby is in the womb developing about 2-3 months before birth the first hairs are produced. These hairs will not be produced unless nerves have grown out of the spinal cord into the skin. This must be in association with a particular nerve and a particular hair. When they are together it produces these lanugo hairs. You can think of it as a place marker and it’s absolutely essential for healthy survival. These hairs change to become vellus and terminal hairs usually before birth. But if a baby is born early (or prematurely) the lanugo hair can still be seen on them. That’s not because they are ape like creatures. That’s just dumb! The terminal hairs are visible and appear on their head etc. The vellus hairs are invisible and have the biggest oil glans. These hairs which are connected with nerve ending offer many benefits, such as the feeling of fresh air when it blows against our faces etc. (that’s enough for now).

    Evolutionists should NEVER become surgeons. They are brainwashed with so much rubbish they are likely to remove parts of your body that they consider vestigial and diagnose premature babies as ape. This is not education.

    Is THIS what you are fighting to teach students in SCIENCE classes? Is this SCIENCE to you? Look...you can believe what you like but leave science out of it. We have enough religions in this world, we don’t need another one. Especially one that disguises itself as science!

    Ok, back to the subject at hand. NO! This is not proof of evolution. Try again!


    #############################################
    “All of which fit well with the scientific method in that they are reproducible and they make predictions.“
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Give me one useful prediction that a scientist has made that is a direct result of this dumb theory and you have my vote (assuming it was not sheer luck or coincidence). You really need to listen to Professor Louis Bounoure:

    “Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is
    useless.” (Determinism and Finality. University of Strasbourg. p. 79. Former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, France)

    It’s a fairy tale, and even if it’s true (and it’s NOT), it is useless. Is evolution the reason why we went to the moon? Why we have the light bulb? Why we drive cars and fly aeroplanes?

    Give it up! It’s a big fat unhealthy lie!


    #############################################
    "Happy? I thought not."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I’m still happy but very disappointed. Do you want to have another go?

    Stop fighting AGAINST science and stop promoting a bad religion!

    Let me leave you with a nice quote, I hope you like it. I chose it especially for you:

    “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an
    hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.” (Malcolm Muggeridge 1980, . The End of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. p. 59. Journalist and philosopher, Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada)

    Ok, on a serious note, you live in a free country and you can believe in what you like but please don’t be deceitful and call it science. If you really are interested in knowing the truth, I’ll be happy to leave you a public email address for us to communicate, just ask. I promise to be nice(r) :-)

    In the meantime, feel free to have another go at answering ANY ONE of my questions if you want, I’m really enjoying it :) But please remember, there is NOT ONE SINGLE proof for evolution. It’s just a made up humanistic worldview. It’s what the Bible calls “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20 KJV). But go ahead and prove me wrong!

    God bless

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    2:09
    19 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Oops, sorry, quick spelling correction to a comment in my previous post:

    “If you are passionate about science, then get busy. You’re in for a shock. Evolution is NOT science any more than bear is a healthy bodybuilder’s protein milkshake :)”

    “bear” should have been spelt as “beer”

    I can’t believe it, I’ve just discovered I’m not perfect, what a shock! :)
    First, evolution turns out to be religious and nothing to do with science, and now this :-)

    I suppose it doesn’t help when you prepare/post a response after 2am. But at least “I” have an excuse, what’s the evolutionists excuse? I’m still waiting for the evidence!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:12
    19 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Okay JohnHarris, you've got me. I have seen the light. I obviously hadn't thought it through and done my homework. I am not worthy. All your points are well researched and make sense. I mean the flood and all that. I can't believe I have been so stupid. Moreover, I can't take on anyone that has a bodybuilding bear (or not). I can't provide you with the evidence that you demand because I can't find any in the Bible nor any, that I am aware of, in the other thousand or so religions that have inspired human souls over the past 10,000 years. Yes, evolution is just one more and my God Darwin was just a supernatural entity. Indeed, the Burgess Shale of which you refer as the Cambrian Explosion is merely our alter to a higher wisdom. My ritual of trying to convert the religious from the true faith (which ever one of the thousand or so it may be) to my now seemingly inferior belief system was a false and a wasted endeavour. I now accept there is no morality in evolution and, unlike the true religion it can’t even tell me how life began. My awe for nature was indeed misguided and provides all the evidence I need for which ever of the million or so gods that I need to fall at my knees and pray to. I can even hear one of them now talking to me, or is it a bird in the garden? There, you’ve got me all confused now I can’t tell the difference any more. I now realise that evolution is so wanting. It can’t organise my life and tell me how I should live so I can be a better person. I had better not mix with scientist any more less they tempt me to the ‘dark side’ again.
    Thank you for being so enlightening. Where do you suggest I now go from here?
    God [enter name of god of choice here] bless.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:19
    19 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi DaveGilbert, I am assuming that your response is genuine (it certainly comes across that way).

    The funny thing is that science DOES provide answers but people are not aware that the answers DO NOT match the evolution theory, they in fact CONTRADICT it!

    But if evolution is not true and the creation story entirely fits, then we are indeed in trouble, because it makes the Bible true. If the Bible is true, then we are suddenly all accountable. But who are we accountable to and why, is the next question.

    I can happily and EASILY answer all these questions for you either in public on this website or privately (if you prefer) via john.public.cs@gmail.com.

    God [of the Bible] bless

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:45
    19 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. Thanks for that, yes this site will be fine. I'll be busy tomorrow now (Sunday) so I'll try and get back to you as soon as I can.
    God bless.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:26
    19 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi DaveGilbert. I hope you had a good weekend.

    Before I proceed to explain who we are exactly accountable to and why (as per my last post), can I ask you a quick question? Do you agree that there are only two possibilities for the origin of life as follows?

    1) Self created by chance alone which is the humanistic worldview based on evolution (therefore, MAN is god and answers to no one).

    OR

    2) GOD created which is the Creationist worldview based on intelligent design (therefore there is a creator God who judges all people)

    I’m not looking for a philosophic discussion, just an honest response. Are there 2 possibilities ONLY? If you think there are more possibilities that do not ultimately lead to the above 2 possibilities, then please list them.

    In my comments dated 18 & 19 February above I have explained how evolution is a religions worldview that has NOTHING to do with science. It is UNSCIENTIFIC, ILLOGICAL and IMPOSSIBLE until SOMEONE can offer a SINGLE (ie JUST ONE) solid/watertight/indisputable evidence (in ANY scientific field). Until then it should NEVER be taught in science classroom any more than teaching a fairytale like “The Frog Prince” during a science lesson. Teaching this in a science class (EVEN as a theory) is a direct attempt to deceive our kids and brainwash them with a deliberate LIE!!! It should be ILLEGAL to harm our children in this way! They deserve better! They deserve a proper education!

    Ok, so if we agree that evolution NEVER happened (which is the case), then Creation becomes automatically true (unless there are other possibilities). Creation carries even more authority if our current scientific discoveries actually match the biblical account of creation and that the Bible is accurate in relation to Astronomy, Oceanography, Physics, Medicine and Biology.

    So let’s start with this important question regarding the origin of life and universe etc.; how many possibilities are there and what are they?

    Take care and God bless

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:44
    20 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. Thanks for you reply. To your question, I suppose I will have to agree, as far as I am aware I haven't heard a third hypothesis. You seem to suggest however, given your previous replies, that I should automatically discount evolution now. However, I am still unsure as the evidence of the truth to your alternative, intelligent design. Can you please help here?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:23
    22 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • You raise a good point DaveGilbert. Even if we have only two possibilities, how do we really know that Creation is scientifically sound or even scientifically supported?

    Firstly, on the understanding that there are only two possibilities, it stands to reason that if you can prove one of them to be scientifically impossible, then the other should be automatically true. So, logically it should suffice to disprove one to conclude the other. Having said that, wouldn’t it be great if we can also PROVE the “other option” (ie Creation) scientifically?

    Even without involving science at this stage, a Creator can easily be proven by the existence of creation. This is similar to finding a painting in the middle of a forest hanging on a tree. Even if you see no footprints around the painting (for miles) and even if you have never seen a painter in your whole life, you still conclude that A painter made that picture. Logic demands that conclusion!

    But, what about science? Is there any proof scientifically? Well here’s the interesting thing. Science and the Bible DO NOT conflict. The Biblical account of creation fits our scientific discoveries perfectly well. The geologic column can be explained using the Biblical account of creation BETTER than the explanation given by Charles Lyell (who incidentally hates God and the Bible – I can prove it). The natural selection concept by Darwin fits the Biblical principle of variation-within-the-kind BETTER than Charles Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species”.

    What about new discoveries? It’s easier to make new discoveries using the principle of intelligence and order. This explains why a lot of scientific discoveries accelerated from 1600s. This happens to coincide with the time-period when the Bible was translated into English. The Bible strongly suggests order in life and the universe! Using the principles in the Bible, we can reduce the spreading of disease, better understand oceanography, astronomy, geology etc.

    What about abrupt creation? We now have proof of abrupt appearance (evolutionists call this spontaneous generation) in life and geology. The so-called Cambrian explosion shows abrupt appearance of life confirming that it was NEVER a gradual process. Indeed it confirms that life appeared suddenly. This matches the Bible perfectly. Also polonium radio halos confirm sudden appearance of geology (as opposed to the Earth starting as a hot molten mass). This process also confirms accelerated atomic decay (required for radio halos) causing radiometric dating to give false old-earth ages (check out www.halos.com). This discovery is EXTREMELY important because it gives scientists the ability to find ways to speed up the decay process for nuclear waste produced from power plants. This helps us to produce energy more efficiently and reduce waste and side-effects. This type of research would NEVER have taken place by an evolutionist who “believes” in uniformitarianism. This research was done by 8 Creationist scientists over approx 8 years which they named the RATE project.

    Our schools are busy teaching evolution when Creation gives MUCH better answers for the advancement of science.

    Do you still think that Creationsim should be taught in RE classrooms?
    Do you still think that Evolutionism should be taught in science lessons?

    Unfortunately, proper education is unable to break through into our schools because of ALL the noise the evolutionist make whenever Creation is mentioned. This is why evolution is a religion, anti-education and anti-science! Try standing up against it one day and see what happens to you!

    I have not even explained about the complexity of a Cell and the information embedded in DNA. I’m sure I won’t need to explain how information demands an information-giver, right? I have many quotes that would help you with this, but I think I made the point by now!

    I have also not shown you how the Bible was able to predict many past incidents in advance and some of these predictions (called prophecies) are coming true within our life time. The dates of these prophecies were confirmed by recent discoveries of the dead-sea scrolls. How could a book make such predictions and get them right if it was not inspired by God?

    So, back to the original question; if God exists, then there is something very frightening (as well as comforting) about that! If He really did create everything, then He owns everything, so we better find out what He wants and do it?

    So the question really is this: What does God of the Bible want? And Why? What do you think is the answer?

    Also, is my explanation above clear, or do you need me to expand on any of the points?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:30
    22 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • We are discussing how public money should be spent, not whether creationism is in some people's minds defensible.

    We must therefore thank Pastor Morgan for his clarification: "Creationism will be taught as the belief of the leadership of the school," Pastor Morgan said. "It will not be taught exclusively in the sciences, for example. At the same time, evolution will be taught as a theory."

    Evolution is a historical fact, as shown by the fossil record, comparative morphology, frozen-in accidents and defects, and most recently and triumphantly by the methods of molecular biology. Will Pastor Morgan make sure that the school only employs biology teachers who are unaware of this?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:16
    23 February, 2011

    PaulBraterman

  • Thanks JohnHarris. You make interesting points. What I still can't understand though is, if your version is so coherent, why aren't academics championing it? You might say that the evolutionists shout louder, but surely they would listen to the truth of your claims if they had any foundation. But where are the text books outlining your account? Where are the peer reviewed publications? Where are the Nobel Prizes? Why have the majority of Christians accepted evolution but you still dispute it? It just seems to me that your sole argument rests with discrediting evolution and so therefore the only other game in town is creationism. Even within the creationist cohort there are contrasting views, young Earth creationists v old Earth creationists, literalists v parabolists not to mention the many divides between Christian interpretation. I disagree that science is compatible with religion for precisely that reason. Beyond the fact that Jesus was a real cool guy and said some nice things, Christians can’t decide between themselves what they believe. The teleological argument, which appears core to your opinion has been revisited countless times and the submission remains, complexity does not imply design. You seem to be swimming against the tide of the accepted academic literature in favour of ancient dogma. You criticise evolution to be inflexible in its acceptance of new evidence by liken it to a religion. Perhaps it is you who fails to accept the evidence of evolution precisely because of your dogmatic acceptance of religion.
    Rather than ask what does the God of the bible wants from me, the real question I will ask is what do I want from the God of the bible, to which I would have to answer, proof of his/her/its existence. Without it he/her/it is, as you say of evolution, just an article of faith and for me that is just not good enough. I am sure you will kindly provide what you believe is irrefutable evidence for the existence of your God (as opposed to countless others) but so far I haven’t seen any that stops me in my tracks and gives me a ‘road to Damascus’ moment. I doubt whether we will find any common ground and so I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:13
    23 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • PaulBraterman, please don't hold your breath.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:20
    23 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • PaulBraterman, let's hope Paster Morgan heeds the advice of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington;

    http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1032320

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:07
    23 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi DaveGilbert

    2 x comments added by PaulBraterman on 23 February 2011 are very timely and will help me answer your question. As demonstrated by the Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington the lack of tolerance for ANYTHING other than evolution is clearly confirmed. John Beddington doesn’t even want to CONSIDER the possibility that anything other than evolution exists. Is this science? NO! Is this open-minded? NO!

    ###################################################
    LOGICAL FALLACIES
    ###################################################
    Let’s just recap. I provided evidence that supports the Creation theory but you refused to accept it because it does not appear in peer reviews. Is this logical? In fact your response commits several logical fallacies as follows (this is important as you will see):

    1) THE FALLACY OF BEGGING THE QUESTION: It goes like this: “How do I know that science doesn’t support the Creation theory? Because it doesn’t appear in a peer review! Why doesn’t it appear in the peer review? Because science doesn’t support the Creation theory”. This is a circular argument also known as Tautology. This cannot be used to refute the evidence given to support the Creation theory. Only the evidence itself can be refuted and not whether it appears in an evolutionary supported publication.

    2) FAULTY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY. This has two sub-categories APPEAL TO ONE and APPEAL TO MANY (also known as APPEAL TO MAJORITY). Without explaining the exact details of these logical fallacies (I can if you want), it goes like this. “If your version is so coherent, why aren’t academics championing it?” (appeal to many). Also “The majority of Christians accepted evolution but you still dispute it” (appeal to many). Whether the majority accept it or not does not change the facts or the science behind it. The majority of scientists thought the Earth was flat, heavy objects fell faster than lighter objects, bloodletting was good etc. Majority of opinion is not how you determine whether something is scientifically right or wrong.

    I will resist explaining how your comments also committed THE NO-TRUE-SCOTSMAN FALLACY and how you contradicted the Propositional Logic (Disjunctive Syllogism and Modus Ponens). I actually did explain these fallacies in my original version of this post but then decided to remove them in order to prevent adding too much information and causing confusion. However, please do check them out, as it will help you format your arguments more affectively in the future.

    ###################################################
    The indoctrination by John Beddington
    ###################################################
    Having read the article supplied by PaulBraterman I am appalled by his comments. I must insist that the Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington takes a lesson on logical fallacies. The number of fallacies committed in this one article alone is just mind-boggling and seriously embarrassing (not to mention the contents).

    I also recommend that he carefully defines pseudo-science. I think you will find that EVOLUTION hypothesis/religin will fit it perfectly well. Will he apply that standard of criticism to evolution? If not, then he is not a critical scientist nor does he have the interest of science at heart. That’s what evolution education does to your mind! British citizens live in a free country and therefore parents should have the right to refuse such indoctrination being rammed down their children’s throat!!!!!!

    BAD FORM John Beddington! He should consider doing his job honestly and with integrity! Having said that, why would an evolutionist be honest and with integrity anyway?!?

    ###################################################
    Back to the evidence for Creation
    ###################################################
    Why would a world controlled and driven by a humanistic worldview allow a peer review by a Creationist no matter how scientifically sound it is (particularly if IT IS scientifically sound)? It is rather like asking an anti-communist article to be published in a communist country.

    Judging from this website alone, you can see the ignorance and lack of tolerance that evolutionist demonstrate when it comes to the subject of Creation. And this is nothing in comparison to the comments added on the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353968/Creationism-church-applies-open-free-school.html). Evolutionists actually HATE Creationists. Without morality to guide them, why would you expect any better? Seriously, someone will have to give answers these questions one day!

    Indeed it’s very rare that a Creationists material is published. Compare that with the regular publicity for evolution on TV, Museums, Childrens’ Books, Parks, etc. The public are brainwashed! This is very sad!

    I recommend that you don’t judge the validity of the Creation theory based on what people say ie “young Earth creationists v old Earth creationists” or the division “between Christian interpretation” etc.. Only true empirical SCIENCE should DECIDE which theory is right. By the way I just committed the FALLACY OF REIFICATION here :-). “SCIENCE” cannot “DECIDE” anything. SCIENCE is a concept (or conceptual abstraction) NOT a person and, therefore cannot “DECIDE”. Only PEOPLE can make decisions :-)

    Are you still totally convinced that the way to approve the Creation theory is by whether humanistic academics are championing it or biased publications are publishing it? Just for the record my “sole argument” does not rest with discrediting evolutionism (I called it evolutionism because it’s based on faith) but there also happens to be a strong case for the Creation theory that evolutionists hate and try to silence!

    All I ask you to do is to examine the science that I presented to you, not using majority of opinion (particularly that of evolutionists). I’m not asking you to convert to Christianity (indeed Christianity is more than just changing your mind). I simply ask you to have an open mind and for you to examine the evidence. Once you are in agreement, I’ll share with you the predicament we are in without God.

    ###################################################
    Recommended Material
    ###################################################
    If you like reading books, then I recommend you consider reading “In the Beginning by Walt Brown”, “Darwin’s Black Box” and/or “Thousands Not Billions”. There are so many other good books to read if you’re interested.

    If you prefer to watch DVDs, then have a look at “Where Does The Evidence Lead?”, “Icons of Evolution” or “Expelled”. Again, there are many choices.

    Finally, if you want more information about the problems with peer reviews check out:

    1) http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review
    2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp
    3) http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
    4) http://www.trueorigin.org/creatpub.asp
    5) http://creationwiki.org/Creationists_are_prevented_from_publishing_in_science_journals_(Talk.Origins)
    6) http://www.creationists.org/bigotry-in-the-public-schools-and-science-careers.html


    I also recommend you read this. It’s very interesting: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

    Come back to me when you’re ready. Please try your best to read as much as possible. Please use my public email if you wish to discuss this privately. You won’t know the truth if you just follow and accept other people’s opinion (particularly evolutionists).

    Take care

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:55
    24 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Sorry, I tried to ignore PaulBraterman comments about proof of evolution but I just couldn't. I cannot help not react to LIES! There ought to be a law against those who mislead and deceive other people. You see...I know that being deceitful is wrong because MY worldview tells me so, but how does PaulBraterman know that it’s right or wrong? Never mind, ignorance can be fixed but I’m going to try to be brief because it’s getting quite boring now.

    ###################################################
    @PaulBrateman
    “Evolution is a historical fact, as shown by the fossil record, comparative morphology, frozen-in accidents and defects, and most recently and triumphantly by the methods of molecular biology”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NO....there is NO historical fact that supports evolution. If evolutionists stop exercising the “Fallacy of Presumption” (and all their sub-categories) they would know that the fossil record DISPROVES evolution!

    “It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today” (Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 3rd rev. ed. Adler & Adler. 1986, p. 162.)

    Although this comment/book was made in 1986, it is NO different today. There are over one hundred million identified and catalogued fossils currently in the world's museums (Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, P.9) yet there are NO “transitional forms”. Not a SINGLE one! NO!....NOT ONE!

    “Many well qualified scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of Wilberforce's criticims of Darwin. Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so” (Leach E. Nature vol 293, 3 Sep. 1981, p. 19)

    There is NO MISSING LINK and NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS except for many logical fallacies and presuppositions. Do not EVER use this example as your empirical scientific evidence for evolution again! It’s embarrassing! However, if you have any solid/watertight/indisputable evidence for this dumb theory, then please be so kind and offer it.

    Regarding your comment on “comparative morphology”.

    “The fact that so many of the founders of modern biology, those who discovered all the basic facts of comparative morphology upon which modern evolutionary biology is based, held nature to be fundamentally a discontinuum of isolated and unique types unbridged by transitional varieties, a position absolutely at odds with evolutionary ideas, is obviously very difficult to reconcile with the popular notion that all the facts of biology irrefutably support an evolutionary interpretation” (Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 3rd rev. ed. Adler & Adler. 1986, p. 100.)

    The evidence you use to prove evolution actually supports the Creation worldview. Comparative morphology in terms of information content, probability; genetics, and comparative discontinuity not only have testable claims but they affirm the theory of abrupt appearance. You need to get a book by W. R. Bird “The Origin of Species Revisted” Volume 2.

    By asking whether Pastor Morgan will “make sure that the school only employs biology teachers who are unware of this?” commits another logical fallacy that I CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO TELL YOU. You’re too far behind with education at this stage and therefore should not comment on the future of this or ANY other school!

    I wish evolutionists will go back to school to get UNBRAINWASHED and get some REAL education! It’s as if we are in the Dark Ages (or Middle Ages to be more accurate)! That’s what evolution has to offer...NOTHING....just BACKWARDS thinking!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:52
    24 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. In response to your last two postings, perhaps the reason why John Beddington has said what he did is because, the majority of the scientific community agree that there is no alternative to evolution. It is only a minority of people of faith such as yourself that affirm creationism. In fact many of the theistic scientists such as Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins have written much about it and can’t understand why there is so much opposition to it. On a minor point, if I may be so bold as to point out, your attention to detail is some what lacking as it was I that posted the two responses that you have attributed to PaulBraterman.
    To address your logical fallacies, regardless of what you say, you have provided no evidence that supports creation theory. Evidence does require replicated peer reviewed work. If it has not been provided then the evidence is purely anecdotal and therefore, not scientific. It is you who are using tautological logic assuming the existence of god therefore, creation. You accuse me of appealing to authority and yes you are right. I listen to the authority of many academics who are saying much the same thing and I read as best as I can what they write and if I can see the argument has merit, then I accept it until something comes along to refute it. There is no other group that conforms to authority more than the religious. However, like yourself, many try to do this with evolution and always fail because, as I have said whether you agree or not, the evidence for the fact of evolution is sound. So much so in fact that it has survived with modifications for a hundred and fifty two years. It is out there if only you would look for yourself by taking off your cloak of bigotry.
    You cite logic. What is more logical if many support a theory whilst a few refute it? The many are deluded or is it the few?
    With regards to the John Beddington article that I made reference to, I agree that the Government appears to have adopted double standards in that they actively encourage pseudo-science in allowing faith schools whilst warning those very same schools not to teach pseudo-science in them.
    Despite what you think, evolutionist do not hate creationists. Hate is a religious proposition actively encouraged in your bible. I think, compared to some christians, evolutionists are quite conciliatory before they realise the futility of trying to reason with a creationist. Please don’t try and convince me you need religion to be moral. The bible is amongst the most immoral fiction ever written. Are you one of those that say, without God you would rape and murder? What does that tell us about you that you would only not shoplift when there was a store detective watching you?
    You are right, it is very rare for a creationist’s material to be written because it is bad fiction. It is you who are brainwashed sir. I have judged the validity of the christian myth not only during my indoctrination by parents and church leaders but then much later by careful independent examination to see if there was actually anything in it. I concluded resoundingly there was not. “Only true empirical science should decide which theory is right”. Is it not the case that I have being telling you that? Science by the way is a verb more so than a concept.
    As I have said, theists champion evolution as well as humanist (Collins and Miller). You have presented me with no science just your own intuition. I’ll forego the recommended reading if its all the same, as I said before, done that and that is why I have several Darwin T shirts. You are not seriously suggesting I see ‘Expelled’ are you? I have and it is pants, utter made up tripe. Ben Stein couldn’t have been so dishonest in his commentary had he tried. It is an embarrassing use of the film medium that has been shot to pieces by any rational thinking person that has had the misfortune to see it. Shame on you for reminding me of it. In response to your last post, yes for once I agree with you, there ought to be laws against those who mislead and deceive. In fact I think that is what John Beddington was trying to say. Stop the pseudo-science.
    “There are over one hundred million identified and catalogued fossils currently in the world's museums (Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, P.9) yet there are NO “transitional forms”. Not a SINGLE one! NO!....NOT ONE!” If you had happened upon one of those museums, call them churches to science if you will, then you will find transitional fossils, loads, yes...loads! Take our own family tree from Australopithecus to Paranthropus boisei to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens. Moreover, many animals have well defined lineage of transitional fossils also, take the whale as an example. All available for your perusal at a good natural history museum. Darwin wasn’t that worried about what you call missing links, in fact he predicted them (another trait of the scientific method) ever heard of Archaeopteryx? You are right again, there are no missing links. That was a fallacy made up by people who should have known better. as for your ad hominem attack on PaulBrateman, well shame on you good Christian. It is you who are in the Dark ages and have nothing to offer 21st century science. I hope you accept that I have been adequately ready enough to have come back to you and please be good for goodness sake.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:54
    24 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi DaveGilbert, I’ll keep my response short this time. On the other hand, let me answer each statement so that I can prove that I read it :-)


    ###################################################
    “In response to your last two postings, perhaps the reason why John Beddington has said what he did is because, the majority of the scientific community agree that there is no alternative to evolution. It is only a minority of people of faith such as yourself that affirm creationism. “
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is “majority” of opinion how we know something is right or wrong? If the majority of people believe in God, does that make God real? Of course not! How about this: Is killing the Jews wrong? Well, the majority of Nazis thought it was NOT wrong! Majority of opinion means nothing! The “majority” is frequently wrong. Do you know for many years they thought that the earth was in the middle of the solar system and that everything went around the earth? That's what everybody thought. The majority believed it, but it certainly didn't put the earth in the centre. Majority of opinion is meaningless in an argument. They could ALL be wrong.

    You are trying to prove me wrong because I am in the manority? You are kidding right? What about science. You have not disputed a single claim I made regarding the Creation theory and the evidence I presented using SCIENCE. Is MAJORITY of opinion all you have? Surely I don’t have to name this logical fallacy for you.


    ###################################################
    “On a minor point, if I may be so bold as to point out, your attention to detail is some what lacking as it was I that posted the two responses that you have attributed to PaulBraterman.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not entirely correct. The first comment I was referring to was dated “13:16 - 23 February, 2011” which was correctly posted by PaulBraterman. The second one was “15:07 - 23 February, 2011” which I accidentally attributed to PaulBraterman when in fact it was posted by you. Sorry about that. As you can see, the time of my posting was approx 2am and I was very tired (as I am now). I would appreciate it if you can focus on the point I’m making and pay attention to the details of the EVIDENCE I have been offering. At this point, I feel a little disappointed by the contents of your post which suggest that you have not read my response carefully. I will attempt to clarify.


    ###################################################
    “....regardless of what you say, you have provided no evidence that supports creation theory.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pardon? Have you actually read my comments dated 19th and 22nd February above? I briefly covered the geologic column, abrupt appearance for life and geology using accelerated atomic decay and provided links that you refused to read. Apparently you will “forego the recommended reading if its all the same”. Is that education? I don’t think you want to know that evolution is just a fairytale. What are you really afraid of?


    ###################################################
    “Evidence does require replicated peer reviewed work. If it has not been provided then the evidence is purely anecdotal and therefore, not scientific”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am shocked by your comments. You have obviously not read my response to your previous similar post. I explained the reason for the peer review. Also, replicating the Creation theory (re flood and geologic column) CAN be and HAS been done. In addition, do you actually think that evolutionists can replicate the evidence to prove the theory? What is going on DaveGilbert? Can’t you see that using your argument re replication would render the evolution hypothesis obsolete?


    ###################################################
    “It is you who are using tautological logic assuming the existence of god therefore, creation”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is frustrating! Give ONE example please. Please DO NOT ignore this request!


    ###################################################
    “You accuse me of appealing to authority and yes you are right. I listen to the authority of many academics who are saying much the same thing and I read as best as I can what they write and if I can see the argument has merit, then I accept it until something comes along to refute it.”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    If you can see the argument has merit, then you accept it? What about EVIDENCE? Surely, if there is NO evidence you will REJECT it? Is this about SCIENCE or BELIEF? I admire you faith. It is far greater than mine! Lol


    ###################################################
    “You cite logic. What is more logical if many support a theory whilst a few refute it? The many are deluded or is it the few?”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    LOGIC is to accept a theory using evidence. NOTHING to do with MAJORITY of opinion! What kind of education is this? If the majority say that everyone called DaveGilbert must kill himself, would you accept that? Majority means NOTHING! Why do I need to explain this to you? You are kidding right?


    ###################################################
    “With regards to the John Beddington article that I made reference to, I agree that the Government appears to have adopted double standards in that they actively encourage pseudo-science in allowing faith schools whilst warning those very same schools not to teach pseudo-science in them.”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    NO, NO, NO! Why am I having to spoon-feed you this? The pseudo-science should be applied to the EVOLUTION teaching! Until the evidence is provided, it is not real science DESPITE what the majority say!


    ###################################################
    “Hate is a religious proposition actively encouraged in your bible”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    WHAT? Hate actively encouraged? You never read the bit about loving your enemies (Luke 6:27-36)? This is just madness! Should I give up on you now? Are you never going to get this? Has evolution really blinded you that much? I really speak out of concern. Why are you just making up stories?


    ###################################################
    “Are you one of those that say, without God you would rape and murder? What does that tell us about you that you would only not shoplift when there was a store detective watching you?”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    No, I’m saying that you are UNABLE to tell RIGHT from WRONG without the BIBLE. If you disagree, then please explain HOW you can tell RIGHT from WRONG without involving the BIBLE? Please explain! Will this be yet another one of these questions you will ignore? So far you have ignored at least 20 of my questions yet you still insist your religion is a scientific fact.


    ###################################################
    “You are right, it is very rare for a creationist’s material to be written because it is bad fiction. It is you who are brainwashed sir”
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please provide your evidence. What material did I offer that you consider bad fiction? What material have you EVER seen that is bad fiction? I’m sure you would agree that there was some arrogance in that comment and I’m surprise you made it DaveGilbert! You should be honourable and truthful in your debates. This is a question of morality that you will no doubt one day explain how it’s determined from an evolutionary perspective. Not good!


    ###################################################
    “Only true empirical science should decide which theory is right”.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agreed, let’s do that. Please start whenever you’re ready :-) lol.


    ###################################################
    “You have presented me with no science just your own intuition. I’ll forego the recommended reading if its all the same”
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have provided about 20 quotes from recognised scientists and shown you at least one major project run by 8 scientists over 8 year period. On top of that you have blatantly refused to read any material I offered you. If Creationists behaved that way you would have crucified them for showing such ignorance and arrogance. There is NO WAY you are serious. Are you not aware that this debate is in writing and that people can check your claims/accusations? I expect better from you but sadly this kind of response is quite common from ardent evolutionists. I am sure your pope Richard Dawkins would be proud of you :-)


    ###################################################
    “You are not seriously suggesting I see ‘Expelled’ are you? I have and it is pants, utter made up tripe. Ben Stein couldn’t have been so dishonest in his commentary had he tried. It is an embarrassing use of the film medium that has been shot to pieces by any rational thinking person that has had the misfortune to see it”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ben Stein was dishonest in his commentary? How? He just reported what the other scientists said? Was he shot to pieces by a rational thinking person OR by evolutionists who feel uncomfortable by the information? Is EVERYONE a liar on that film? Let’s assume they are all liars. Go ahead and explain why that’s a bad thing. This is really frustrating because I know you will ignore this question!


    ###################################################
    “If you had happened upon one of those museums, call them churches to science if you will, then you will find transitional fossils, loads, yes...loads! Take our own family tree from Australopithecus to Paranthropus boisei to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens. Moreover, many animals have well defined lineage of transitional fossils also, take the whale as an example. All available for your perusal at a good natural history museum. Darwin wasn’t that worried about what you call missing links, in fact he predicted them (another trait of the scientific method) ever heard of Archaeopteryx? You are right again, there are no missing links. That was a fallacy made up by people who should have known better”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    What is this suppose to mean? Initially you appear to be listing names of transitional fossils. Then correctly point out that Darwin predicted that this would happen. This was followed by saying “You are right again, there are no missing links”. I can’t work out whether you are incorrectly suggesting the listed fossils are missing links and therefore being sarcastic, or you are agreeing with me that there are no missing links in which case the list of fossils are pointless. Either way, what is your point? Lol. I like you DaveGilbert, but seriously stop this nonsense.


    ###################################################
    “as for your ad hominem attack on PaulBrateman, well shame on you good Christian. It is you who are in the Dark ages and have nothing to offer 21st century science “
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not sure what you mean. What ad hominem? All I did is point out his fallacies, lack of understanding of the evolution theory (just as I have to you) and made some recommendation to avoid future comments until further education. In case you’re interested according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary it means “appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect or marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made”. I did not do any of these things. However, by contrast, your following comment towards me indeed was ad hominem. That’s not nice DaveGilbert!


    ###################################################
    “I hope you accept that I have been adequately ready enough to have come back to you and please be good for goodness sake.”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    I confirm you have readily come back to me however have you noticed that you have not provided ANY evidence for your belief? NOT ONE! If you did provide any evidence, tell me where? You have NOT refuted any of my claims other than appeal to majority of opinion. This is NOT science. In deed you are religious which I don’t mind but don’t call it science (but you can call it pseudo-science or even voodoo-science). It turns out that evolutionists are guilty of all the fallacies they accuse the Creationists. What a turn around. This will make a really good film one day

    If you want to respond and have any credibility, here is what you should do:

    1) Answer the questions I placed in my previous posts. Please stop ignoring them. There must be over 20 of them by now. I’m happy to summarise them for you if that helps.

    2) Provide evidence for your theory or admit it’s a religious worldview that has nothing to do with science. I’m happy you refer to it as pseudo-science or voodoo-science though.

    3) Offer your scientific rebuttal for the evidence I have offered for the Creation theory. At this stage, I’m not even convinced you have read them.

    It’s ok to change your mind about evolution if you want, nothing bad will happen. No....wait.... who am I kidding; evolutionists will hate you and you will be mocked and laughed at. Don’t change your mind if you aren’t brave and don’t understand science. Otherwise you can’t defend yourself in this humanistic society that doesn’t tolerate anything outside the evolution belief. Wait... that sounds similar to the Middle Ages. Wow, evolution sounds more and more like communism.

    I’m really tired now, I need to go to bed. Please excuse any mistakes :-)

    Have a great day.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    3:22
    25 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. Yes, summarise your 20 or so questions please.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:13
    25 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Thank you DaveGilbert. I have summarised below the questions I have raised within each post as requested.


    18 February, 2011:
    ------------------------

    a) I claim that there is NO evidence for evolution (NOT ONE). It’s just a religion. But if you disagree, then please post ONE SINGLE solid/watertight/indisputable evidence.

    b) If evolution is true then Creation is false (ie there is no Creator, the Bible is not inspired from God and we are not accountable to Him), then HOW can we tell the difference absolute RIGHT and WRONG? HOW do we know and WHO decides? (2 questions)

    c) If we evolved then WHAT is “love“? According to evolution it’s just some chemical reaction that came together through random mutation? WHY would we have these feelings anyway and HOW do we know that it’s a good thing? ( 3 questions)

    d) If evolution is true, how do we know if ANYTHING we feel is good or bad?

    e) If evolution is true, then why do we think and why should we trust our thoughts - if it’s nothing but a chemical reaction evolved through random mutation etc. (2 questions)

    f) If evolution is true, who cares about all these questions? Why are we even asking questions to a bunch of chemicals that can’t even prove they exist (2 questions)

    g) If evolution is true, at what point did we start “enjoying” things and why? (2 questions)

    h) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

    i) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

    j) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

    k) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

    l) The termite or the flagellates in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

    m) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

    n) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

    o) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

    p) The immune system or the need for it?


    The above contains 22 questions in this post alone.


    19 February, 2011.
    ------------------------

    q) In your worldview, how do you even know that being deceitful is a bad thing?

    r) How did life first start (using empirical science)? When you have explained it, please demonstrate it, perhaps in a lab environment. Repeat the process so that I can see it at work. When you are done doing that, please proceed in explaining how we have changed from one kind of animal to another (using empirical science). After that, please repeat the process in a controlled lab environment so that I can learn from this wisdom of yours. (3 questions + 2 requests).

    s) if we have all evolved and we are nothing but chemical reactions then why is patronising a bad thing?

    t) Is lying acceptable in your worldview? How would you know it’s a bad thing? (2 questions)

    u) Where do evolutionists get morality?


    The above contains 8 questions in this post alone. So far (including 18 February 2011), I have asked 30 unanswered questions.


    25 February, 2011.
    ------------------------

    v) Is “majority” of opinion how we know something is right or wrong? Are you trying to prove me wrong because I am in the minority? Please answer these 2 questions without committing a logical fallacy.

    w) What material did I offer that you consider bad fiction (in relation to the Creation theory)? What material have you EVER seen that is bad fiction? (2 questions)

    x) With reference to Expelled, explain why dishonesty/lying is a bad thing?

    The above contains 5 questions in this post alone. The total number of questions in all posts = 35.


    #############################################

    The full list above was included to show you how many questions you simply ignored during this debate. I would be happy if you simply answer: a & b, h to p and v & w. You can tackle one at a time if that helps.

    Evolution is JUST a religion NOT science. Evolutionists who say otherwise (including John Beddington) are deliberately deceitful. The Bible has something VERY serious to say about people who deliberately misguide others (Matthew 18:6).

    Please be honest in your response. I am not looking for a convincing answer, just a scientific one. You say that evolution is a FACT and can be proven scientifically. Therefore you must give answers to these questions using SCIENCE only and not a so-called story. This is not about who can tell the best convincing story but about giving answers using “empirical science” (please check this definition before giving your answer). I will refuse to accept an answer that commits a logical fallacy or not based on science (ie based on CREATIVE IMAGINATION)!

    I wonder; is there a law that prevents schools from teaching lies in science classes? (woops, this is another question) Evolution is not JUST a lie but a DANGEROUS religion. Yes; DANGEROUS religion. It teaches our kids that they are nothing but animals and then we complain when they behave like one.

    You are a good person DaveGilbert; free yourself from this illogical, unscientific, humanistic religion. You’re faith is based on a lie!

    Please don’t rush the answers, my expectations are very high and I don’t want to be disappointed. Hire one or more evolutionist professors if you have to because if there are answers, I really want to know them. This is how a healthy open-mind should work, right? Otherwise, get rid of it!

    Take care mate

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:26
    26 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. I don't have time to respond now but I will give you a considered reply by Monday evening. Have a good weekend.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:35
    26 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • No problem DaveGilbert. Please take your time. I really want you to put some effort into this because my intention is to show you the fallacies of this humanistic religion (please check out their manifesto) that's disguised as science. Evolution is a worldwide religious movement which is actually damaging our education system and destroying the future of our children.

    Have a great weekend

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:42
    26 February, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. I saw little point in going over old ground. You obviously have done your research within the anti-evolution literature and hold firmly to your beliefs, so it would be futile to attempt to convince you otherwise. Nonetheless, I noted that one or two of your questions raised some interesting philosophical points to which I will respond.


    a) I claim that there is NO evidence for evolution (NOT ONE). It’s just a religion. But if you disagree, then please post ONE SINGLE solid/watertight/indisputable evidence.
    **
    That’s fine, they are your claims and yours alone. However, they do conflict with over one hundred and fifty years of scientific research and study. You have great faith to do so. I have posted brief outlines towards the fact of evolution previously. Put simply they are; comparative sequencing analysis, fossils, biogeography and vestigial structures. Evolution has been confirmed to the same extent as any other scientific fact and, like any other scientific fact, is is open to being falsified. However, despite the many attempts (both honourable and less so), none have succeeded. Nonetheless you have dismissed it as false and part of a wider conspiracy on behalf of the scientific community so I don’t know what more I can do if you are not prepared to explore for yourself further (http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html).
    I know it will be a waste of time to recommend books by two prominent biologists, Richard Dawkins (‘The Greatest Show on Earth’) and Jerry Coyne (‘Why Evolution is True’) as you are obviously suspicious of their authority. Therefore, once again I commend to you books by two prominent theistic biologists, Kenneth Miller (‘Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution’) and Francis Collins (‘The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief’). Likewise, I know you will recommend books by Behe, Dempsky et al that show the opposite. Furthermore, I am well aware you are not going to accept any evidence that their work continues to be discredited, even amongst the theistic community, so neither of us are going to win on that one. Just one point though, how come Dawkin’s University, Oxford hasn’t insisted on him showing a caveat on their website to the effect that, His opinions about evolution are His alone and do not represent the position of the University, yet Behe’s University, Lehigh have insisted that he does in relation to Intelligent Design? Go check it out, http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html.

    b) If evolution is true then Creation is false (ie there is no Creator, the Bible is not inspired from God and we are not accountable to Him), then HOW can we tell the difference absolute RIGHT and WRONG? HOW do we know and WHO decides? (2 questions).
    **
    You are right on the first part of your sentence. The questions on the other hand, are not for evolution but philosophy. Please, how are old are you? You still need a parental figure telling you what is good and what is bad? You mean you don’t know by now? Surely we all have an innate idea of the ethic of reciprocity or the Golden Rule, ‘One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself’ and ‘One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated’. I am well aware that all religions attribute this as their own, after all according to your bible Jesus did say, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). Yet it is found every where and certainly before the christians. ‘Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill’ (Buddhism), "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?” (Confucianism), ‘One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behaviour is due to selfish desires’ (Hinduism), ‘Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you’ (Islam). Need I go on? In the majority of cases, faith schools teach only their faith, yet there are many religions and each have taught these moral statements before yours. Why, ever since we emigrated from Africa we have grown up with the idea of cooperation that has been a measure of fitness for our survival. Do a good turn to others and they will surly reciprocate. That’s why many atheists give blood and do good deeds for goodness itself. I consider myself a very moral individual, not because I fear a totalitarian tyrant watching over me but because It make me feel good and I enjoy others showing kindness back.

    c) If we evolved then WHAT is “love“? According to evolution it’s just some chemical reaction that came together through random mutation? WHY would we have these feelings anyway and HOW do we know that it’s a good thing? ( 3 questions)
    **
    Again, 1 and 3 are not questions for evolution. As for 2, you would have to ask why has evolution developed traits that ensure a bond between a mother and her baby or between partners. As for the philosophical notion of love, then surely love is whatever you want it to mean. After all, we all know we have it when we see it. If you are going to be a reductionist about it then, yes ultimately it is just chemicals. But why should that bother you? I love and am loved just as much as you. It doesn’t take away any of the beauty of nature and our relationships within it. A baby and its mother have evolved to develop a bond (chemicals reactions such as serotonin and oxytocin and activation of mirror neurones) that best ensures survival is no more mysterious than that. However, I don’t mind complicating it with poetry and philosophy either.

    d) If evolution is true, how do we know if ANYTHING we feel is good or bad?
    **
    I think I have answered this at b and c or have I not made it clear enough?

    ??e) If evolution is true, then why do we think and why should we trust our thoughts - if it’s nothing but a chemical reaction evolved through random mutation etc. (2 questions)
    **
    We have evolved to think the way we do. Our intelligence and ability to plan ahead have been instrumental in ensuring our survival. Not sure I understand the second question though. ‘Trust our thoughts’. What does that mean? Surely you do what you think is right at the time. Sometimes it pays off other times it doesn’t. You then learn from your mistakes so you don’t make them again in the future. Read Pascal Boyer’s ‘Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That Fashioned Gods, Spirits and Ancestors’.??

    f) If evolution is true, who cares about all these questions? Why are we even asking questions to a bunch of chemicals that can’t even prove they exist (2 questions)
    **
    Evolution has nothing to do with it beyond us having a larger prefrontal cortex. This allows us to ask such questions and for you and me to debate about them. ??

    g) If evolution is true, at what point did we start “enjoying” things and why? (2 questions)
    **
    Again, more philosophy than evolution. Surely ‘enjoy’ is a subjective term. We each enjoy different things. I am sure there would be a survival advantage to feeling good but beyond that I don’t know. Sorry.??

    h) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
    **
    Not sure what you are after here either. We have evolved with digestive systems from earlier life forms, its as simple as that unless I’ve missed something in your question.

    I) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
    **
    Same as h).

    ??j) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
    **
    And again.??

    k) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
    **
    And again.

    L) The termite or the flagellates in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
    **
    And again.

    ??m) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
    **
    And again.??

    n) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
    **
    And again.

    ??o) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
    **
    And again.??

    p) The immune system or the need for it?
    **
    Of all the above questions that I have been unable to answer, I will say that by evolution, all the systems of which you refer provide a benefit for survival. That’s what natural selection does, it ensures that the life form is better adapted for its environment.

    ??q) In your worldview, how do you even know that being deceitful is a bad thing?
    **
    Once again, a philosophical question. I believe I have answered this previously.

    ??r) How did life first start (using empirical science)? When you have explained it, please demonstrate it, perhaps in a lab environment. Repeat the process so that I can see it at work. When you are done doing that, please proceed in explaining how we have changed from one kind of animal to another (using empirical science). After that, please repeat the process in a controlled lab environment so that I can learn from this wisdom of yours. (3 questions + 2 requests).
    **
    I don’t think any scientist knows the answer to ‘abiogenesis’ fully. In fact, that is the beauty of science, it doesn’t fear not knowing rather it helps to keep the drive to find out things. Unlike religion that is perfectly content not knowing for the time being. It is happy to dip its toe in the shallow end only to wade out into deeper water when its ready.

    s) if we have all evolved and we are nothing but chemical reactions then why is patronising a bad thing? ?
    **
    As with several of your former questions, this is not a question of evolution but of philosophy. Remember the ‘Golden Rule?’

    t) Is lying acceptable in your worldview? How would you know it’s a bad thing? (2 questions)
    **
    Rather than a deontologist who believes lying is always wrong in any situation, I believe I am a virtue ethicist. I appreciate that, in some circumstances, lying would be the benevolent thing to do. For example, if asked by a religious person on their death bed would they be going to heaven. Despite my understanding that heaven doesn’t exist, I wouldn’t take their faith away from them. Moreover, I would know if lying was bad if it violated the ‘Golden Rule’.

    ??u) Where do evolutionists get morality?
    **
    I don’t know, I haven’t had the opportunity to ask every one of them. Where does a religious person get theirs from?

    ??v) Is “majority” of opinion how we know something is right or wrong? Are you trying to prove me wrong because I am in the minority? Please answer these 2 questions without committing a logical fallacy.
    **
    I think you misunderstood my reply to you in a previous post. What I said was, “You accuse me of appealing to authority and yes you are right. I listen to the authority of many academics who are saying much the same thing and I read as best as I can what they write and if I can see the argument has merit, then I accept it until something comes along to refute it.” I didn’t suggest that one follows the majority blindly. We have to be grown up about things. I don’t know what I don’t know. Furthermore, there is much that I don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand or the time to avail myself of that knowledge. So, I have to accept the wisdom of those I trust. Like Newton, I stand on the shoulders of giants. I doubt your worldview because it derives from the precept of the existence of a god in which I don’t believe. So for me evolution is the only game in town and as Theodosius Dobzhansky said, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.

    ??w) What material did I offer that you consider bad fiction (in relation to the Creation theory)? What material have you EVER seen that is bad fiction? (2 questions)
    **
    The Creation myth itself. I mean talking snakes, denigration of women, creation of light and plants before the Sun, God giving Adam the animals to name, all 1,250,00 (approx) of them. Not to mention two creation stories in the same book, illogical tripe.

    ??x) With reference to Expelled, explain why dishonesty/lying is a bad thing?
    **
    Done that above. Ben Stein was lying to show evidence for his point because he wasn’t able to get it by truthful means. http://www.expelledexposed.com/

    ?Evolution is JUST a religion NOT science. Evolutionists who say otherwise (including John Beddington) are deliberately deceitful. The Bible has something VERY serious to say about people who deliberately misguide others (Matthew 18:6).
    **
    Tell Ben Stein that.

    A few question to you now. Quid pro quo and all that.
    1) On what grounds do you assert that evolution is a religion?
    2) Why do you believe in the christian god as opposed to Zeus, Mithras, Vishnu or any other?
    3) Are you an atheist with regards to the other gods?
    4) ??Do you believe that the bible is the absolute and revealed word of your God?
    5) Are your actions moral because you decide or because God decides?
    6) Why are so many christians evolutionists?
    7) Are you a young earth or an old earth creationist?
    8) Has there been any observation that has changed the creationist idea?
    9) Who, in your world is more deserving of heaven, one who believes in Jesus with all their heart and soul but does immoral acts, or an atheist who lives a highly moral life (Yes, I know for an atheist heaven doesn’t exist, but I did say, in your world)?

    Peace to you and be good for goodness sake.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:43
    28 February, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi DaveGilbert. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. As mentioned in my previous post, my expectations were high and whilst I do appreciate the effort (I really do), I wish you were a little more scientific in your answers.


    ########################################################
    “You obviously have done your research within the anti-evolution literature and hold firmly to your beliefs”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I hold firmly to my belief as you do yours :-).

    This is why education is important. If students were exposed to the lies of evolution, there would be no evolution taught in class rooms. Currently we have indoctrination in science classes which MUST STOP if we want students who are capable of thinking rationally and critically. Evolution breads closed-minds and arrogant attitudes. Remember what Richard Dawkins said:

    “...if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” (Richard Dawkins – Oxford University - Put Your Money on Evolution New York Times April 9, 1999 p. 35).

    So is Richard Dawkins open-minded? Is this the kind of teaching we need in our schools? So much for morality!


    ########################################################
    To the question: “a) I claim that there is NO evidence for evolution (NOT ONE)”,
    You answered: “That’s fine, they are your claims and yours alone. However, they do conflict with over one hundred and fifty years of scientific research and study. “
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think you missed my point DaveGilbert. I’m saying that EVOLUTION actually conflicts with 150 years of scientific research and study. They only reason it still exists is because evolution is a humanistic religion. Not admitting shows a lack of understanding of evolution, humanism or both.

    "The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis 1985, p. 327)

    You see DaveGilbert. Not proven at ALL!


    ########################################################
    “I have posted brief outlines towards the fact of evolution previously. Put simply they are; comparative sequencing analysis, fossils, biogeography and vestigial structures”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have already refuted the list using SCIENCE. You have obviously ignored my answers because it didn’t suit your worldview. This is a prime example of how you refuse to oppose the theory despite the evidence. It’s a prime example of a religious behaviour. It is a faith driven belief that cannot be renounced. Please get this point.


    ########################################################
    “Evolution has been confirmed to the same extent as any other scientific fact and, like any other scientific fact, is is open to being falsified”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I just falsified it using SCIENCE! Many apologetics falsify it using science! Many scientists falsify it using science! But you remain faithful to this ridiculous theory. The whole attitude towards this theory is in fact not scientific. It’s a religion. You see what I mean?


    ########################################################
    “However, despite the many attempts (both honourable and less so), none have succeeded. Nonetheless you have dismissed it as false and part of a wider conspiracy on behalf of the scientific community so I don’t know what -
    more I can do if you are not prepared to explore for yourself further”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You want me to explore more than I already have? Ok, but I don’t think it will be to your advantage :-)

    It is dismissed as false because there is no evidence. How about you explore more yourself and provide some evidence. Surely that’s fair.


    ########################################################
    “http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I’m not sure why you provided this link. Other than listing a number of scientific fields, it doesn’t offer any evidence whatsoever. Nevertheless, let’s have some fun. Each heading within that page can be disputed easily:

    Regarding “1 Fossil evidence indicates evolution has occurred”
    But according to Dr. D. Berlinski, “Darwin’s theory & the fossil record are in conflict” (Sept. 1996, p. 28). How about what Wysong said “faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist’s arguments to zero and facing the need to invoke a supernatural creator.” (The Creation-Evolution Controversy 1981, p. 455). Finally “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants. Instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationish argument that each species was created by God. (Mark Czarnecki, McLean’s January 19, 1981 p. 56)

    Regarding “2. Natural selection can produce evolutionary change.”
    This was proven a lie over 50 years ago. According to G. Simpson "The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature,"
    (1953. Life of the Past. p.119). What about this: "The early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, …was all wrong," (Science Newsletter, Aug. 25, 1951, p. 118; Science Newsletter, August 1995 p. 118). Does this convince you yet? Wait...I hear you declare that this is old material and that more recent findings prove otherwise. Ok, let’s examine what Starr, C., Taggart, R. said: “Other examples, including the much-repeated ‘gradual’ evolution of the modern horse, have not held up under close examination.” (1992 Biology The Unity and diversity of Life Wadsworth P. 304). Does this tell you it’s a proof of evolution?

    Regarding “2. Natural selection can produce evolutionary change”: That’s ridiculous. You must read up about Neo-Darwinism which was founded on the fact that when DNA was discovered they realised that natural selection CANNOT produce something new.

    Regarding “3. Evidence for evolution can be found in other fields or biology”
    Errol White said "We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' " (Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 - 1966).


    ########################################################
    “I am well aware you are not going to accept any evidence that their work continues to be discredited, even amongst the theistic community, so neither of us are going to win on that one. “
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If this is science we are talking about, then of course I will accept evidence. But first you must provide it otherwise stop calling it science. Besides, you will be pleased to know DaveGilbert that you have already won by default! Evolutionists are already brainwashing our kids in thinking that they are nothing but a bunch of molecules that were put together by random chance (and natural selection etc.). They are told they are just animals! They are already told that RIGHT and WRONG are relative and based on personal opinion etc. Evolutionists are already damaging and destroying their future and their hopes. You can be proud. You win at the moment DESPITE the lack of evidence. I don’t think I can rely on you to fix it though because evolutionists are only interested in promoting a false religion that will lead to destruction! It is very sad that you cannot see that.


    ########################################################
    “Just one point though, how come Dawkin’s University, Oxford hasn’t insisted on him showing a caveat on their website to the effect that, His opinions about evolution are His alone and do not represent the position of the University, yet Behe’s University, Lehigh have insisted that he does in relation to Intelligent Design? Go check it out, http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html.”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why DO YOU think the Oxford University hasn’t insisted on him showing a caveat on their website etc.? The University is controlled and taught by humanistic teachers and professors. Why would they go against their beliefs? I’m asking for evidence for this belief. If there isn’t any scientific evidence, it’s only fair that the department of education intervenes and fixes it. We are not in the dark-ages anymore! However, IF there is any evidence, then keep it! That sounds fair to me (but of course not to someone who is brainwashed).


    ########################################################
    To the question: “If evolution is true then Creation is false (ie there is no Creator, the Bible is not inspired from God and we are not accountable to Him)”
    You answered: “You are right on the first part of your sentence”
    To the question: “HOW can we tell the difference between absolute RIGHT and WRONG?”
    You answered: “‘One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself’ and ‘One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated’”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please pay attention to your answers. You already agreed that if evolution is true, Creation is false (ie God, Bible etc)! You also insist that evolution is true. Therefore, that means Creation is false (ie the Bible is false)! But then you perform a logical fallacy by borrowing from the Creation principle which is quoted in the Bible (Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). CAN’T YOU SEE? This is the whole point! If evolution is true you cannot live by the principles written in the Bible, because it would be FALSE! Therefore as an EVOLUTIONIST you have no morals because you can’t live by the morality of the Bible (because it’s FALSE! Got it?). Please read this paragraph again. It’s important you get this.

    You continue committing more logical fallacies by saying “I consider myself a very moral individual, not because I fear a totalitarian tyrant watching over me but because It make me feel good and I enjoy others showing kindness back”. This is another logical fallacy; STEALING yet another moral attribute from the Bible (Galatians 5:22-23 “joy and kindness etc.”). What blows my mind is that you cannot even see how this morality is actually DANGEROUS when used outside the context of the Bible. Let me spell it out for you. If you are promoting the idea that you should do what feels good to you (ie “because it makes me feel good”), then you have automatically endorsed rape, pedophile etc. The people performing these acts would argue that they are only doing what makes them “feel good”. Don’t get me wrong DaveGilbert, I am not proposing for ONE MOMENT that you would endorse these things but merely pointing out that your principle doesn’t work if the BIBLE is FALSE. Not only that, but it is HYPOCRITICAL to claim a worldview to be false and then borrow morality from it. Yet again, how would you know that HYPOCRICY is bad if the Bible is false? Please get this!

    This is why I am trying to explain to you that if evolution is true then you have to live by its OWN morality. Basically you cannot take from another principle that you’ve already proven to be false. That means that you must live by the principle of evolution; the principle that requires you to behave in a way that enhances YOUR survival value! Therefore lying, stealing, adultery, deceit, dishonesty, and morality in general.....are ALL irrelevant. What makes me angry is that you are teaching our kids EXACTLY that!

    If you understood the above properly then you would realise the fallacy in the answers you have given for the following:

    c) If we evolved then WHAT is “love“?.....
    d) If evolution is true, how do we know if ANYTHING we feel is good or bad?
    g) If evolution is true, at what point did we start “enjoying” things and why?
    q) In your worldview, how do you even know that being deceitful is a bad thing?
    s) if we have all evolved and we are nothing but chemical reactions then why is patronising a bad thing? ?
    t) Is lying acceptable in your worldview? How would you know it’s a bad thing? (2 questions)
    u) Where do evolutionists get morality?

    None of the answers you’ve given were satisfactory because you don’t understand where these principles come from. For example, in evolutionary terms, LOVE is unnecessary and actually detrimental to survival especially if it leads to self sacrifice (which certainly does not enhance your survival value). With regards to enjoying things or feeling good adds NOTHING to the Darwinian theory of natural selection. Besides, why would a bunch of chemicals want to create these kind of emotions, it’s just illogical, especially if it could distort and remove your focus from concentrating on survival.


    ########################################################
    To the question: “h) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? “
    You answered: “Not sure what you are after here either. We have evolved with digestive systems from earlier life forms, its as simple as that unless I’ve missed something in your question.”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No, No, No, DaveGilbert. The question is: Which evolved first? Please think about this logically. Why would food evolve if there is no way to digest it? Or why would the digestive system evolve if there is no food? They must both exist at the same time. Evolution cannot explain this principle using Darwinian’s natural selection as these are two independent and separate processes that had to exist (or evolve) at the SAME time. But it gets worse! Even if there is food AND a digestive system, why would we eat without an appetite? But if the appetite came along first, then what use is it without food and a digestive system? Can you see the problem yet? But there is more. What about mobility? If we had ALL the things we need to eat and digest the food etc., how did we find it? How did we even get there? Did our legs evolve before the availability of food, appetite, digestive system etc.? Oh but it gets worse. How on earth did our bodies become resistant to its own digestive juice which is enough to destroy human tissue on contact? Did the resistance evolve before the Gastric juice? If so, why? It would be unnecessary! You see evolution can’t provide the answer, because it NEVER happened that way! So now for the big question; which came first, the food/appetite/digestive system or the Gastric juices? If it’s the Gastric juice, then what was it digesting if food/appetite/digestive system etc. didn’t already exist? Are you getting this now?

    You see evolution cannot answer these questions because it’s NOT science. If you were in the slightest scientifically minded, you would know to give it up! But the religious aspect of this belief prevents you from giving it up!

    The rest of my questions (listed below) would follow the same logic which is why your answers were neither scientific nor satisfactory! So the question is which came first, and what purpose would one serve without the other in the evolutionary sense?

    I) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
    j) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
    k) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
    L) The termite or the flagellates in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
    m) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
    n) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
    o) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
    p) The immune system or the need for it?

    You should have hired one or more evolutionist professors for these questions. Having said that, they wouldn’t have been able to answer these questions either. That’s because evolution is a lie and NEVER happened.


    ########################################################
    To the question: “r) How did life first start (using empirical science)? When you have explained it, please demonstrate it....”
    You answered: “I don’t think any scientist knows the answer to ‘abiogenesis’ fully. In fact, that is the beauty of science, it doesn’t fear not knowing rather it helps to keep the drive to find out things. Unlike religion that is perfectly content not knowing for the time being. It is happy to dip its toe in the shallow end only to wade out into deeper water when its ready.”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You don’t get it my friend DaveGilbert. Your comment “the beauty of science, it doesn’t fear not knowing” is where the problem is. You are claiming that evolution is a FACT and yet admit “NOT KNOWING”! That’s why I call it a religion and NOT science. You then finally commit the fallacy of the straw-man. This is when a person misrepresents the position of his opponent, and then argues against this counterfeit position. You strongly imply that a religious person would not exercise science correctly. Seriously, what will it take to open up your eyes my friend? I am frustrated for you.


    ########################################################
    To the question: “w) What material did I offer that you consider bad fiction (in relation to the Creation theory)? What material have you EVER seen that is bad fiction?“
    You answered: “The Creation myth itself. I mean talking snakes, denigration of women, creation of light and plants before the Sun, God giving Adam the animals to name, all 1,250,00 (approx) of them. Not to mention two creation stories in the same book, illogical tripe.”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First of all you made a lot of assumptions about creation and then proceeded to attack it (again known as the fallacy of the straw-man). Please stop doing that! My question was very clear and was directly in relation to YOUR original question which was “it is very rare for a creationist’s material to be written because it is bad fiction”. This was a scientific question regarding material submitted to evolutionary publication. Please remain honest with your responses. Therefore, you have not answered the question. Play nice!


    ########################################################
    Ben Stein was lying to show evidence for his point because he wasn’t able to get it by truthful means. http://www.expelledexposed.com/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I checked the link. It is just a religious anti-creation and anti-intelligent-design website. Let me get this right, you are basically suggesting that all the scientists interviewed on the documentary were basically lying which is what you have a problem with. In view of what I said above regarding evolutionist morality, do you really think it matters? It’s really funny how an evolutionist does that. It’s like a terrorist deciding that it’s immoral for one of its victims to spread lies about him - lol.


    ########################################################

    DaveGilbert, evolution is just a myth (funny you accused the Creation theory to be a myth):

    "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs." (Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8)

    Evolution is just a faith (funny you claimed the Creation theory to be a faith):

    "Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science.” (Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London]).

    Evolution holds back the progress of science. If you care about science, then put a stop to it NOW! It has nothing to offer other than immorality and lies. It’s about time that this DUMB theory is exposed and taught in a special classroom. Unless you have any proof for it, it should NEVER be taught in a science classroom (EVER)! Are you open minded and scientific enough to get rid of it?

    By the way, I’m tired now, so I will answer your questions (1-9) tomorrow (ie tonight now - lol). Your questions are easy and interesting. HOWEVER, BEFORE I do that I will first need to hear you confess that you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for this DUMB hypothesis.

    I like you DaveGilbert, please don’t be deceived anymore. Take care and have a good day (and of course God bless)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    3:00
    1 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Quick correction to my previous post. I really got to stop preparing my responses past midnight :-)

    The main section labelled “http://txtwriter.com/backgrounders/evolution/evcontents.html” has two identical subheadings repeated: “2. Natural selection can produce evolutionary change.”.

    The first one should have been “The Evolution of Horses” (which was supposed to be a subheading of the previous heading “Fossil evidence indicates evolution has occurred”).

    This is why I was refuting the horse evolution in that section AND this is why the following subheading had the same title.

    Is offering forgiveness in the evolutionary worldview a trait that enhances survival value? Lol

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:22
    1 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. You have just wasted your time writing utter tosh. You are clearly as deluded as those who would risk our children's future with bronze age mythology. I have humoured you far more than you deserve. Moreover, you don't even have the decency to answer my questions. Especially when you realise I have slaved over my computer (Christians do like their slaves) to answer yours. Ah well, there's no pleasing some people.
    May the Force be With You.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:19
    1 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi DaveGilbert (my friend), your response is disappointing but not unexpected.

    Your reaction to my posts is not unique. It usually stems from a frustration of not being able to offer ANY indisputable evidence for the evolution theory. If evolution were a scientific matter, it would have been resolved swiftly and amicably. Unfortunately, evolution is not a scientific matter, consequently the reaction is appropriate.

    ########################################################
    “You have just wasted your time writing utter tosh. You are clearly as deluded as those who would risk our children's future with bronze age mythology. I have humoured you far more than you deserve”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apart from committing the fallacy of Question-Begging Epithet (ie the use of strong emotional language rather than making a logical or scientific case), this comment suggests that you have either not read my replies or do not know how to respond to them. My guess is the former. Regarding the answers you provided, are you aware that none of them were scientific, just your personal opinions? Again, this is a typical response usually due to lack of education (no insult intended). The only scientific material you offered was the MENTION of some scientific fields (again common tactic) to support your theory which were easily disputed.


    ########################################################
    “Moreover, you don't even have the decency to answer my questions. Especially when you realise I have slaved over my computer”.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firstly, thank you for putting the effort in answering SOME of my questions (albeit not scientifically as I requested). I am sure however, you realise that the effort was mutual. The reason I didn’t want to answer your questions YET was because I didn’t want to side-track from the main subject (ie the subject that evolution is NOT science, just a BAD religion). Once this matter is clarified, I would be more than happy to answer your interesting (but not challenging) questions.


    ########################################################
    “... (Christians do like their slaves)...”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can you please show me ONE passage in the Bible where it condones slavery! Why don’t you spend ANY time researching the claims you make? However, you might be interested to know that Darwin CONDONES slavery and is a known racist. Even the title to his book promotes racism (full title) “On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the struggle for life”. Does Darwin think that some races are more FAVOURED than others? I think so. How about this one “A married man is a poor slave, worse than a Negro” (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin p. 234). Does this promote racism?

    Could the evolution hypothesis and those that believe in it be guilty of EVERYTHING they accuse the Creationist to be? Mmmm.....I think so!


    ########################################################

    How about a quick summary to this (sort of) debate:

    1) You don’t have any evidence for the evolution theory (not even ONE) but you insist that it should be taught in science classes.

    2) You don’t know much about science (I mean this politely) yet your argument for the support of evolution is the availability of many other people (evolutionists) that still BELIEVE in it (allegedly who do know about science). This is appealing to authority (logical fallacy) and to majority of opinion (another logical fallacy). Consequently you conclude that the theory must be true regardless of what SCIENCE says.

    3) Despite the evidence AGAINST evolution, you choose to ignore it and live in denial. This is not education.

    As explained previously (18 February, 2011), I will be adding this to my collection of debates to highlight and confirm how evolutionists have no scientific case to support their claim and continue to exercise logical fallacies as they use “Rescuing Devices” (look it up) to salvage their religion.

    In the meantime DaveGilbert, thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter with me. It is my prayer that you will one day find the truth ie the God of the Bible (Jesus) who is the ONLY way, truth and life - John 14:6. There you go, I answered questions 2 and 3 for you. As you have repeatedly demonstrated, apart from the Bible and the principles in it, we can’t even tell right from wrong. Oh, that answered question 5. I also pray that you will one day come to the realisation that through repentance of sin (ie our wrong doings) and the acceptance of Jesus as your saviour and substitute for the penalty of sin, you will receive eternal life in Heaven. Oops, I now also answered question 9 :-).

    If you want to continue this discussion, please don’t hesitate to do so here or using my public email address.

    In the meantime I will continue to monitor this site and reserve the right to challenge the evolutionary worldview that will no doubt CARELESSLY post comments to discredit this school by blindly imposing their humanistic beliefs. Give it up! It’s just a FALSE religion.

    I truly wish you all the best and hope that you will soon discover (as I have) that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the living God - oops, that answered question 4 :-)

    God bless

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:16
    1 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. You are right, I am frustrated about somethings like indoctrinating children with hocus pocus and their grown ups believing in bronze age sky daddies, but one thing I am not frustrated with is evolution. My understanding of it is of a beautiful and coherent explanation for how we got here from simpler life forms. What I can’t understand though is, just assuming that you are right and evolution is a leap of faith just like your religion, how is it less convincing than your religion? In other words, what is it that make you jump in the religious camp rather than the evolution camp?

    ?“If evolution were a scientific matter, it would have been resolved swiftly and amicably.” **It has. There is no alternative theory worthy of mention.

    “Unfortunately, evolution is not a scientific matter, consequently the reaction is appropriate.” **Oh yes it is!!**

    Apart from committing the fallacy of Question-Begging Epithet (ie the use of strong emotional language rather than making a logical or scientific case), this comment suggests that you have either not read my replies or do not know how to respond to them.” **Or like I said before, your replies are utter deluded tosh.**

    “Regarding the answers you provided, are you aware that none of them were scientific, just your personal opinions?’' **That’s because of those I did answer, apart from question a) and r), none were scientific but philosophical questions. I explained that I didn’t understand what you were getting at with questions h) through to p) (although I did give an outlined response after question p)). You don’t know anything about me but presumably you accuse my responses to be due to a, “lack of education (no insult intended).” Well there was much insult taken as I had to checked to see if my BSc and MSc certificates were genuine. And I thought it was me you had asked to play nicely?

    “The only scientific material you offered was the MENTION of some scientific fields (again common tactic) to support your theory which were easily disputed. **You have disputed nothing my friend.

    ??“Can you please show me ONE passage in the Bible where it condones slavery! Why don’t you spend ANY time researching the claims you make?“ **Ok, Exodus 21:2-6. Then there is Exodus 21:7-1 and Exodus 21:20-21, is that enough or do you want more? Leviticus 25:44-46, oh and Ephesians 6:5, whilst not forgetting 1 Timothy 6:1-2 & Luke 12:47-48.

    “However, you might be interested to know that Darwin CONDONES slavery and is a known racist.” **No he wasn’t. Darwin was disgusted with the way slaves were treated in South America so much so that he became an abolitionist and his work ultimately refuted the contemporary racist and eugenic beliefs. It is, in fact, evolution that overturned the widely held belief in the divine superiority of the ‘white race’.

    “Even the title to his book promotes racism (full title) “On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of FAVOURED RACES in the struggle for life”. Does Darwin think that some races are more FAVOURED than others?” **You muncking fuppet! ‘Favoured Races’ was a term used commonly at the time for plants and animals. Moreover, Darwin mentioned people only briefly in ‘Origin’ for fear of causing the whinging that creationists make nowadays.

    “I think so. How about this one “A married man is a poor slave, worse than a Negro” (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin p. 234). Does this promote racism?” **Er no. There is a great danger in attributing historical attitudes to the current moral zeitgeist. ‘Negro’ was a common term used back then that had no racist intents, unlike today. This quote was part of a list of pro and cons Darwin used to decide on the merit of marriage. I thought it was you who warned me against logical fallacies. Shame on you.

    ??“Could the evolution hypothesis and those that believe in it be guilty of EVERYTHING they accuse the Creationist to be? Mmmm.....I think so!”
    **Mmmm....I think not. So there!??“

    1) You don’t have any evidence for the evolution theory (not even ONE) *Yes I do** but you insist that it should be taught in science classes.” ** Yes I do.??**

    “2) You don’t know much about science (I mean this politely)” **Yes I do (BSc & MSc remember?)**

    “yet your argument for the support of evolution is the availability of many other people (evolutionists) that still BELIEVE in it (allegedly who do know about science).” ** I don’t believe in evolution, I accept it from the evidence of its logical premise. **

    “This is appealing to authority (logical fallacy) and to majority of opinion (another logical fallacy).” ** I explained about appealing to authority and majority of opinion. Did you not read it or understand it?**

    “Consequently you conclude that the theory must be true regardless of what SCIENCE says.” **Er no. Science shows it is fact my boy.**??

    “3) Despite the evidence AGAINST evolution, you choose to ignore it and live in denial. This is not education.” **What evidence against evolution? First I’ve heard about it.

    ??“As explained previously (18 February, 2011), I will be adding this to my collection of debates to highlight and confirm how evolutionists have no scientific case to support their claim and continue to exercise logical fallacies as they use “Rescuing Devices” (look it up) to salvage their religion.” **Wow. Will I be famous now????
    ?
    “In the meantime DaveGilbert, thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter with me. It is my prayer that you will one day find the truth ie the God of the Bible (Jesus) who is the ONLY way, truth and life - John 14:6. There you go, I answered questions 2 and 3 for you.” **At last. Answers to my questions, allegedly. Let’s see. “2) Why do you believe in the christian god as opposed to Zeus, Mithras, Vishnu or any other?” **No. Not that one. How about the next one?** “3) Are you an atheist with regards to the other gods?” **No. Not that one either. Er, JohnHarris, you did’t answer 2 and 3. Would you like to try again?

    “As you have repeatedly demonstrated, apart from the Bible and the principles in it, we can’t even tell right from wrong. Oh, that answered question 5.” **Did it? are you sure? I don’t think so you little tinker. I asked, in your world view, does God decide your moral rules or do you. C’mon. Have another try.**

    “I also pray that you will one day come to the realisation that through repentance of sin (ie our wrong doings) and the acceptance of Jesus as your saviour and substitute for the penalty of sin, you will receive eternal life in Heaven. Oops, I now also answered question 9 :-).” **Oh shoot. Your gonna pray for me now. Please tell me what good that will do? I actually find that so patronising. You feel you are so superior because you think you can call on your imaginary friend to ‘help’ me. That sucks so much my friend. Oh and by the way, that did not answer question 9 you silly billy.**

    ??“If you want to continue this discussion, please don’t hesitate to do so here or using my public email address.” **Okay**

    ??“In the meantime I will continue to monitor this site and reserve the right to challenge the evolutionary worldview that will no doubt CARELESSLY post comments to discredit this school by blindly imposing their humanistic beliefs. Give it up! It’s just a FALSE religion.”**LOL.

    ??“I truly wish you all the best and hope that you will soon discover (as I have) that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the living God - oops, that answered question 4 :-)” **AT LAST!!! (Falls of chair in amazement).
    How do you know it is? Living, in what sense? Is he a physical entity? So this Jesus fella (don’t forget you did say he was god) wants his followers to eat him (cannibalism) and drink his blood (Vampirism)? To execute all people who work on a Sunday (Exodus 31:14)? Punish all folks who eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10-12)? Hates menstruating women (Leviticus 15:19-30)? The first tyrant to use weapons of mass destruction (Genisis 8:21)? Demanded animal (and human) sacrifices (Leviticus 12:6)? Hates women (Leviticus 12:5)? Hates the handicapped (Leviticus 21: 16-23)?

    What you have there JohnHarris is one mean SOB with an anger management problem rather than a loving benevolent father figure.

    ??“God bless” **As Paul says (in the film of the same name) “Yeah, whatever”.

    Thanks for your efforts JohnHarris. Take care of yourself because there is no god to do it for you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:10
    3 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hello DavidGilbert. Thank you for your response. I must confess, I thought we are done now, but obviously not.

    Firstly, you are obviously a nice guy but my debate with you (if you can really call it that), has been very surprisingly different. I have not often been in a situation where my questions have been so misunderstood and the replies so irrelevant.

    Allow me to qualify my statement with just a few examples:

    ########################################################
    FALLACY OF IRRELEVANT THESIS
    ########################################################
    Example 1:
    To my question “Unfortunately, evolution is not a scientific matter, consequently the reaction is appropriate.”
    You replied “**Oh yes it is!!**”.
    I can’t be sure you are serious. Unless you think you’re in pantomime, I was expecting a scientific response.

    Example 2:
    To my question “You don’t have any evidence for the evolution theory (not even ONE)”
    You replied “ *Yes I do**”.
    Ooooh....no, you don’t! Sorry, just got caught in the spirit of pantomime – lol. I like you DaveGilbert, you make me laugh. By the way, “Yes I do” does not count as a scientific answer (just making sure you know).

    Example 3:
    I accused you of not having a SINGLE/ONE indisputable evidence for evolution. You offered 3 that were TOTALLY disputable. Your response to my refutation was “whether you agree or not, the evidence for the fact of evolution is sound”. Where is your SCIENTIFIC counter argument? Why won’t you produce scientific quotes, references from scientific journals or even just use a LOGICAL extrapolation of scientific knowledge you may have to defend your case? Why won’t you even produce material by those you have placed your faith in (those you refer to as academic authority)?

    Example 4:
    I asked you to explain “HOW can an evolutionist tell the difference between absolute RIGHT and WRONG? HOW do we know and WHO decides?” You dismissed the question by saying it’s a philosophic question (28 Feb). Firstly, this is not a scientific answer but interestingly enough your answer raises another question. In a world driven by chemical reactions and random mutations etc, WHY/WHO cares about philosophy? Certainly, the soup I had this evening didn’t care about philosophy - even though it was full of chemicals :-)! You don’t see a dolphin concerned or discussing philosophy! Let’s make this simple for you. Will a dolphin eventually evolve to discuss philosophy (like allegedly we did)? If so, give me the scientific process that will get them there using random mutations only. The point I’m making is that you neither understood the question, nor did you give an answer. If you were honest you would simply answered truthfully and admitted that morality DOES NOT EXIST in the evolution worldview. You MUST borrow it from MY worldview (ie the Bible). But if God doesn’t exist (as you say) and consequently the Bible is wrong, then you are left without morality.

    Example 5:
    To my question “which came first, the immune system or the need for it?”
    You answered: “all the systems of which you refer provide a benefit for survival. That’s what natural selection does, it ensures that the life form is better adapted for its environment”.
    That is not the answer to my question! If I asked HOW did the immune system develop, you may argue that the response you gave is correct (although still not empirical science). But I asked, WHICH came first? (18 Feb and 26 Feb). An example of a reasonable answer would have been “immune system” or “the need for it”......and then proceeding to explain why? You did no such thing and thus gave an irrelevant answer.

    Example 6:
    To my question “How did life first start (using empirical science)?”
    You answered “I don’t think any scientist knows the answer to ‘abiogenesis’ fully....” (28 Feb).
    YES, you are right, but these are the very people you hold in high esteem that allegedly give you the confidence that evolution happened. Whilst on this occasion you actually DID answer the question, you didn’t recognise the logical fallacy in your response. The remainder of your sentence actually commits the fallacy of Straw-Man (this is when a person misrepresents the position of his opponent and then argues against this counterfeit position). It’s just not nice (if not deceitful).

    Using the same principle and logic, you dismissed EVERY question I gave you. Some more are actually listed below. I’m looking for an honest scientific debate. Admit it when you don’t know something and offer answers when you do (make sure you understand the question).

    Now, let me correct you on some of the comments you made:

    ########################################################
    “What I can’t understand though is, just assuming that you are right and evolution is a leap of faith just like your religion, how is it less convincing than your religion? In other words, what is it that make you jump in the religious camp rather than the evolution camp?”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firstly, this is a fight between two theories, one that is scientifically supported (Creation theory) and the other that IS NOT (evolution) - check out the section “Evidence AGAINST evolution” below. Secondly, I’m NOT asking my theory to be taught in science classrooms, but you ARE teaching it in science classrooms so I’m asking you to prove your theory using EMPERICAL SCIENTIFIC evidence!

    And now to answer your question, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in an Intelligent Designer as ID fits better with the known laws of physics (you’re educated, you should know what they are) and it fits with logical and rational thinking and does not conflict with an orderly universe etc.. Your camp is not “designed” for “intelligent” people! (don’t appeal to authority, just appeal to common sense)


    ########################################################
    “’If evolution were a scientific matter, it would have been resolved swiftly and amicably.’ **It has. There is no alternative theory worthy of mention.”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Whether a theory is plausible or not, is not dependent on whether you have an alternative theory worthy of mention. If evolution doesn’t fit, get rid of it and then look for another one with an open mind. I propose the Creation theory, but it’s your decision (of course, after you spend a good time investigating for yourself).


    ########################################################
    “Apart from committing the fallacy of Question-Begging Epithet (ie the use of strong emotional language rather than making a logical or scientific case), this comment suggests that you have either not read my replies or do not know how to respond to them.” **Or like I said before, your replies are utter deluded tosh.**”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is another Question-Begging Epithet on top of a previous one. You’re obvious going for the record here – lol. Are you aware that other educated people are reading your comments? I don’t think such responses are helping your case. If you disagree on something I said, please let me know exactly what they are and why. Perhaps you can make a good point for everyone to learn. With such responses you are simply confirming that evolution promotes bad behaviour and offers bad education. Unfortunately your “BSc and MSc certificates” will not be able to rescue you.


    ########################################################
    “Regarding the answers you provided, are you aware that none of them were scientific, just your personal opinions?’' **That’s because of those I did answer, apart from question a) and r), none were scientific but philosophical questions. I explained that I didn’t understand what you were getting at with questions h) through to p) (although I did give an outlined response after question p)). You don’t know anything about me but presumably you accuse my responses to be due to a, “lack of education (no insult intended).” Well there was much insult taken as I had to checked to see if my BSc and MSc certificates were genuine. And I thought it was me you had asked to play nicely?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I apologise for hurting your feelings this is unacceptable in my worldview, but please promise you pay attention to detail. Ask if you’re not sure before attempting to answer a question. I admit, some of these questions are not so easy but it’s less frustrating if you simply ask/confirm first.


    ########################################################
    “’The only scientific material you offered was the MENTION of some scientific fields (again common tactic) to support your theory which were easily disputed.’ **You have disputed nothing my friend.”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You must have missed it DaveGilbert. That could explain why you didn’t refute it :-). Please check my comments dated 19 Feb. I look forward to hearing your refutation.


    ########################################################
    “??’Can you please show me ONE passage in the Bible where it condones slavery! Why don’t you spend ANY time researching the claims you make?’ **Ok, Exodus 21:2-6. Then there is Exodus 21:7-1 and Exodus 21:20-21, is that enough or do you want more? Leviticus 25:44-46, oh and Ephesians 6:5, whilst not forgetting 1 Timothy 6:1-2 & Luke 12:47-48.”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I see the problem here. You are interpreting the act of NOT CONDEMNING slavery with CONDONING slavery. These are two different things. This point is worthy of an explanation to remove confusion, so sorry for the long response. If you don’t want to read it, then simply skip to the next item, but do so after noting that you are wrong about the Bible (but at least read the last paragraph).

    In the Old and New Testament days, people sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. Sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters. Funny enough because of the popularity of slavery in the Old & New Testament, the Bible focused its instructions on how slaves should be treated as noted by your references above (plus other verses such as Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Colossians 4:1 etc.).

    The slavery of the past few centuries was often based on skin colour and many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does CONDEMN race-based slavery. When the Hebrews where in Egypt, they were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt showed how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, whilst the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery, at the same time, it seems to ALLOW (but not CONDONE) for other forms. The slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries. In fact both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the “New World” to work on farms etc.. This practice is ABHORRENT to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16) which you conveniently failed to include in your references above. Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

    HAVING SAID ALL THAT, what I don’t understand is why would slavery be considered unacceptable in your worldview anyway? Don’t you believe in the survival of fittest? Wouldn’t a slave by definition be the weakest and the master the fittest? Isn’t that partly what is required in your worldview to advance? Now compare this with what Hitler did who was influenced by Charles Darwin’s book. He really did consider the Jews to be of inferior race, didn’t he? Did this come from his conviction in the Bible or was he convicted by Darwin’s idea of FAVOURITE RACES (this is where the FULL title of Darwin’s book comes in)? Would you say that people generally who follow the Bible have the urge to buy/own slaves? I suggest you get to know more about this subject by reading http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html (I know how much you like reading) before you make comments like: “Christians do like their slaves” (1st March) – or any other related comment for that matter. This is a prime example of how a Bible hater (usually an evolutionist who wants to steal morality from the Bible and then want to promptly discredit it) distort what the Bible says about this and many other subjects.


    ########################################################
    “’This is appealing to authority (logical fallacy) and to majority of opinion (another logical fallacy).’ ** I explained about appealing to authority and majority of opinion. Did you not read it or understand it?**”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yes I read it DaveGilbert. As I said, if you want to succeed in giving convincing arguments, you need to understand the question. What is apparently unclear to you is that I am OPPOSING your worldview using SCIENCE and you are defending it using MAJORITY of opinion or by APPEALING to Authority. This is a flawed argument. I’m asking you to defend your case using SCIENCE and NOTHING ELSE! NO majority of opinion, NO appealing to authority unless you are citing quotes, articles and references! Clear?

    What’s funny about your appeal to authority is that I cited about a dozen quotes by people you would consider to be in authority that contradict evolution (check out 18 & 19 Feb) and I can quote at least a dozen more but you still fail to accept. So your idea of appealing to authority doesn’t even work. I’ll give you a hint why you still hang on to evolution....religion/faith!


    ########################################################
    “’“Consequently you conclude that the theory must be true regardless of what SCIENCE says.’ **Er no. Science shows it is fact my boy.**??”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You apparently have “BSc and MSc certificates” so you must be clever. So let’s see if I can make my point clear again. Please provide indisputable EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove evolution along with scientific quotes, articles and references. Fair?


    ########################################################
    “’Despite the evidence AGAINST evolution, you choose to ignore it and live in denial. This is not education.’ **What evidence against evolution? First I’ve heard about it. “
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Where can I start? Ok......no transitional fossils (in fact if evolution is true, then we should have NO fossils at all, explained on 19 Feb), encoded intelligent information in DNA (even the decoding method is encoded), rational thinking, lack of beneficial mutation without fitness cost, lack of vestigial organs, irreducible complexity in the design of eyes, ears, hair, skin and the rest of each of our organs, complexity of cell, lack of evidence for organic evolution and not to mention ALL the questions you have not been able to answer with regards to what came first (and why) during the evolutionary process (plus so much more) etc.etc.. You are kidding me, right? What educational certificates have you got again? What do they teach our kids these days? Oh, ya...evolution! Hopeless!


    ########################################################
    “’??As explained previously (18 February, 2011), I will be adding this to my collection of debates to highlight and confirm how evolutionists have no scientific case to support their claim and continue to exercise logical fallacies as they use “Rescuing Devices” (look it up) to salvage their religion.’ **Wow. Will I be famous now????”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yes, but not for the right reasons.


    ########################################################
    “In the meantime DaveGilbert, thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter with me. It is my prayer that you will one day find the truth ie the God of the Bible (Jesus) who is the ONLY way, truth and life - John 14:6. There you go, I answered questions 2 and 3 for you.” **At last. Answers to my questions, allegedly. Let’s see. “2) Why do you believe in the christian god as opposed to Zeus, Mithras, Vishnu or any other?” **No. Not that one. How about the next one?** “3) Are you an atheist with regards to the other gods?” **No. Not that one either. Er, JohnHarris, you did’t answer 2 and 3. Would you like to try again?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DaveGilbert, why do you do this? Why do you make this so hard? Ok, I will have another go.

    Jesus said “I am the ONLY way, truth and life”.

    This answers the question “2) Why do you believe in the christian god as opposed to Zeus, Mithras, Vishnu or any other?” because Jesus said “I am the ONLY way, truth and life”. Did Zeus, Mithras, Vishnu, or anyone say that?

    This also answers the question “3) Are you an atheist with regards to the other gods?”. If Jesus said “I am the ONLY way, truth and life” there can be NO other gods, ONLY Jesus. If Jesus is right, all the rest are wrong. However, if Jesus is wrong, then ANY or ALL the rest could be right. Simple process of deduction.

    Surely this was obvious in my comment. You have “BSc and MSc certificates”, please don’t make it too difficult for me, it only frustrates when I have to spell out everything! However, if you simply want me to repeat an explanation just to clarify, I’ll be happy to do so.


    ########################################################
    “’“As you have repeatedly demonstrated, apart from the Bible and the principles in it, we can’t even tell right from wrong. Oh, that answered question 5.’ **Did it? are you sure? I don’t think so you little tinker. I asked, in your world view, does God decide your moral rules or do you. C’mon. Have another try.**”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ok DaveGilbert, I’ll have another try, but it shouldn’t have had to be necessary! Question 5 was “Are your actions moral because you decide or because God decides?”. The answer I gave was “apart from the Bible and the principles in it, we can’t even tell right from wrong”. Therefore, because RIGHT/WRONG can ONLY come from God, MORALITY comes from GOD. I don’t decide the rules, God does. Why was that no clear to you? If you want an explanation, try to remain neutral. There is a hint of sarcasm in your statement! Not necessary at this stage!


    ########################################################
    ““I also pray that you will one day come to the realisation that through repentance of sin (ie our wrong doings) and the acceptance of Jesus as your saviour and substitute for the penalty of sin, you will receive eternal life in Heaven. Oops, I now also answered question 9 :-)’ ......that did not answer question 9 you silly billy.**”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lol – ok, DaveGilbert, I’ll try again, but it’s really not all the difficult.

    Your question was: “Who, in your world is more deserving of heaven, one who believes in Jesus with all their heart and soul but does immoral acts, or an atheist who lives a highly moral life...?”

    The answer I gave: “through repentance of sin (ie our wrong doings) and the acceptance of Jesus as your saviour and substitute for the penalty of sin, you will receive eternal life in Heaven”.

    Explanation: Firstly, no one is “deserving” of heaven AND you cannot go into heaven by being a good person. You need to have the consequence/penalty of sin paid for. That’s why I said through the “acceptance of Jesus as your saviour and substitute for the penalty of sin”. You can’t just live a highly moral life and expect your sins to be ignored. It’s rather like saying a murderer should be acquitted if he/she does some kind of good deed. That’s why, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an atheist (ie unbeliever) to go into heaven by living a highly moral life - unless you repent (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/repent) and accept Jesus. Regarding a believer who does "immoral acts", well....that’s not a believer. So a believer is someone who repents of sin and accepts Jesus as their saviour and leads a life according to the Bible (but it’s not the act of leading-a-good-life that grants them a place in heaven).

    I guess that did need a little more explaining than the short statement I gave (although my short statement did cover the general idea)

    DaveGilbert, is it worth risking everything you have and everything you are for a lie? It’s your choice, your destiny, your life. It does not affect me. But I rather see you in heaven one day.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:02
    5 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. I can’t imagine why you thought we were done, I thought we were just starting. But thanks for getting back anyway. I am sorry it has taken a few days for me to respond but I have been rather busy.

    I am not sure why you think I have misunderstood your questions. Probably my answers to you have not been in the form you are used to. Surely that’s a good thing. I think you are confused as to what evolution is and that it can explain more than it actually can. It is no good asking how evolution can explain morality or trust or biogenesis. It can’t. Not because it is weak or found wanting but because they are the wrong kind of questions. It’s like me asking you how does Genesis explain Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting an American flag on the Moon. Yes, I am sure you can come up with explanations towards motivations, patriotism and predispositions for why humans are inquisitive and feel the need for adventure, but I am sure you will agree, it’s the wrong question. Same with evolution. So that’s why I answered some of your questions with philosophy, because they weren’t science questions or at least, science isn’t at the stage yet where it could be used to answer them. However, come back to me in a year’s time and, who knows. Okay, let’s have a look at some of you’re replies;

    Yes, I am serious about it and I am glad I make you laugh but, evolution is science. Live with it and stop trying to muddy the waters with lazy lies. You might as well accept evolution and work it around your world view of creation. Until you do, I am not going to be able to offer you anything you will accept because you have already made up your mind and nothing else will do. I am not going to convince you so why bother? Yes, I am aware of the evidence for evolution and I am happy it is relevant and reliable. You are partly right, you can’t see much evolution in real time (except with bacteria, viruses and such like). But you can see it over tens of years, the peppered moth and Darwin’s finches are good examples that you will no doubt attempt to refute, but the majority of the big stuff takes millions of years. The evidence fits with making predictions about what and where we should find stuff and logical deduction.
    However, if you were serious about reading up on articles you could visit the PubMed website (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed). I just searched for ‘evolution’ and it returned with 284,917 hits. Admittedly, evolution is a general term and used in different contexts but, nonetheless. I then limited the search to 30 days and I got 1,197 hits. Pretty impressive. But this site only includes subjects such as medicine, zoology, biochemistry etc. Other research fields rich with evolution such as botany, palaeontology, or geology have to be sought elsewhere.
    There is an incredible amount of evidence for evolution JohnHarris if only you were open minded enough to source it. It is a subject that is growing all the time. The papers found on the PubMed site wouldn’t get published if they didn’t contain something new to the field. Like your mythical Noah’s Ark, it has weathered the storms admirably. I really do think you are a little bit delusional if you think the wealth of knowledge is a hugh conspiracy on a par with other nonsense such as the fake moon landings and government coverups in alien contact.
    However, you are right that we should not automatically and blindly accept the authority of the stake holders (that’s what the religious do). That is why science is an open and transparent process where people such as yourself and I can access the data and make up our own minds. If you are unable to interpret the dense scientific speak then there are trustworthy writers that have spent the time and effort to translate it for us. Whether it be David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins or Francis Collins. Nonetheless, I submit that perhaps your bigotry has got in the way of this process and that is why you are so unwilling to accept of it all. A good introduction to evolution can be found at the UC Berkley website where you will find a good tutorial (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/). Moreover, the Tree of Life project (http://tolweb.org/tree/) has a fantastic overview of the diversity of life on Earth.
    If you are so untrusting of other people’s take on evolution, why do you insist on me providing you with the evidence? That’s why I thought it best to point you to some of what and just how much evidence is out there so you can weigh it up for yourself, if you really want to, which I doubt very much. Instead you would rather stick your fingers in your ears shouting La la la la la la la la la........!

    With regards to your ‘Example 4’, I didn’t dismiss the question, the question you asked is one of philosophy not evolution. For it to be a question for evolution you need to ask how has the propensity for certain traits that we see as morality evolved. I would redirect you to my former answer about the ‘Golden Rule’. surely there is a survival advantage in living in an environment where each individual cooperates and trusts one another. We just give it a collective name, morality. I think even you can work that one our, but you say, no. Your god gave you those attributes. You said in your last post that, “I don’t decide the rules, God does.” Okay, so you kill folk that work on a Sunday right? That’s what your God commands you to do, am I right or have I misread Exodus 31:12-15? And while we are at it, aren’t you supposed to kill those who don’t listen to priests? (Deuteronomy 17:12), those who suspected of being witches? (Exodus 22:17), homosexuals? (Leviticus 20:27), fortunetellers? (Leviticus 20:13), those who hit their parents? (leviticus 20:9 and Proverbs 20:20), those who commit adultery? (Leviticus 20:10), who fornicate? (Leviticus 21:9) who follow other religions? (Exodus 22:19) and you are supposed to kill me and my comrades who do not believe, no? (2Chronicles 15:12-13) and false prophets (Zechariah 13:3). How about you having to commit genocide if a town worships another god (Deuteronomy 13:13-19) or killing a woman virgin on her wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), or killing someone who blasphemes (a victimless crime by the way) (Leviticus 24:10-16). I take it that because you are not serving at Her Majesty’s pleasure that you have done none of these things despite your God commanding you to do so. Why? Because you have that innate sense of morality that compels you not to. Doesn’t the myth of Sodom and Gomorra speak about Abraham questioning god’s morality because he wanted to kill everyone there but Abraham said no because it would be wrong? There may after all be some moral people who are innocent.
    Be proud of the fact that your morality comes from you and is fashioned by your evolution and those you meet and have relationships with. It’s a simple as that, no god required. Who cares about philosophy? Those of us who look at nature in a logical and rational manner and you yourself for asking the questions. Oh and leave the dolphins alone. They do okay with out our interference.
    You said, “Admit it when you don’t know something and offer answers when you do (make sure you understand the question).” I live by the mantle of seeking not to know all the answers but to understand the questions. It is the religious that profess to have all the answers.
    You then said, “Now, let me correct you on some of the comments you made:” Isn’t that a tad arrogant? My comments are mine and mine alone. They are for me to correct not you.?Where is you scientific evidence for creation that you assert? How does ID fit better with physics than evolution and why do you need to be a reductionist about it? ID is not logical because the existence of a god is not logical.
    You said, “You are interpreting the act of NOT CONDEMNING slavery with CONDONING slavery.” No, I am say that you book and every other religious documents give the reader the justification to keep slaves, go to war, inflict suffering etc. Your interpretation of what those passages I quoted say may be the case (although I doubt) but what I am arguing is that your book allowed slavery to continue until very recently when the moral zeitgeist changed and, because of abolitionist like Lincoln, Wilberforce and Darwin (Did I mention Darwin was and abolitionist?) who pressured governments and fought a war to force the religious conservatives to give us their slaves. “The Bible most definitely does CONDEMN race-based slavery.” Reference please.

    “HAVING SAID ALL THAT, what I don’t understand is why would slavery be considered unacceptable in your worldview anyway?” Oh my word. After all that has been said.

    “Don’t you believe in the survival of fittest? Wouldn’t a slave by definition be the weakest and the master the fittest?” Yep. Totally agree. Some of the findings of evolution are horrible and and this is definitely one of them. But we know that and so we don’t keep slaves (Well, I don’t any way). Just because we may not like certain things about evolution doesn’t make it untrue. Moreover, because we are moral animals (I bet a word you don’t like to be associated with) we can fight out evolved impulses and be good people for the sake of goodness itself. Was Hitler influenced by Hitler? Probably, so what? As Steven Weinberg said, “Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion.” Hitler was a bad person so he did bad things and looked for justification to do it whether it was ‘Origin of Species’ or the Bible (Gott mit unds).
    “Darwin’s idea of FAVOURITE RACES (this is where the FULL title of Darwin’s book comes in)?” No it doesn’t. I’ve already explained that, ‘tut’. BTW like christianity, the ‘Christian Think Tank’ link didn’t work for me. I still hold with the view that christians do like their slaves. Just read your history of the American South.
    “This is a prime example of how a Bible hater (usually an evolutionist who wants to steal morality from the Bible and then want to promptly discredit it) distort what the Bible says about this and many other subjects.” It is unfair of you to say I hate the bible. Hate is a horrible state of mind. After all, as Ben Kenobi (another religious mythological character) said, “hate leads to the dark side”. How can one actually hate a work of fiction? Some of it is quite poetic and lyrical with a few nice stories. I can’t say I hate it. But isn’t hate a religious concept like evil? How have I distorted what has been written in the bible? I have just read it and referenced relevant bits. How is that a distortion?
    Who have you quoted me that I would regard as an authority, Behe? Dempskey? Stein? Please have a word with yourself.?
    “You apparently have “BSc and MSc certificates” so you must be clever. So let’s see if I can make my point clear again. Please provide indisputable EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove evolution along with scientific quotes, articles and references. Fair?”?It would be much fairer if you looked it up for yourself. ?
    “Where can I start? Ok......no transitional fossils (in fact if evolution is true, then we should have NO fossils at all, explained on 19 Feb),” No transitional fossils. You are joking, right? Goggle it please!!! Archaeopteryx, Pikaia, Tiktaalik, Pakicetus, Equus, Australopithecus etc etc.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). You are either deliberately lying or clearly silly not to have done your homework. Why would we have no fossils given evolution?
    “encoded intelligent information in DNA (even the decoding method is encoded),” What does that even mean and why is it important?
    “rational thinking” WTF!!!!,

    “lack of beneficial mutation without fitness cost,” So antibiotics aren’t beneficial? I suppose you don’t go to the doctors then. You just pray. Or are you (dare I say it), a hypocrite per chance?

    “lack of vestigial organs”, in the human animal body (I hope that wound you up) alone we can see evidence of evolution and non-intelligent design. Who would get planning permission to build a pleasure park right next to a sewage works? The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, oh yes, the coccyx is the remnant of a tailbone, goose bumps are a throw back to when we were able to trap a layer of warm air close to the skin and to make look bigger and more scary. We have atavisms also that are strange evolutionary throwbacks. I have mentioned the Lanugo all of which you have dismissed but I maintain are what they are. Why would an intelligent designer make the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve does what it does? It is a branch of the vagus nerve that supplies motor function to the larynx. However, in order to do so, it goes from the neck to the larynx (a distance of only a few centimetres) via arch of the aorta above the heart. In Giraffes, this length can be up to fifteen feet further than the direct route. Mmm that makes sense.

    I got bored with the rest find out for yourself. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg in the carboniferous period by about a couple hundred million years.

    You said, “ “I am the ONLY way, truth and life”. Did Zeus, Mithras, Vishnu, or anyone say that?”. I doubt it because I don’t think they existed anymore than your god. There is certainly no evidence for any of them. Oh. I see now. Just because Jesus (who may or may not have lived) said it, it must be true, right? Might he have told a few lies about himself or been deluded or suffered some neurological defect? Beyond your book, how do you know he was a god?

    You said, “The answer I gave: “through repentance of sin (ie our wrong doings) and the acceptance of Jesus as your saviour and substitute for the penalty of sin, you will receive eternal life in Heaven”. So. You are only good in life because you want to go to heaven right? Isn’t that a bit selfish. Surely an atheist who does good for goodness sake alone is by far a more moral person than you JohnHarris, no?

    You said, “DaveGilbert, is it worth risking everything you have and everything you are for a lie? It’s your choice, your destiny, your life. It does not affect me. But I rather see you in heaven one day.”
    I don’t think I would want to go to heaven even if there were one. All those hypocrites and bigots and all that praising and grovelling, sounds like hell to me.

    I hope (rather than pray) that it will be you that will see the real truth of the universe. That it is not here for your edification. It may not set you free but at least you will be able to look in the mirror and see an honest man.

    Best of luck and have a go at my questions you have avoided.????

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:46
    7 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Dear DaveGilbert, thank you for responding. Your efforts are appreciated.

    I thought we are done because you haven’t offered any evidence for this alleged scientific fact. Not sure how long I can keep up this discussion without any evidence other than your persistent that evolution is a fact. My request for proof still stands. If you can’t prove it, then it’s not science. Stop teaching it in schools and brainwash our kids with lies. Having said that, do feel free to teach it in an RE class.

    My friend DaveGilbert, I admire your persistence. Apparently nothing shakes you from this anti-science belief. Not even science!

    ########################################################
    “You are partly right, you can’t see much evolution in real time (except with bacteria, viruses and such like)”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
    You can’t see much evolution ANYWHERE, including bacteria and viruses. You must be referring to known random mutations in bacteria and viruses as a result of faults (not improvements) to the DNA sequence.


    ########################################################
    “But you can see it over tens of years, the peppered moth and Darwin’s finches are good examples that you will no doubt attempt to refute, but the majority of the big stuff takes millions of years. The evidence fits with making predictions about what and where we should find stuff and logical deduction.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No you cannot see evolution in tens of years in peppered moth! Surely you must know the controversy about this whole story anyway. Nevertheless, the peppered moth is a perfectly good example of a variation-within-a-kind that the Bible so clearly talks about. On the other hand finches are just a perfect example of the SERIOUS lack of education in our schools. Why would you even bring that up? Not only is it a good example of a variation-within-a-kind, the finches’ beak oscillate depending on climate changes. Why didn’t you know that already? What do they teach our kids today? Oh, yes....evolution...hopeless! I really dislike this dumb theory. It teaches our kids to be dumb!


    ########################################################
    “However, if you were serious about reading up on articles you could visit the PubMed website (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed)”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I checked the above link. I found NOTHING that supports the theory of evolution. NOT EVEN ONE! In fact, I couldn’t even find ONE article that explained WHY we should believe in evolution. So what is the point of this link? I’m already aware that the humanistic religion has already taken-over our society and education system. Your attempt to give me this link is no different than me giving you a link to a Biblical website making references to God as the creator without any evidence. I’m asking you to provide EVIDENCE. Where is the EVIDENCE?


    ########################################################
    “There is an incredible amount of evidence for evolution JohnHarris if only you were open minded enough to source it. It is a subject that is growing all the time”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is no different than me saying, “There is an incredible amount of evidence for CREATION DaveGilbert if only you were open minded enough to source it”. Can you see the fallacy in this argument? I’m asking for evidence! An open mind asks for evidence. However, a brainwashed person will accept what is said! Are you just accepting what is said?


    ########################################################
    “A good introduction to evolution can be found at the UC Berkley website where you will find a good tutorial (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/). Moreover, the Tree of Life project (http://tolweb.org/tree/) has a fantastic overview of the diversity of life on Earth”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DavidGilbert, I must be making no sense to you. I’m not looking for an explanation. I know EXACTLY what evolution is and how it’s supposed to work. I am asking you to provide proof for your belief. If I told you that the Earth is resting on a turtle and insisted on it and then I teach it in science classrooms, then eventually at some point someone is going to ask me to prove it. So I am asking you to prove your evolution story!!! You can repeat the story as often as you like, BUT NOW IS THE TIME TO BRING EVIDENCE or dump it!


    ########################################################
    “With regards to your ‘Example 4’, I didn’t dismiss the question, the question you asked is one of philosophy not evolution. For it to be a question for evolution you need to ask how has the propensity for certain traits that we see as morality evolved. I would redirect you to my former answer about the ‘Golden Rule’.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
    You cannot use the “Golden Rule”. This is a Biblical principle. If the Bible is wrong, then so is the rule. Therefore, If evolution is true, then the “Golden Rule” is false! You cannot stand on MY worldview, and then defend your worldview. Decide which camp you belong to and stay there, stop trespassing!


    ########################################################
    General Biblical Statement
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The statements you have made about the Bible is laughable and suggests a strong lack of understanding in history, biblical culture and of course God. You obviously have no understanding of the biblical laws which were intended for Civil, Criminal and Social purposes. Many of these laws are now superseded by the New Testament and the New Covenant. I am happy to discuss the theological meanings and the principles of the Bible, but REMEMBER I DON’T teach this in SCIENCE classrooms, but you DO!


    ########################################################
    “I live by the mantle of seeking not to know all the answers but to understand the questions. It is the religious that profess to have all the answers.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You have committed the straw-man fallacy. You are misrepresenting your opponent’s position and then proceed to attack it. Religious people do not profess to have all the answers. Also, please note that it is you who is insisting that evolution is science without showing any evidence whilst conceding that you have NO answers.


    ########################################################
    “You then said, ‘Now, let me correct you on some of the comments you made:’ Isn’t that a tad arrogant? My comments are mine and mine alone.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You are offended by arrogance? But it made me feel good! Lol - According to your post dated 28th February it is apparently ok to do something if it “makes me feel good” :-). Beside DaveGilbert, is it not a tad arrogant to insist that your theory is a SCIENTIFIC FACT when you cannot produce ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?

    By the way ,your response was totally acceptable from an evolutionary prospective. I expect more of that. You see if evolution is true then everyone is right no matter WHAT they believe in. That means a statement you make by definition cannot be wrong, therefore, YES your comments are yours and yours alone. In my worldview, you are responsible for making comments which can be judged as RIGHT or WRONG.


    ########################################################
    “ID is not logical because the existence of a god is not logical.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So you are saying Intelligent Design is NOT logical because it leads to a Designer? Is THAT logical? Is THAT how we know God doesn’t exist? Lol.


    ########################################################
    “It is unfair of you to say I hate the bible. Hate is a horrible state of mind. After all, as Ben Kenobi (another religious mythological character) said, “hate leads to the dark side”. How can one actually hate a work of fiction? Some of it is quite poetic and lyrical with a few nice stories. I can’t say I hate it. But isn’t hate a religious concept like evil?”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “Hate is a horrible state of mind”? How do you know that? In evolutionary terms, hate is nothing but a chemical reaction that happened by accident. Maybe hate is a good thing!

    “Hate leads to the dark side”? What is the dark side in the evolutionary worldview? Neither dark side nor bright side means anything in evolutionary terms. What is your point?

    The Bible is the “work of fiction” and that’s why you can’t hate it? Why, isn’t it possible to hate fiction? By the way, how do you know that the Bible is fiction? Please remember you believe in evolution without proof!

    Let me tell what is horrible my friend DaveGilbert: lying to children with deceitful stories about evolution and how life first started from a ROCK!


    ########################################################
    “’You apparently have “BSc and MSc certificates” so you must be clever. So let’s see if I can make my point clear again. Please provide indisputable EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to prove evolution along with scientific quotes, articles and references. Fair?’ ?It would be much fairer if you looked it up for yourself. ?”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fairer to whom? Do you want me to defend YOUR case? My whole argument is that you CANNOT defend your OWN claims.


    ########################################################
    “No transitional fossils. You are joking, right? Goggle it please!!! Archaeopteryx, Pikaia, Tiktaalik, Pakicetus, Equus, Australopithecus etc etc. “
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am not very happy that you keep offering bad evidence. At some point you will have to start getting serious with the material you bring:

    Archaeopteryx
    --------------------
    It’s just a bird DaveGilbert. Archaeopteryx is not a transitional fossil! Please tell me you are aware of the fake ones that evolutionists deceitfully submitted.

    “It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings,
    feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula.”(Duane Gish,
    Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p.112.)

    “This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed the codont
    ancestry nor of its relation to later ‘proper’ birds than before.” (A.S. Romer, Notes and Comments on
    Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.)

    “The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which
    the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” (W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), p. 1.)


    Pikaia
    --------
    Not, not only is this NOT a transitional fossil, it in fact proves the creation theory “The specimens may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of storm induced burial.” (Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S. and Zhang, X.-L., A Pikaia-like chordate from the Lower Cambrian of China, ref. 6 p.527, 1996)

    http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_10-11.pdf
    http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1833


    Tiktaalik
    -----------
    Just a fish DaveGilbert

    http://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footprints-trample-tiktaalik


    Pakicetus
    ------------
    This is NOT a transitional fossil DaveGilbert

    You refer to the dog-like creature that was discovered in 1983 by Philip Gingerich? It is often portrayed as a primitive whale, swimming in water and hunting schools of fish. This is despite the fact that only a fragment of the skull and a few teeth were discovered. Such a reconstruction of an animal known only from a piece of the skull and a few teeth should hardly be taken seriously. (Harun Yahya, “A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic,” 2001, http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp.)

    “J.G.M. Thewissen discovered a more complete fossil of pakicetus and the discovery looked nothing like the reconstructions of the pakicetus that swims in water and hunts schools of fish”. (Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Vol. 27 No. 2, “Not at all like a whale,” p. 21, 2005.)

    Instead, the evidence revealed that pakicetus was a creature similar to a dog and spent its time on land. The animal was not in any way a primitive whale. Unfortunately, it’s still not uncommon to see pakicetus depicted in a swimming position, obviously trying to give the impression that it is a creature turning into a whale.

    http://creation.com/not-at-all-like-a-whale
    http://creation.com/response-to-pbs-nova-evolution-series-episode-2-great-transformations


    Equus
    ---------
    No DaveGilbert, this is not a transitional fossil. This transitional fossil NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE.

    A leading 20thcentury evolutionist writer, George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series: “The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations
    of textbook writers, never happened in nature.” (G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.)

    Earlier, Simpson said this: “Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations.” (George G. Simpson, “The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals” in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350).

    The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, Simpson then admits: “This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals. . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.” (G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944),p. 105)

    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
    http://creation.com/resurrecting-a-prehistoric-horse
    http://creationwiki.org/Perissodactyls_(Talk.Origins)


    Australopithecus
    -------------------------
    Australopithecus” (“southern ape”) is the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa. After examining the bones, anthropologists solemnly announced that they came from an ancient race of pre-people who lived from 1 to 4 million years ago. These bones have been found at various African sites, including Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Koobi Fora, Olduvai, Hadar, and Orno River. The Australopithecines, like modern apes, had a wide range of varieties. BUT THEY ARE ALL APES. One of the most famous was named “Lucy”. Some experts believe that these apes, the Australopithecines, descended from another ape, the “Ramapithecines” (“Ramapithecus” is the singular for this word), which is supposed to have lived 12 million years ago.

    “No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis].” (W.
    Mehlert, “The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June
    1980, p. 25).

    Perhaps the most interesting part of Australopithecus is what happened in December 2009. “Scientists” discovered that Australopithecus/Ardipithecus is not our ancestor after all and they apologised for making that claim in the past. Well...they didn’t exactly apologise (although they should have), they just acknowledged the mistake (Science 18 December 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5960, p. 1598 DOI: 10.1126/science.326.5960.1598-b). Here is a video clip of the same article http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1598-b. The acknowledgement of their mistake can be found in location 04:21 to 04:38 of this video clip. Of course they still believe that humans have evolved. That part of their sacred belief and will sadly never go away regardless of the evidence!

    THESE ARE BAD EXAMPLES DAVEGILBERT.

    Perhaps the funnies part of fossil records is that IT CAN NEVER BE USED to prove evolution. Think about it! If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know about it is that it died! You don’t even know where it died. It could have died somewhere else and got buried there. You don’t know if it had ANY children. And if it had children, why would it have DIFFERENT children and do something that animals cannot do TODAY? Besides, how would we be sure that they children even survived etc?

    Give it up, it’s just a lie.


    ########################################################
    “encoded intelligent information in DNA (even the decoding method is encoded),” What does that even mean and why is it important? “rational thinking” WTF!!!!,
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The decoding of the DNA is encoded within the DNA itself. A chicken & egg situation. It’s like having a DVD and the instructions on how to read it is encoded inside the DVD itself. So you need to read the DVD to know how to build the reader to read the DVD. So even if you are not fascinated by the fact that DNA is full of intelligent information (requiring an information giver), the decoding of DNA should blow your mind. If that doesn’t do anything for you, then are you aware that all the editor and sub-editor enzymes that copy the Messenger RNA they themselves are created by that copy. Therefore, you cannot account for their existence in the evolutionary sense. This is another chicken and egg situation. Dr F. Crick refers to them as the frozen miracles (Evidence for Truth, Volume 1, Dr E. K. Victor Pearce, p. 100).

    As for “Rational Thinking” how can you even account for it in a universe that was created by accident and random chance? That in itself is NOT rational. A materialistic atheist does not believe in anything beyond the physical universe. In this view, all that exists is matter in motion. But of course laws of logic has nothing to do with matter; they are not part of the physical universe (ie cannot be touched or seen). Therefore, laws of logic cannot exist if materialism is true! Not only is the materialistic atheist unable to account for the existence of laws of logic, but they are actually contrary to his worldview. His worldview is necessarily irrational. If the universe and our minds are simply results of time and chance as you say, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. There is so much more to say about this but we’ll leave it there for now.


    ########################################################
    “lack of beneficial mutation without fitness cost,” So antibiotics aren’t beneficial? I suppose you don’t go to the doctors then. You just pray. Or are you (dare I say it), a hypocrite per chance?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sorry DaveGilbert. I’m not following your point. What does going to the doctor vs. praying have anything to do with mutation? Also you suggesting the antibiotics came as a result of beneficial mutation? Surely you must mean bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics? If so, are you suggesting that it occurred without fitness cost? Lol. Please feel free to revisit this subject when you have read and developed a reasonably advanced understanding of molecular biology. There are NO beneficial (or favourable) mutations without fitness cost to the organism itself. If you find one, let me know :-)


    ########################################################
    Vestigial Organs
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I’m surprised, you brought that up again. There are no vestigial organs! Even if there were such organs; that would only prove that we are LOSING some organs, not GAINING them. Can I ask you to offer me ONE organ that we are gaining please? At least this way we are evolving in the right direction. Losing organs is surely not the way we gained everything!

    What is really most humorous is that apparently the coccyx is the remnant of a tailbone. Are you aware that not even evolutionists believe in this silly claim? According to the British Natural History Museum (which should be renamed to “Evolution Are Us Museum” or better still “We Like to Brainwash our kids Museum”), we allegedly evolved from an ape like creature that could NOT have had a tail anyway. You see, according to them, by definition an Ape like creatures cannot have a tale (I have the picture of their poster that confirms this if you like a copy). So we either evolved from an Ape-like-creature and NEVER had a tale (therefore your claim is false!), or we just NEVER evolved and NEVER had a tale (therefore, your claim is still false).

    Enough of this vestigial non-sense! There is an easy way to settle this SCIENTIFICALLY. I am seeing a surgeon on Wednesday 09/03/2011 due to a minor operation in a private hospital. I am genuinely going to ask him about the cost of removing ALL the organs that evolutionists claim to be vestigial. Regardless of the cost, I am happy to pay for the removal of ALL these organs from YOUR BODY which will serve as the ultimate proof of evolution. No IFs, No BUTs! Please confirm that you are happy to proceed with this. As you see, this is now in PUBLIC and in WRITING. I will get the price for the removal of: the appendix, tonsils, nipples, adenoids, plica semilunaris, parathyroid glands, nodes on ears, ear muscles, body hair and pineal gland (or have evolutionists changed their minds about this now? lol). It will be expensive, but it will be worth seeing how much you have faith in this dumb theory! I am not joking by the way!

    I think every evolutionist should be willing to go through this kind of operation to show their dedication in this “scientific” theory!


    ########################################################
    Criticism of Intelligent Design!
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your criticism for a lack of designer based on the current design is interesting! How would you actually know whether the human design (or the Giraffe for that matter) is good or bad? Have you designed one yet? Was it so much better? This is rather like criticising the Ford Company for the design of their cars without having the qualification (or ability) to design a car yourself. Try it one day, see what happens! I’m sure they’ll be impressed. Worse still, go ahead and make a PUBLIC announcement claiming that ALL Ford cars are not designed by anyone because you don’t approve of the design. Is that logic? Is that how your school taught you to think? Is that what you call rational thinking? Is that what you call being a critical thinker? Are we breading a generation of dumb graduates? Is it with this logic that you were criticising this new school? All of this would be funny if it weren’t true!

    Ok, let’s see if this makes sense. You offered the Lanugo hair as your evidence for evolution. I explained the functionality and purpose of the hair. Yet you rejected it without consideration because it didn’t fit your worldview (not because it was scientifically inaccurate). You are unable to oppose my explanation so you dismiss it by saying “I maintain [they] are what they are”. I don’t blame you for your behaviour, but I do blame your school and teachers. They should go and get another job and earn a living doing an HONEST day’s work! I know this sounds like an insult but I promise you it is not! I’m just surprised at the level of education in today’s graduates and therefore, it’s time we have real teachers!

    Regarding “Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve”. It’s been refuted here http://creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve and here http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/. It’s all down to real education. I’m sure you will ignore this as you did my previous links. That’s because you don’t really want to know! It’s a religion. Give it up!


    ########################################################
    “I hope (rather than pray) that it will be you that will see the real truth of the universe. That it is not here for your edification. It may not set you free but at least you will be able to look in the mirror and see an honest man.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I’m a little confused. Why would the universe have any truth or the concept of honesty in it? If you are right and it’s only there as a result of one big accident, then why would an accident have the concept of truth or honesty? In fact, who is to say that the truth/honesty would be the right thing? Maybe a lie/deceit is better? In your worldview, WHY does that matter and why are you FORCING it on me? Mmmm....double standard behaviour which is predictable if evolution is true!


    ########################################################


    Finally, why won’t you even entertain the idea that evolution may not be the only possible answer? You are simply excluding any and every other possibility for no good reason (indeed for bad reasons). What is the possibility that evolution may be wrong? Even if you think it’s 99% certain, there is still 1% doubt! So why then continue to indoctrinate ALL our kids to believe in evolution (as you have been) as a FACT? How will we ever find (or want to explore) another answer with this kind of mentality?

    Are you sure it’s me who is being close-minded?

    By the way, I can't keep this debate going indefinitely. It's pointless! You either have proof or not!

    Have a good day

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:53
    8 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris, thanks for getting back so promptly. I am very impressed as I am with some of your replies. I think you have finally convinced me and, like you I am appreciative.
    I think it is you who is without knowledge of the scientific method even though you call yourself a Creation Scientist (an oxymoron if ever there was) http://www.creationscience.co.uk/.

    “Not sure how long I can keep up this discussion without any evidence other than your persistent that evolution is a fact. My request for proof still stands. If you can’t prove it, then it’s not science.” No sir, science is not about proof. Unless we are speaking of mathematical proof, neither you nor I can prove anything scientifically. Having seen only white swans, I cannot prove there are no black swans because I may come across one one day. Likewise, I cannot prove evolution because you maybe right and offer some evidence that will refute it. But, as I have said, in over one hundred and fifty years that has not happened unless, as you claim it is all one big conspiracy and the scientific community has a monopoly on truth. That is what you claim, right?
    Moreover, it is you that has set up a straw-man argument. Despite my honest replies to your answers, you are putting your own spin on what evolution actually is. I have explained that there is much it can’t answer and that it is several simple mechanisms of change over time. No, I can’t provide the evidence you demand because, as you well know, I can’t go back in time and see it happening. You may not be there at the scene of a murder but because of the weight of the evidence, you will still be able to convict the culpret. I did explain that you can see evolution occurring at the microbial level in real time and those with AIDs are grateful for it as it has made great advances in assisting with their medication.
    With regards to PubMed, I can’t understand why you couldn’t find any articles on the evidence for evolution. I did and I found plenty. Perhaps you are telling porkies me thinks. I won’t tell your god if you don’t tell.
    Evolution is science because it makes generalisations about how all life on earth has turned out to be as it has. It is liable to be falsified, tested by observation and experiment and makes predictions. I have covered the bit about falsifiability. If you claim you have evidence that falsifies the claims it makes then get it published in an scientific journal, you will then create a Kuhnian paradigm shift and I will applaud you when you go up to accept your Nobel prize. If you can’t then please stop pretending that you can.
    It is tested by observation and experiment. Biologists continually see change in the frequency of genes in the population of organisms over time. Mutations have been observed. Some have been beneficial some non-beneficial whilst the vast majority have had neutral or no effects.

    Perhaps you need to revisit your definition of what you think evolution is and see if it conflicts with the one proposed by Douglas J. Futuyma, "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

    Unfortunately, many definitions outside the scientific arena vary widely from what biologists and evolutionists mean when they talk about evolution. It is pretty much the same with a definition of god. What you mean when you talk of god may be vastly different to what I am talking about. Perhaps you would like to tell me what your working definition of evolution is to see if we can agree on some common ground.

    I am shaken by science yes. By its beauty majesty and sheer poetry. Oh dear. I may sound religious now and you may accuse me of being a Deist like Spinoza and Einstein. No, I am not a deist.

    “Nevertheless, the peppered moth is a perfectly good example of a variation-within-a-kind that the Bible so clearly talks about.” Variation within a kind. Mmmm...evolution? Look again at Futuyma’s definition. The bible talks about the peppered moth. Where. Reference please. Or does it talk about evolution? Then why do you fight against your holy book?

    “On the other hand finches are just a perfect example of the SERIOUS lack of education in our schools. Why would you even bring that up? Not only is it a good example of a variation-within-a-kind, the finches’ beak oscillate depending on climate changes. Why didn’t you know that already?” You are doing my work for me here. Thanks mate.

    “Oh, yes....evolution...hopeless! I really dislike this dumb theory. It teaches our kids to be dumb!” It has dawned on me that you don’t have the slightest idea what evolution is, do you? Your definition then, please!!!

    “I checked the above link. I found NOTHING that supports the theory of evolution. NOT EVEN ONE!” Well it might not support your definition of evolution but there are plenty that support mine.

    “This is no different than me saying, “There is an incredible amount of evidence for CREATION DaveGilbert if only you were open minded enough to source it”.” Okay, hit me.

    “I’m asking for evidence! An open mind asks for evidence. However, a brainwashed person will accept what is said! Are you just accepting what is said?” Yes, because it fits like a hand in a glove, like a key in a lock.

    “DavidGilbert, I must be making no sense to you. I’m not looking for an explanation. I know EXACTLY what evolution is and how it’s supposed to work.” Be honest JohnHarris, you don’t really, do you?
    ?“You cannot use the “Golden Rule”. This is a Biblical principle.” No it isn’t. Look at my previous post. Ethics of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" can be traced back to Buddhism, Baha'i Faith, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism and Taoism. The Christian version of the Golden rule may very well be the oldest but others claim it as there’s also because it is just plain common sense.

    “If the Bible is wrong, then so is the rule. Therefore, If evolution is true, then the “Golden Rule” is false!” How so?

    “Decide which camp you belong to and stay there, stop trespassing!” I have and stop making out your religion is the only one that is true. They have all claimed this at some time, every one. I will ask you again (and keep asking you) why is yours so special and what evidence do you have to support your claim. I have been the only one reciprocating. You have done nothing to convince me you have the slightest chance at a valid argument. Play fair, quid pro quo.

    “The statements you have made about the Bible is laughable and suggests a strong lack of understanding in history, biblical culture and of course God. You obviously have no understanding of the biblical laws which were intended for Civil, Criminal and Social purposes. Many of these laws are now superseded by the New Testament and the New Covenant. I am happy to discuss the theological meanings and the principles of the Bible, but REMEMBER I DON’T teach this in SCIENCE classrooms, but you DO!”
    But by your own admission, they are the words of your god, the same god as in the new testament, Jesus, no? Please do not misunderstand me, I have studied the bible. If ever anyone needed the justification to be an atheist, all they would need to do is read the bible objectively. Why are these commandments superseded by the NT? Was it because the moral zeitgeist changed over that period of time and men (because women didn’t have a say in it, pretty much like today) realised those things in the OT were too barbaric and so needed to be changed. How could god have decided to change them? Isn’t he all wise and all knowing? If he changed his mind then isn’t he less than perfect. Did people really ssee him as the capricious bully he paints himself to be. Come on JohnHarris. Man decided morals, not your god. And please do not make out that I am advocating the existence of god like you did before, I am being rhetorical.

    “You have committed the straw-man fallacy. You are misrepresenting your opponent’s position and then proceed to attack it. Religious people do not profess to have all the answers. Also, please note that it is you who is insisting that evolution is science without showing any evidence whilst conceding that you have NO answers.” Mmmm. Religions sound like bigotry to me.

    “You are offended by arrogance? But it made me feel good! Lol - According to your post dated 28th February it is apparently ok to do something if it “makes me feel good” :-). Beside DaveGilbert, is it not a tad arrogant to insist that your theory is a SCIENTIFIC FACT when you cannot produce ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE? ??“By the way ,your response was totally acceptable from an evolutionary prospective. I expect more of that. You see if evolution is true then everyone is right no matter WHAT they believe in. That means a statement you make by definition cannot be wrong, therefore, YES your comments are yours and yours alone. In my worldview, you are responsible for making comments which can be judged as RIGHT or WRONG.”
    Straw-man alert!!!!

    “So you are saying Intelligent Design is NOT logical because it leads to a Designer? Is THAT logical? Is THAT how we know God doesn’t exist? Lol.” ID is not logical in the light of Evolution. God is not logical in the light of evolution. Logically and empirically, there is a very low probability for the existence of gods, fairies, unicorns, hobgoblins and ghosts.

    ““Hate is a horrible state of mind”? How do you know that? In evolutionary terms, hate is nothing but a chemical reaction that happened by accident. Maybe hate is a good thing!”
    Maybe in evolutionary terms it is. But as I said before, if we all want to get on with each other, we have to rise above some of our evolutionary instincts.??“Hate leads to the dark side”? What is the dark side in the evolutionary worldview? Neither dark side nor bright side means anything in evolutionary terms. What is your point?” Ever seen Star Wars JohnHarris? Oh and by the way, following the 2001 census, Jediism was classified as a bona fide religion.??“The Bible is the “work of fiction” and that’s why you can’t hate it? Why, isn’t it possible to hate fiction? By the way, how do you know that the Bible is fiction? Please remember you believe in evolution without proof!” FFS I don’t hate the bible. Get it into your impermeable brain!!! No. You are right. I don’t believe in evolution. Anymore than I don’t believe in gravity or electricity. Do you really want me to spell that out for you?????“Let me tell what is horrible my friend DaveGilbert: lying to children with deceitful stories about evolution and how life first started from a ROCK!” I couldn’t agree more. So stop it then. From a rock WTF!!! Get thee behind me Satan FFS!!!

    “Fairer to whom? Do you want me to defend YOUR case? My whole argument is that you CANNOT defend your OWN claims.” You have defended some of my claims. Have a look above. Cheers matey.

    “I am not very happy that you keep offering bad evidence. At some point you will have to start getting serious with the material you bring:”
    Duane Gish is a creationist who ignores evidence that might contradict his beliefs. Now, who does that remind me of? Anyway, he doesn’t count as being reliable. Moreover, I am impressed with your skills in quote mining. I checked all the references you provided. Surprisingly, they all come from Creationist websites. Quelle surprise. With regards to Archaeopteryx (or Archae as one of your websites call it) is “not just a bird”. What bird have you seen today that have teeth and a boney tail and bare more than a striking resemblance to reptiles (well more than they do now)? Romer fully accepted Archae. Creationist are rather selective on what they quote. He actually said the head was “rather birdlike” instead of “Totally birdlike” as creationists claim. He admitted that the specimen he worked on (Heilmann’s reconstruction of the skull), was incomplete and did, “not permit such detailed and precise conclusions”. I will submit that Archae may be classed as a bird because it has feathers but it has also retained enough dinosaurian characteristics not found in modern birds to regard it as a species in transition.

    “Pikaia
    -----------
    Not, not only is this NOT a transitional fossil, it in fact proves the creation theory “The specimens may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of storm induced burial.”” I fail to see how this one helps your argument. Pikaia is possibly a transitional fossil to all animals with backbones. How does it prove creationism when it has been dated to about 500 million years ago when the creation happened 6,000 years ago? BTW, Conway-Morris is a theistic evolutionist so you provided a good source. I bet you haven’t read any of his books though. Both your links were to creationist websites. Hardly unbiased.

    “Tiktaalik ?----------- ?Just a fish DaveGilbert” Ha ha ha!! You are funny JohnHarris. It was found to have lived in the late Devonian about 375 million years (well before your creation). It is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates (or fish) and early tetrapods (or four-legged animals). Do you have any scientific evidence in any of the journals that say otherwise? No. I thought not.

    “Pakicetus ?------------ ?This is NOT a transitional fossil DaveGilbert” Oh yes it is!!! It doesn’t look like a whale because it is at the very early end of the transitional lineage. There have been many fossils found that continue the genealogy right up to today’s cetaceans.

    Equus ?--------- ?“No DaveGilbert, this is not a transitional fossil. This transitional fossil NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE.” I referred to Equus as the genus that includes numerous extinct species. Your mate Darwin found a fossil Equus tooth called Equus Curvidens. Richard Owens remarked that, "This evidence of the former existence of a genus, which, as regards South America, had become extinct, and has a second time been introduced into that Continent, is not one of the least interesting fruits of Mr. Darwin's palæontological discoveries." cited in Academy of Natural Sciences - Thomas Jefferson Fossil Collection - Ancient Horse Fossils.

    “Australopithecus ?------------------------- ?Australopithecus” (“southern ape”) is the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa. After examining the bones, anthropologists solemnly announced that they came from an ancient race of pre-people who lived from 1 to 4 million years ago. These bones have been found at various African sites, including Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Koobi Fora, Olduvai, Hadar, and Orno River. The Australopithecines, like modern apes, had a wide range of varieties. BUT THEY ARE ALL APES.” Yes and so are you and I. Get over it!!

    “One of the most famous was named “Lucy”. Some experts believe that these apes, the Australopithecines, descended from another ape, the “Ramapithecines” (“Ramapithecus” is the singular for this word), which is supposed to have lived 12 million years ago. ??“No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis].” (W. ?Mehlert, “The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June ?1980, p. 25).” You are about to tell me about an “ancestor...for [an] early Australopithecus” below.

    “Creation Research Society Quarterly” Oh a creation rag. Give me a scientific rebuttal.??“Perhaps the most interesting part of Australopithecus is what happened in December 2009. “Scientists” discovered that Australopithecus/Ardipithecus is not our ancestor after all and they apologised for making that claim in the past. Well...they didn’t exactly apologise (although they should have), they just acknowledged the mistake (Science 18 December 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5960, p. 1598 DOI: 10.1126/science.326.5960.1598-b). Here is a video clip of the same article http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5960/1598-b. The acknowledgement of their mistake can be found in location 04:21 to 04:38 of this video clip. Of course they still believe that humans have evolved. That part of their sacred belief and will sadly never go away regardless of the evidence!” I mentioned Australopithecus (Lucy) that lived about 2 million years ago. You changed that to Ardipithecus that lived about 4.4 million years ago (and that predecessor to Australopithecus I have just mentioned). A slight of hand trick? No worries. Let’s talk about Ardipithecus then. As with Lucy, Ardipithecus was at the early stage of the lineage to humans. It was more apelike than our later ancestors, you are right. But it was an ape that walked around on two legs. Apart from we human apes, no other ape does that. I watched your video link and I don’t understand why it rocked the evolutionary boat. All it is saying is what we knew all along. It is one part in a lineage between the common ancestor of chimpanzees and bonobos and we humans. I don’t know why they should apologise for conforming evolutionary fact. All they said was that they were mistaken with regards to Ardipithecus’ environment. BTW, did you miss the bit at the end where the guy said, “Ardipithecus tells us that we as humans have been evolving toward what we are today for six million years”. Are you really a creationist or an evolutionist working towards an April Fool???“THESE ARE BAD EXAMPLES DAVEGILBERT.” I thought they were rather good (even you have shown that) as does the proper scientific community. ??“Perhaps the funnies part of fossil records is that IT CAN NEVER BE USED to prove evolution.” Well that guy in the video that you liked says it can and he’s wearing a lab coat so there!!

    “Think about it! If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know about it is that it died! You don’t even know where it died.” Yeah but you know when. Some species died before your god said, “let there be light” so how does that work?

    “It could have died somewhere else and got buried there. You don’t know if it had ANY children. And if it had children, why would it have DIFFERENT children and do something that animals cannot do TODAY? Besides, how would we be sure that they children even survived etc?” zzzzzzzzzz wake me up when you’ve done.??“Give it up, it’s just a lie.” APRIL FOOLS!!!! Whoops too early. ?
    “So even if you are not fascinated by the fact that DNA is full of intelligent information (requiring an information giver)” Mmmm. Who may that be me wonders?

    “the decoding of DNA should blow your mind.” Oh it does JohnHarris, I can assure you.

    “Therefore, you cannot account for their existence in the evolutionary sense.” Err, why?

    “This is another chicken and egg situation. Dr F. Crick refers to them as the frozen miracles (Evidence for Truth, Volume 1, Dr E. K. Victor Pearce, p. 100).” Francis Crick was an atheist and evolutionist. Don’t play games with words. He said miracle to mean wondrous just like David Attenborough (another atheist and evolutionist) does. That was a cheap shot.??“As for “Rational Thinking” how can you even account for it in a universe that was created by accident and random chance? That in itself is NOT rational. A materialistic atheist does not believe in anything beyond the physical universe. In this view, all that exists is matter in motion. But of course laws of logic has nothing to do with matter; they are not part of the physical universe (ie cannot be touched or seen). Therefore, laws of logic cannot exist if materialism is true! Not only is the materialistic atheist unable to account for the existence of laws of logic, but they are actually contrary to his worldview. His worldview is necessarily irrational. If the universe and our minds are simply results of time and chance as you say, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. There is so much more to say about this but we’ll leave it there for now.” Thank goodness. Now you are talking crap. It must be getting late. You have a lie down for a few days and come back when you are a bit more lucid. ??“Sorry DaveGilbert. I’m not following your point. What does going to the doctor vs. praying have anything to do with mutation? Also you suggesting the antibiotics came as a result of beneficial mutation? Surely you must mean bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics? If so, are you suggesting that it occurred without fitness cost? Lol. Please feel free to revisit this subject when you have read and developed a reasonably advanced understanding of molecular biology. There are NO beneficial (or favourable) mutations without fitness cost to the organism itself. If you find one, let me know :-)” Let’s get this straight, regardless of what I said, you accept bacteria evolve to resist antibiotics? You are doing my job for me again. Yes, it is an example of a beneficial mutation. Beneficial for the bacteria. Oh you thought I meant beneficial for we human animals? There you go again, a Christian thinking the whole universe revolves around him. That’s sounds like bigotry to me. Oh and the doctor and praying reference is to religious people that say one thing like, I don’t trust the science community but gets full value out of the National Heath when they fall ill. I am I right? ??“Vestigial organs...I’m surprised, you brought that up again. There are no vestigial organs! Even if there were such organs; that would only prove that we are LOSING some organs, not GAINING them. Can I ask you to offer me ONE organ that we are gaining please? At least this way we are evolving in the right direction. Losing organs is surely not the way we gained everything!” There you go again. Displaying a complete ignorance towards what evolution actually is. I am surprised you didn’t use the term, ‘devolution’. Is the penguin evolving backwards because it still has wings yet can’t fly??
    “What is really most humorous is that apparently the coccyx is the remnant of a tailbone. Are you aware that not even evolutionists believe in this silly claim? According to the British Natural History Museum (which should be renamed to “Evolution Are Us Museum” or better still “We Like to Brainwash our kids Museum”), we allegedly evolved from an ape like creature that could NOT have had a tail anyway. You see, according to them, by definition an Ape like creatures cannot have a tale (I have the picture of their poster that confirms this if you like a copy). So we either evolved from an Ape-like-creature and NEVER had a tale (therefore your claim is false!), or we just NEVER evolved and NEVER had a tale (therefore, your claim is still false).” Well you certainly have a tale. Its called creation. As for our early ancestors, no the apes don’t have tails but the earliest ape ancestor would have evolved from one that did. ??“Enough of this vestigial non-sense! There is an easy way to settle this SCIENTIFICALLY. I am seeing a surgeon on Wednesday 09/03/2011 due to a minor operation in a private hospital. I am genuinely going to ask him about the cost of removing ALL the organs that evolutionists claim to be vestigial. Regardless of the cost, I am happy to pay for the removal of ALL these organs from YOUR BODY which will serve as the ultimate proof of evolution. No IFs, No BUTs! Please confirm that you are happy to proceed with this. As you see, this is now in PUBLIC and in WRITING. I will get the price for the removal of: the appendix, tonsils, nipples, adenoids, plica semilunaris, parathyroid glands, nodes on ears, ear muscles, body hair and pineal gland (or have evolutionists changed their minds about this now? lol). It will be expensive, but it will be worth seeing how much you have faith in this dumb theory! I am not joking by the way!” Mmmm, tempted but no thanks. But all the best for your surgery. Will the surgeon have some sort of a sciencey background and wear a lab coat. Don’t you distrust the scientific community? That’s what I meant when I invoked the word, hypocrite.??“I think every evolutionist should be willing to go through this kind of operation to show their dedication in this “scientific” theory!” Yeah. I bet you would. Haven’t you tortured atheists before in your sordid history? ??“Criticism of Intelligent Design! ?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ?Your criticism for a lack of designer based on the current design is interesting! How would you actually know whether the human design (or the Giraffe for that matter) is good or bad? Have you designed one yet? Was it so much better? This is rather like criticising the Ford Company for the design of their cars without having the qualification (or ability) to design a car yourself. Try it one day, see what happens! I’m sure they’ll be impressed. Worse still, go ahead and make a PUBLIC announcement claiming that ALL Ford cars are not designed by anyone because you don’t approve of the design. Is that logic? Is that how your school taught you to think? Is that what you call rational thinking? Is that what you call being a critical thinker? Are we breading a generation of dumb graduates? Is it with this logic that you were criticising this new school? All of this would be funny if it weren’t true! “ Oh, I’ve fallen to sleep again.??“Ok, let’s see if this makes sense. You offered the Lanugo hair as your evidence for evolution. I explained the functionality and purpose of the hair.” Might you be wrong??
    “Yet you rejected it without consideration because it didn’t fit your worldview (not because it was scientifically inaccurate).” Well it isn’t, is it?
    “You are unable to oppose my explanation so you dismiss it by saying “I maintain [they] are what they are”. I don’t blame you for your behaviour, but I do blame your school and teachers.” Yeah. They have much to answer for”.

    “They should go and get another job and earn a living doing an HONEST day’s work! I know this sounds like an insult but I promise you it is not! I’m just surprised at the level of education in today’s graduates and therefore, it’s time we have real teachers!” I agree. Will they be at your school though???“Regarding “Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve”. It’s been refuted here http://creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve and here http://www.icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/. It’s all down to real education. I’m sure you will ignore this as you did my previous links. That’s because you don’t really want to know! It’s a religion. Give it up!” You sound desperate to me. Oh and those links? Creationist sites again. They don’t count.??“I’m a little confused.” You can say that agin.

    “Why would the universe have any truth or the concept of honesty in it? If you are right and it’s only there as a result of one big accident, then why would an accident have the concept of truth or honesty? In fact, who is to say that the truth/honesty would be the right thing? Maybe a lie/deceit is better? In your worldview, WHY does that matter and why are you FORCING it on me? Mmmm....double standard behaviour which is predictable if evolution is true!” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz??“Finally, why won’t you even entertain the idea that evolution may not be the only possible answer?” Because there is no alternative.

    “You are simply excluding any and every other possibility for no good reason (indeed for bad reasons). What is the possibility that evolution may be wrong? Even if you think it’s 99% certain, there is still 1% doubt! “Yep. That’s right. So show me a scientific journal where it has been refuted.

    “So why then continue to indoctrinate ALL our kids to believe in evolution (as you have been) as a FACT? How will we ever find (or want to explore) another answer with this kind of mentality?” Because anybody can do science and publish a refutation in a reputable scientific journal. But nobody has, have they???“Are you sure it’s me who is being close-minded?” You said it JohnHarris. ??“By the way, I can't keep this debate going indefinitely. It's pointless! You either have proof or not!” Guess I’ve won then if you are chickening out. Evolution 1 Creationism 0.??“Have a good day” All my days are good. Seriously though. Would I be allowed to post on your website. I’ll play nice, honest?

    Live long and prosper!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:04
    8 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • I wanted to follow this debate, but quite frankly I have a life to live and cannot wade through all the posts.

    My own thought, for what it's worth is that no matter the evidence for evolution (all of it, housed in the laboratories and museums all over the world) none of it will change the mind of an evangelical Christian who as an act of faith is bound to creationism, be it young earth or old earth creationism. Each time I ask a creationiust what evidence is required to switch them from creationism, created kinds etc. to evolution the answer is simple they cannot accept any evidence, no matter how compelling, because that would mean rejecting a central tenet of their faith. When pushed the normal response is to require evidence that they know full well is impossible to find or, when evidence is provided to invoke a twist on Zeno's paradox . Some of the creationists I meet start with a 'show me how a slug can turn into a human' knowing full well that this never happened and that it will never happen.

    What does fascinate me is how creationism has moved from its original 'created kinds' which were simply all trhe animals that existed in the present, to having to accept natural selectiuon when it was shown that the idea of NO descent with modification was just unsustainable. All creationists actually do accept evolution, descent with modification, variation leading to the emergence of new species. They cannot deny it it has been shown in the lab and in the field. What they cannot seem to accept is the idea of common descent and the notion that humans are animals with animal relations and that otther hominids are related to us we just happen to be the ones around today. The only thing that creationism is afraid of is that humans are not a unique creation of God. It is the idea that we are not unique that hurts.

    When I ask an evolutionist the same question, about evidence that would persuade them that evolution by natural selection is incorrect, they answer that a purpose of science is to actively test their ideas, hypotheses and theories and, where the evidence contradicts the current accepted idea/hypothesis/theory to modify and move the science on. (by the way creationist see this as a weakness and their rigidity as a strength). Scientists do not reason by faith and so they can reject even the best theories when the evidence shows it to be incorrect.

    So John Harris will never accept even the strongest of evidence.

    So I could provide a lonk to a living transitional animal that has features which places it between its land based ancestors and its current marine based form (no not a whale). But such evidence would be discounted even though the idea of an animnal with front legs and a back flipper is so bizarre as to be either a 'creator's' joke or a real example of a transitional evolutionary animal caught in timke as having left the land, but not fully adapted to the marine environment.

    All science is provisional - even the most established ideas.

    In science we teach about mass and we teach about density as established 'true' concepts. Interestingly we teach that things have mass as being 'true' we don't call our ideas on mass a religion, we don't say that we have a 'belief' in things that have mass YET we cannot explain exactly WHY things have mass - we have some unproven ideas and the best idea at present is that it has something to do with interactions between the field surrounding hypotheticala nd as yet undiscovered Higgs bosons.

    All this exchange here says to me is that perhaps we should should teach in schools that all our ideas about mass, density, gravity etc are just unproven 'theories' and that as good an explanation for why things have mass is that God exerts an unseen force on all things and that God chooses to vary that force according to a whim about how heavy God would like them to be. God can sometimes be deceptive in that things that we think will have a large mass turn out to have very little mass - e.g. pumice stone.

    There are a number of books that put forwrad the evidence for evolution:
    Why evolution is True (Jerry Coyne)
    Your Inner Fish (Neil Shubin)
    The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Stephen Jay Gould)
    Evolution (Carl Zimmer)

    I'm sure John Harris will know of these, perhaps read some/all and simply dismissed them as lies, unconvincing, factually wrong etc.

    In my own reserach I am seeking to find out why evolution is seem as such a dangerous explanation for life's diversity. I'm not thinking of Ken Ham's very strange ideas that because of evolution we have abortion, drug addition, immorality etc. That's just plain bonkers (as is his idea of dinosaurs (but onbly the baby ones) on the Ark. I mean why evangelical christians feel that a theory which has nothing to do with how life first began is so dangerous to their faith? Evolution cannot and never will answer that question of how life began because there was no evolution of life before life - it is a nonsense idea ,in much the same way that an evangelical Christian will look at you as if you were stupid if you even think to ask the question 'well who created God' or 'what existed before God'.

    End of my input - and I won't be engaging in any long ping pong - life is too short and eternity too long (yes that was tongue in cheek).

    Oh, and the tarnsitional form that exists today that half land animal and half marine? With front legs (what else do you call a limb that has remnants of toenails?)

    Well, just google sea cow or manatee...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:05
    9 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Hi James. Thanks for coming in on this one. I am amazed that nobody else has waded in. Are we the only ones who are passionate about this? Are we the only ones who want to nip this nonsense in the bud before it takes ahold over here as it has in the States. Are we the only ones who respect the future of our children. I am sorry for the ping-pong as you call it but I will not let the creationist have the last word. Our children deserve a future of enlightenment not to a regression into a bronze age past.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:04
    9 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi
    The reason people don't wade in is because when you have posts that are over 4,000 words long it isn't a debate but something more akin to baiting and you took the bait. I suspect most of the stuff posted is standard creationist ' I don't believe it' or 'but even scientists can't agree' or 'ah but it isn't transitional 'cause it's still a X'.
    If the stuff is arguing for intelligent design then it will be a standard - 'if you can't explain it, it must be designed'. To be honest on this latter point I use an analogy of continental drift. In the early 20th C scientists noticed that S. America and Africa seemed to 'fit' many hypotheses were generated to explain, but ideas that the continents moved apart were rejected by science as 'impossible' we had no idea and could not conceive of a mechanism whereby whole continents moved across the surface of the earth. So we could have put forward the idea that the earth was designed to look like this - surely the fact that these two continents could fit so well, have similar rocks and fossil facies couldn't be just by chance? Statistically that would be nonsense. So surely the only possible answer is that an intelligent agency designed them to look that way. Then in the 50s and 60s along came plate tectonic theory that explained the facts.
    Just because today we may struggle to explain some of the complexities of cellular activity or structure, the answer is not 'well it must be designed' the answer is to do more looking, more thinking, more experimentation and try and work out the mechanisms and structure. Either that or pack up the labs and go home.
    Evangelical creationists will never admit to the flaws in the Bible and the contradictions and errors, the omissions etc. as again it challenges a central tenet of their faith, so even in the face of a contradiction, instead of taking the simple route of saying, yes, it is an error, they devise elaborate explanations to explain away the contradictions.
    The classic is the two versions of creation in Genesis (man before animals, man after animals) and there are many, many documents written to explain that one away. But a few less well known others from the 'inerrant word'
    2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was ***eighteen*** years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
    2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was ***eight*** years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
    -----
    2 Kings 8:26 ***Two and twenty years old*** was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
    2 Chronicles 22:2 ***Forty and two years old*** was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
    -----
    The Bible is a wonderful book and I enjoy reading parts of it, but it is a story book and just as we can pick holes in stories in films and TV we have to remember that it was written by 'committee' by many men over many hundreds of years and it will have multiple flaws and errors and things which today we cannot live by (stoning to death, letting your daughters be raped to 'save' some angels etc.). By all means teach creation stories in the context of religion and a study of the various religions, but the Bible is not and never will be a book of science. Science seeks to explain the natural world and does not have recourse to the supernatural. The vast majority of people can comfortably live without a faith or live by separating faith and belief (religion) from the acceptance of evidence (science). But some people just cannot do that. So in the same way as I would fight to keep cold water fusion out of physics teaching as being not accepted science, so too will I fight to keep out intelligent design from biology as an explanation of the diversity and development of life on earth. Should ID creationism come up with empirical research and a body of accepted scientific explanation which the community of scientists sees as the best explanation, then I would fight to see it included in the science curriculum - the curriculum in schools is not the place to test untested science and we should not teach untested science. It is the place to teach what is accepted by the scientific community as a whole.
    There are examples of rejected science being accepted into biology once the requisite research had been completed, published and the evidence scrutinised. It's no different fort intelligent design creationism. They cry foul and claim bias against - well, others claimed that about their initially rejected work. What they did was go away and do the research then come back with convincing evidence - they didn't sit outside the discipline whining and moaning saying I can't explain it, I have no evidence, but because it's so complex I must be right!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:22
    9 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Hi James. I enjoyed reading your post. Thanks. I appreciate the futility in responding to creationists. But time has shown they won't go away if you ignore them. As you rightly point out, they don't have any credible scientific evidence for there claims and until they do (tongue firmly in cheek) the only response is ridicule and put down as I have tried to and will continue to accomplish here and elsewhere. There is too much riding on this issue of science vs creationism teaching in schools to simply ignore.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:37
    9 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Ridicule is not the answer Dave. All that does is play into their hands. They see it as the evolutionist bereft of any argument or evidence ergo they win, hands down. All that happens is that they turn ridicule against you and sidestep the issues and concentrate on the personal attack. I try not to ridicule (though it is very difficult with some of them like Ken Ham and ‘Dr Dino’ (Kent Hovind).
    Creationists routinely use ridicule with their own congregation (as well as lying to them even though they have been told that what they are saying is untrue) but that is behind ‘closed doors’.
    For example they will encourage hoots of laughter and derision with the statement that ‘evolutionists believe that something came out of nothing’ Lots of laughter in the meetings I attend, followed by lots of ‘praise be’. Then they, with a straight face, say – ‘we all know that God created something out of nothing’ and yet they fail to see the irony of such a statement. God, who they admit cannot be seen, evidenced (other than through indirect writing by humans a thousand plus years ago) or verified, other than through ‘hearing’ in their heads makes one statement completely sensible and the other laughable – you decide which is which!
    When I once quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury and his acceptance of evolution and his characterisation of creationism as a ‘kind of category mistake’ and urging schools not to teach it – I was told, ‘well he would say that, he’s not a true Christian’ – so that’s what we are all up against – even the Archbish ain’t a Christian in the eyes of some (many? all?) evangelicals.
    So don’t ridicule, feel sorry that they cannot see the glory of evolution for what it is – a unifying theory for life on earth. I feel very sorry for the people who refuse to be related to any other form of life on earth – what they are doing is saying that we are the aliens on earth that we actually don’t really belong here, that if we were removed it would make no difference to earth (I suppose you could argue that removing humans would benefit the rest of life on earth). I like the idea of belonging to earth, being part of life on earth now, being related to all past life and a contributor to all future life in some very small way.
    So feel sorry, don’t ridicule. Educate, don’t alienate. You won’t win any argument and you won’t probably convert, but then as teachers we are used to that most of our pupils don’t become scientists (in my case).
    But when they ask for ONE piece of evidence try the manatee, it’s an oddity and a great transitional form that you can see today living (just) in the Florida Keys for example. If it was intelligently designed then there were probably two designers with competing briefs – one to make an elephant like creature to live on land and the other to produce a marine mammal to swim with the whales and they just screwed up, with no time to redesign the front or back end!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:43
    9 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Thanks James. Point taken.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:38
    9 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi DaveGilbert. Thank you for your time and efforts in this debate. It was fun and very enjoyable. I would like to leave this discussion on a good note and I am very happy for you to have the last word (as per you comment dated 9th March).

    It is reasonable to assume that a discussion has ended when your opponent repeats your quotation and then follows it with “zzzzzzzzz” lol.

    ########################################################
    Therefore as my closing statement
    ########################################################
    I am actually surprised that for a supposedly “scientific fact” with supposedly “millions” of proof I have not received any (NOT EVEN ONE) solid/watertight/indisputable evidence as I originally asked. Therefore, I maintain the view that this belief should not be taught in science classrooms until such evidence is presented. However, sadly, I do realise that in a humanistically controlled schools, teachers, government etc., this will not change any time soon).

    “A hypothesis is empirical and scientific only if it can be tested by experience ....A hypothesis or theory which
    cannot be, at least in principle, falsified by empirical observations and experiments does not belong to the realm of
    science.” (Francis J. Ayala, “Biological Evolution: Natural Selection or Random Walk?” American Scientist,
    Vol. 82, Nov.-Dec. 1974, p. 700)

    That’s why gravity is a scientific fact whilst evolution is not (ie repeatable, testable, observable via experimentation). Indeed the only evidence offered for evolution was circumstantial along with presuppositions which were easily disputable. Evolutionists have even tried to use vestigial organs to support their claim. They started with School textbooks as recent as the 1960s listed over 200 vestigial (useless) structures in the human body. This was reduced to 180 (Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case 1990, p. 268). This was further reduced “Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions.” (Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 - 1946 ed., p. 926) and now finally:

    “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology
    textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution ....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying
    functionless structures .... leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary
    theory.”(S.R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 394.)

    Sadly, in all cases the evidence is made to fit the theory and not vice versa. In other words, you interpret the evidence with preconceived ideas (ie evolution) thus distorting the interpretation:

    “But the danger of circularity is still present. For most biologists the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is their ACCEPTANCE of some theory that entails it. There is another difficulty. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation, which necessarily presupposes the nonrepeatability of organic events in geologic history. There are various justifications for this assumption but for almost all contemporary paleontologists it rests upon the ACCEPTANCE of the evolutionary hypothesis.” [emphasis are mine] (David G. Kitts, “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” in Evolution, September, p. 466)

    Evolution is not a “scientific fact”. In fact evolutionists can’t even decide on the method and process of evolution. Was it gradual or punctual (hopeful monster), and was it using the Darwinian, Lamarckism or neo-Darwinian process? :

    “We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are
    we likely to make further progress in this by the classical method of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly
    not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’—The
    recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in
    the seemingly monolithic walls of the neo-Darwinian Jericho.” (Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society,
    London 177:8)

    Are students being told that Darwin abandoned natural selection as unworkable, and returned to Lamarckism as the cause of the never-observed change from one species to another (Randall Hedtke, The Secret of the Sixth Edition, 1984). Many people still don’t realise that Creation fits the facts while evolution has yet to find any that proves it. Evolution is not science, but just a glorified scientific religion.

    “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it ....To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all...If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? .... I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me; but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”(H.S. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138)

    Not many people know that the evolution theory ITSELF evolves in order to find excuses for producing inconsistent results for scientific predictions:

    “A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification.” (Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 31)

    As explained previously, Evolution is not science; in fact it’s anti-science and anti-knowledge. I believe that our education system is hindered by this damaging anti-scientific theory.

    “I feel that the effect of the hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge .... Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, ‘Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?’ The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge.” (Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural
    History, November 5, 1981)

    I like DaveGilbert am “worried about the future of our children”. I also agree with DaveGilbert that “Our children deserve a future of enlightenment not to a regression into a bronze age past”. However, unfortunately, my worry (unlike DaveGilbert’s) is due to the lies our children ARE currently being taught in schools. They are told that they are animals and then we are surprised when they behave like animals. We tell them regularly that they evolved from a ROCK and wonder why our children come home feeling depressed and worthless (it wouldn’t matter if it were true):

    “4.6billion years ago the Earth cooled down [ROCK] and formed a rocky crust [ROCK]...Earth’s surface was hot [ROCK!] and there were large pools of bubbling lava [melted ROCK]...oceans formed as it rained on the rocks [ROCK] for millions of years...swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals soup to a living organism [from ROCK]” (Holt Earth Science 1994 p. 280 & 281). Sorry, I only have the American textbook version. I’m sure evolution took place the same way in USA as it did in the UK though :-)

    One day this theory will be the joke of our future generations who will marvel at 20th century “scientists” (but sadly not before it causes infinite damage first – and our teachers are supporting it):

    “Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis [Darwinism] could be accepted with the credulity that it has. I think .... this age is one of the most credulous in history.” (Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of
    Christendom 1980, p. 59)

    I wish to thank DaveGilbert once again for his input and hope one day that he will help in removing lies from our text books so that our children will enjoy a brighter and healthier education (rather than indoctrination).

    Once again, thank you.

    ########################################################
    End of closing statement
    ########################################################
    Please provide a closing statement DaveGilbert (I’m giving you the last word, be polite please)


    ########################################################
    To JamesWilliams
    ########################################################
    Thank you for your post (0:05 - 9 March, 2011). Here are some quick short answers:

    Paragraph1: “I wanted to follow...”. I recommend you read the posts in order to comment affectively

    Paragraph2: “My own thought, for...”. My faith and science is not in conflict. Just evolution and science.

    Paragraph3: “What does fascinate me...” Natural Selection idea was first suggested by a Creationist BEFORE Darwin. Please check http://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-creationists-idea/. We don’t accept the idea of “new species”. It’s simply variation-within-a-kind. There is a difference. With the discovery of DNA, natural selection cannot produce anything new thus the invention of the neo-Darwinian theory etc. We’re not afraid that humans “are not unique to creation of God”, we don’t want lies to be taught in science classrooms!

    Paragraph4: “When I ask an evolutionist the same question...” Your statement contradicts DaveGilbert’s responses. Please read through the posts.

    Paragraph5: “So John Harris will never accept...” Not true, I only ask for empirical scientific evidence that cannot be disputed. It’s called education, rather than indoctrination!

    Paragraph6: “So I could provide link to a living transitional animal...” Simply scientific evidence is required, not imaginary circumstantial presuppositions.

    Paragraph7: “All science is provisional...” That’s not evidence for evolution!

    Paragraph8: ”In science we teach about mass...” The question about origin of life is not science, unproven and unprovable (as per your comments below – paragraph12). Also, the transitional fossils (unlike the study of mass etc.) DO NOT EXIST!

    Paragraph9: “All this exchange here says...” Mass, density, gravity etc. can be scientifically observed, tested and demonstrated; unlike evolution.

    Paragraph10: “There are a number of books...” Are you aware that these books offer evolution without empirical evidence? Are you aware that Stephen Jay Gould believes in punctual equilibrium (the idea that if it didn’t happen gradually, it must have happened quickly – but regardless of how we don’t know it happened, IT HAPPENED!)?

    Paragraph11: “I’m sure John Harris will know of these...” Thank you, yes! How about you read “Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells)”, “The Evolution Deceit (Harun Yahya)”, “Signature In The Cell (Stephen C. Meyer)”

    Parapraph12: “In my own research I am...” The teaching of how life began in a science classroom AS a scientific FACT is offensive to science, not religion! I’m glad you agree that “evolution cannot and never will answer that question”. Therefore, will you help me remove it from science classrooms?

    I’ll make my response to your post (11:22 - 9 March, 2011) even shorter:

    Bible is the infallible word of the living God therefore it cannot have contradictions. To answer the contradiction you mentioned please check these websites. The contradiction you mentioned are listed in at least two of them (I checked):

    http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX
    http://www.thedevineevidence.com/skeptic_contradictions.html
    http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php

    Regarding “The Bible is a wonderful book”, that’s not true. If it’s not a book inspired by God, it’s meaningless, pointless and powerless.

    Regarding the rest of that paragraph and people of faith not accepting science; evolution has NOTHING to do with science. “What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.” (Arthur N. Field)

    Finally regarding “Should ID creationism come up with empirical research....then I would fight to see it included in the science curriculum”. Is this an official public promise?

    Thank you for the rest of your comments.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    3:32
    10 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • JH Paragraph1: “I wanted to follow...”. I recommend you read the posts in order to comment affectively

    Sorry too many words probably repeating too many rehashed creationist arguments that I’ve heard many times before.

    JH Paragraph2: “My own thought, for...”. My faith and science is not in conflict. Just evolution and science.

    Evolution and science do not conflict for real scientists and for the vast majority of Christians – just a small minority within which you seem to reside.

    JH Paragraph3: “What does fascinate me...” Natural Selection idea was first suggested by a Creationist BEFORE Darwin.

    Yes, the idea goes back to ancient Greek times, so I think that it predates your ‘creationist' , though Greeks were, I suppose ‘creationist’ in one sense but not in the modern sense that we are using here.– don’t recall that I stated that Darwin was the originator of the idea? Neither was Wallace.

    JH We don’t accept the idea of “new species”. It’s simply variation-within-a-kind.


    Sorry Creation Ministries International begs to differ:
    “The biblical model predicts rapid speciation
    The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model.”
    (see: http://creation.mobi/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-4-argument-natural-selection-leads-to-speciation )

    (Willing to bet that I’m accused of ‘quote mining here, taking it out of context or misunderstanding the meaning).

    This poses a severe problem for creationism as your model means that we should be seeing much more speciation than we do. There simply is not enough time in your young Earth model for all the varieties we have today and all those that have existed and become extinct. Even if I accepted ‘variation within a kind’ which I don’t and exactly what is a ‘kind’ anyway? – even creationists can’t agree (that’s an example of throwing back the ‘even scientists can’t agree’ argument to you and your community).

    JH We’re not afraid that humans “are not unique to creation of God”, we don’t want lies to be taught in science classrooms!

    Neither do I, which is why I campaign against creationism in science.

    So you would agree that apes, monkeys and humans are all a ‘Kind’ and that we are related as the genetics shows and as shared mutations in our ‘variation within a kind’ past shows?

    JH Paragraph4: “When I ask an evolutionist the same question...” Your statement contradicts DaveGilbert’s responses. Please read through the posts.

    Sorry no time. Even if some scientists do not accept that they will change their ideas about evolution by natural selection if new, better and more robust evidence comes along, still doesn’t mean that evolution is not the current best explanation.

    JH Paragraph5: “So John Harris will never accept...” Not true, I only ask for empirical scientific evidence that cannot be disputed. It’s called education, rather than indoctrination!

    Vist the natural History Museum in London to see the evidence on display including the so-called ‘non-existent’ transition fossils. If you are simply blind to the empirical evidence that exists I can’t help that and it does not make you or creationism right.

    JH Paragraph6: “So I could provide link to a living transitional animal...” Simply scientific evidence is required, not imaginary circumstantial presuppositions.

    I provided the transitional living animal (indeed all life forms currently in existence are transitional forms – its just that the manatee is a great example of a form moving between land based species and marine species). Or are you saying that a manatee is imaginary – I know I’d had a few drinks on the boat when i saw one in Florida some years ago, but I’m pretty sure it was real and not imaginary. Don’t quite get that.

    JH Paragraph7: “All science is provisional...” That’s not evidence for evolution!

    When did I say that it was? It’s a statement of fact.

    JH The question about origin of life is not science

    Why not? Sounds like a good scientific question to me – how did life begin, unless of course you already know the answer in which case I see why you don’t think it’s a scientific question, but for the rest of the scientific community interested in understanding how life began it is.

    JH Also, the transitional fossils (unlike the study of mass etc.) DO NOT EXIST!

    Just because you keep denying that they exist does not make it so number 1 (love Star Trek).

    JH Paragraph9: “All this exchange here says...” Mass, density, gravity etc. can be scientifically observed, tested and demonstrated; unlike evolution.

    But evolution has been observed – it is descent with modification which has been seen in the lab and in the field and reported by Creation Ministries International:

    “Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira.6 Another good example is a new ‘species’ of mosquito that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years.” (see link above)

    JH Paragraph10: “There are a number of books...” Are you aware that these books offer evolution without empirical evidence? Are you aware that Stephen Jay Gould believes in punctual equilibrium (the idea that if it didn’t happen gradually, it must have happened quickly – but regardless of how we don’t know it happened, IT HAPPENED!)?

    Yes I’ve read most of Gould’s work, also that of Eldredge and punctuated equilibrium is a great example of a REAL controversy in science and evolution and indeed you should embrace it as your model of ‘variation within kinds’ being so rapid is supported by PE. PE or a gradual model acknowledge that evolution has happened, what’s being argued (in brief and to simplify a lot) is the rate over time.

    JH How about you read “Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells)”, “The Evolution Deceit (Harun Yahya)”, “Signature In The Cell (Stephen C. Meyer)”

    Yes, got them, read them, not convinced at all by them. Also have two copies of Atlas by Yaha in my office right now and can’t help but smile at the photo of a caddis fly that’s actually a fishing fly complete with hook one of his ‘bits’ of evidence that evolution has never happened – well yes in this instance it didn’t happen as fishing hooks don’t reproduce.

    JH Parapraph12: “In my own research I am...” The teaching of how life began in a science classroom AS a scientific FACT is offensive to science, not religion!

    That life began is a fact (unless we are all not living entities and this is a dream? Computer simulation??)
    If you mean teach HOW life began, well we cannot teach that as we don’t know, so exactly what do you think we do teach? I know we often talk about possibilities or ideas but none are proven scientifically so we can’t/don’t teach that. It’s actually creationists who teach how life began as a religious fact – i.e. God.

    JH I’m glad you agree that “evolution cannot and never will answer that question”. Therefore, will you help me remove it from science classrooms?

    Why? Did you not understand, evolution is not about life’s origin it’s about how life has developed and diversified? The two are completely separate scientific issues. You are conflating them and saying because you can’t answer X, Y must be removed – Ok well because you can’t prove to me that God exists empirically will you remove the teaching of religion from Schools? This is the same argument and same mistake conflating two things that shouldn’t be conflated. Teaching about religion, which happens in schools,is teaching about the various spiritual entities that different religions have (e.g. God, Buddha, various Hindu Gods and Godesses etc.) So by your argument if we cannot prove all these Gods and Goddesses exist then we must remove all religion from schools.

    JH Bible is the infallible word of the living God therefore it cannot have contradictions.

    Yet it does.
    Women as priests/ church servents
    Acts 18:26 "Priscilla ... expounded unto him the way of God."
    Romans 16:1 "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church." Or ("I commend you to our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church." -- The Revised Standard Version)

    There again how dare a women speak in a church so you can’t really be a priest xcan you?

    1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

    1 Timothy 2:11-12
    "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."


    JH To answer the contradiction you mentioned please check these websites.
    The contradiction you mentioned are listed in at least two of them (I checked):

    Yes, know the refutations, that it was a translation ‘error’ and they really meant to say 22 not 42 (otherwise he would be older than his father when he died). So which translation/version of the Bible out of the very many that exist (I stopped counting after about 50) is the one that is the best/most correct/ least ‘wrong’?

    JH Regarding “The Bible is a wonderful book”, that’s not true. If it’s not a book inspired by God, it’s meaningless, pointless and powerless.

    Wow – you don’t think that the Bible is a wonderful book? I can see the headlines now... ‘Committed creationist does not rate the Bible as a wonderful book and does not see it as inspired by God – he claims it is meaningless, pointless and powerless. Thanks for that quote, very helpful John.

    JH Regarding the rest of that paragraph and people of faith not accepting science; evolution has NOTHING to do with science.

    I think that the scientific community may disagree with you – but you are entitled to an opinion however misguided.

    JH Finally regarding “Should ID creationism come up with empirical research....then I would fight to see it included in the science curriculum”. Is this an official public promise?

    Yes, I’ve said it many times. If ID creationism were to build a significant body of published evidence in respected scientific journals and be accepted as the best explanation for the development and diversity of life by the community of biological scientists then I would fight for it to be included in mainstream science teaching. That’s how good science gets into the curriculum – through the normal channels. E.g. Margulis and her work on endosymbiosis was rejected by the mainstream scientific community for a number of years. She did the research published the work now it is accepted. That’s good science.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:46
    10 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Hi JohnHarris. Sorry you are leaving. Your quote mining is impressive. I particularly enjoyed the quotes from your own website. The bit about us coming from rock. You are funny. Also, prior to him coming up with Natural Selection Darwin too was a creationist. Ok, I can quote mine too,
    “Darwin solved the problem”, Francisco J. Ayala (the correct spelling of his name) Scientific American November 2008.
    Here Ayala was referring to, “Science-savvy Christian theologians who present God that is continuously engaged in the creative process through undirected natural selection. By addressing religious people on their own terms, Ayala aims to offer a better answer than intelligent design or creationism” Scientific American November 2008.
    Ayala was formerly a Dominican priest who was ordained in 1960. He left the priesthood that very same year to study biology in the US under Theodosius Dobzhansky, remember him, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”?
    He is known for his work in evolutionary genetics, been critical of the US Government interference with stem-cell research and once held the post of Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Yes JohnHarris, science. Oh, and by the way, he is a critic of creationism and intelligent design. I am not going to carry on and take apart the rest of your word-salad post because it has been observed that to the casual observers we have been going over the top somewhat. I will however, take you up on your kind offer for an exchange via your public email address. You have not answered any of my theological questions and I am curious as to how a seemingly intelligence person such as yourself can believe what you do. I am curious what mental gymnastic methods you employ. I look forward to hearing from you again shortly.
    Go in peace and may your god go with you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:52
    10 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Thank you DaveGilbert. Discussing/debating this subject with you was pleasant and enjoyable. You are obviously a good and intelligent man - despite your belief in evolution – just kidding :-), so please remain open-minded.

    Nevertheless, can I ask you to give me a closing statement please, unless your last post IS the closing statement?

    I would be delighted to discuss any subject via my public email address with you but obviously the contents of the discussion should remain honourable and private between us.

    I look forward to hearing from you. In the meantime, I will leave you with a quote we both agree with: “Science should be the search for truth” - Linus Pauling (2 time Nobel Prize winner)

    ########################################################

    Thank you James Williams for your reply. Your comments are appreciated. Would you be interested to debate this subject on this website? If so, would you mind if I add the outcome to my debate list (as per my agreement with DaveGilbert)?

    If you are happy with this, I propose we put a reasonable limit to the number of words we can add to each post in order to prevent long and boring comments such as the one DaveGilbert and I exchanged. This will help people to follow the debate more easily. I suggest we put a limit of up to 500 words (as calculated by Microsoft Word) for each day, or 1000 words if posting 2 days later etc. up to a maximum of 2000 words (if posting after 4 days or later). I hope this makes sense.

    I needless point out that we should/must maintain respectability at all times and exercise integrity within our discussion (which I’m sure you will agree with). Ideally we will discuss one subject at a time but I suppose the limited number of words will impose a limit on the number of subjects anyway.

    As you probably know, generally a debate should be conducted with an opening statement, a couple of rebuttals and a closing statement. I’m flexible on the number of rebuttals but I think 3-4 each should be more than enough.

    I calculated the number of words in your last post dated 10th of March. It was 1852 words according to MS Word and 528 words for the previous post (9th March), so the figures sound about right to me.

    What do you think? It will be fun, but please don’t feel forced to agree. Either one of us will have the right to withdraw or delay the response at anytime (within reason).

    If agreed, we will both prepare and post an opening statement to describe the problem of the two worldviews (Creation vs Evolution) as we see it from our own worldviews. I suppose we should allow 2000 words for the opening and closing statements.

    We can agree to post our comments by Monday to give you time to prepare your opening carefully during this weekend.

    Please give this some thought and come back to me when you are ready. Thank you again.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:26
    11 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi John

    As you know this is an education newspaper website with a comment function for stories. I've already contributed much more than I intended to this comment stream.

    I really do hope you are not one of those silly creationists who insist on challenging academics and others to debates which, whatever the actual outcome, 'you' will never lose. I’ve seen such lists and, before he was sent to prison for tax evasion, Kent Hovind would run such debates. He also has a very silly 'challenge' to any evolutionist to win thousands of dollars by simply providing ONE, just ONE piece of convincing scientific piece of evidence for evolution (where have I heard that one before??) which of course is rigged in such a way that he knows full well that even the best scientific evidence, of which there is much, cannot meet his criteria.

    It's easy to win a debate when you refuse to accept the science. I can easily win a debate on the existence of God if I refuse to accept that God exists. I Can easily set up a challenge to prove the existence of God – for which I will pay money – and make it such that my money is very safe. Such things are pointless, meaningless and a waste of time. So let’s not waste time with me providing lots of good evidence and you just sticking your fingers in your ears saying ‘la la la I can’t hear you’.

    I’ve provided evidence of a living transitional form, yet you simply state that transitional forms and fossils do not exist. See what I mean? Simply denying it does not make it so (Star Trek again).

    If I provide Tiktalik rosae as a transitional form, you’ll say it’s just a fish and only variation in a kind, the fish kind I presume (by the way what is the definition of a Kind?). If I provide archaeopteryx you’ll say it’s just a bird etc etc.

    Interestingly in an e-mail debate some years ago with a local creationist, I provided the features (reptilian) of archaeopteryx and my creationist debater told me that such an animal was obviously reptilian so wasn’t transitional. Then I asked about the features of another animal – and provided the birdlike features of archaeopteryx to be told that it was obviously a bird! When I revealed that both sets of features belonged to the same animal and he had therefore confirmed that it was transitional and a good link between dinosaurs and birds I never heard from him again. A year later I was sent a link which stated that he had, with the force of his faith behind him, won a great victory over a confirmed atheistic (I’m not an atheist) evolutionist! So I lost that one then clearly!!


    My ‘closing statement’ on this thread goes back to the story. I assume John that you are going to strongly object to the setting up of this school. Given your insistence that evolution is not science, that if we are teaching it we are lying to children, you cannot support a school that is being set up on creationist principles, teaching non-science in science and lying to children. Surely that would, in your views and faith position, be very wrong. The only honourable position that such a school can take would be to offer a curriculum that excises evolution from the curriculum. I suspect that the proposed school does not do that as it seeks to deceive the government by meeting the legal position on the curriculum in order to get state funding. Such a deceit I’m sure you condemn outright. It is a similar position to those who tell children that evolution is false and a lie, but encourage their children to provide the ‘right’ answer in exams, in other words to lie in their exams just to get the marks to pass the exam. Lying is a sin – I know that in the USA creationists have an opt-out clause for lying which is ‘lying for Jesus’. I trust that you do not subscribe to such a deceitful and dishonest practice.

    My suspicion is that the school, stating that it will teach evolution ‘as a theory’, is deliberately, mischievously and deceitfully being ignorant of the status of a theory in science and is using the common definition as a sop to get money from the government for a school they could not afford. To me that is a very unchristian thing to do. The only alternative would be that they state they will teach evolution as per the curriculum, but teach it in such a way that they undermine it at every point and they then contrive to show that evolution is false, not science, but, just for the exam say it’s correct – wink, wink; which again would be such a deceitful and unchristian thing to do that it should be held as reprehensible, illegal and all funding rejected/removed. I hope that you would condemn this church for its lack of backbone in proposing a school that does not teach evolution at all, even if that means they would be turned down as not delivering a legal curriculum. I would have far more respect for such a Church.

    So, no, I’m not interested in a debate – not because I fear a debate (I have debated creationists in public and within their churches) or that I think the evidence is not there/not strong, not because I think that evolution has all the answers or that there are things that we still don’t know about how life has diversified and developed or the exact mechanisms of how evolution takes place.

    Thanks for your time, if you do decide to protest against the Church setting up their school, do let me know.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:40
    13 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Sorry, just re-read my posted comment and I need to make a minor correction.

    In the last but two paragraph a sentence should read:

    " I hope that you would condemn this church for its lack of backbone in NOT proposing a school that does not teach evolution at all."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:30
    13 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Hi James

    Thank you for your response.

    I can’t deny that I’m a little disappointed that you declined my offer to debate this subject on this website (by the way, I would have been happy to conduct this on any other website of your choice). However the greater disappointment comes from seeing you commit the straw-man fallacy which is commonly committed by evolutionist. Basically, you have misrepresented my position and then proceeded to argue against it.

    It is a cheap (and unnecessary) attack to claim that creationist refuse to accept science particularly when throughout my ENTIRE debate with DaveGilbert I have repeatedly quoted and made reference to scientists (some of which are ardent evolutionists) and science articles. You subsequently compared my religious belief in God, to your alleged “scientific” belief in evolution! Not sure why and how that’s connected? Mine is based on faith whilst you claim yours is a scientific fact. So it is reasonable of me to ask you to provide evidence for what you call science whilst you continue teaching it in SCIENCE classrooms.

    You incorrectly and unfairly state that when evidence is provided I will stick my fingers in my ears saying “la ,la, la I can’t hear you”. Not sure what evidence you have for this accusation. Besides, it is I who is accusing all evolutionists to have this exact attitude and accept evolution DESPITE science (please read my debate with DaveGilbert above). Regarding my comment that “fossils DO NOT EXIST”; this was done with reference to the fact that you are UNABLE to submit any fossils as evidence (without first invoking your worldview), as opposed to a reflection on my general attitude that I simply reject fossil evidence brought forward by evolutionist. Also, you must admit that it is unreasonable of you to declare a fully formed and functioning creature as a missing link and accuse me of not accepting evidence. Furthermore, fossils are usually used as a fallacious argument! Evolutionists regularly commit the fallacy of question-begging with such evidence by already assuming what they are trying to prove and impose their worldview on the evidence. If creationists did that, you would accuse them of being unscientific and closed-minded (who stick their fingers in their ears saying “la ,la, la I can’t hear you” – lol)

    Besides, what is interesting is the fact that having such vast amount of fossils available to us is proof alone that the evolution theory is false. Dead animals today don’t hang around after they die for millions of years until a new layer is deposited on them so that they can get fossilised, they would decompose first (not to mention the requirement of water to affect minerals and quick burial etc.). Furthermore, when you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know about it is that it died! You don’t even know where it died. It could have died somewhere else and got buried there. You don’t know if it had ANY children. And if it had children, why would it have DIFFERENT children and do something that animals cannot do TODAY? How could we even be sure that their children even survived etc? So if it's unbiased science that you're interesting in then you need to be very careful when submitting such evidence as proof without committing the Fallacy of Ambiguity (and their subcategories).

    James, regarding the school, it is interesting how you are calling upon morality for me to oppose their stance on how they will teach evolution. You have claimed that the school is engaged in “deceitful and dishonest practices”. You have also accused the school of “deliberately, mischievously and deceitfully being ignorant”. What I would really like to know is this; if evolution is true, why would it be wrong to behave in this way? If we are nothing but a chemical reaction that appeared through random accident that formed through chance and natural processes, then HOW and WHY would DECEIT, DISHONESTY and being DELIBERATELY MISCHIEVOUSLY ignorant, be a bad thing? So bottom line is this; If I’m right, then evolution should NOT be taught in schools (ie science classrooms). If you‘re right, then all the morality issues you mentioned and disapprove of, become irrelevant. You choose!

    In the meantime, James, you’ll be pleased to know that you win by default anyway (for now). This anti-science theory will continue to be taught in science classrooms (without proof) brainwashing our kids with lies, teaching them NOT TO HAVE ANY MORALS, despite the lack of evidence. That’s not science, it’s not even education; IT'S INDOCTRINATION! Yet again, if evolution is true, who is to say that indoctrination is a bad thing?

    I hope that logic and common sense will one day prevail and evolution is placed in its rightful place; ie religious classroom. The only reason it's in science classrooms today is because our society and education system is controlled by biased humanistic leaders and teachers.

    Thank you for your time James. I wish you all the best.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:01
    14 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. Your response to James is truly indicative of, “you just sticking your fingers in your ears saying ‘la la la I can’t hear you’.”
    I have already answered all those questions you posed to him. If you would only take your fingers out of your ears.
    Go in peace and serve your god (which ever one it was your ancestors believed in).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:12
    14 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Oh dear, it seems clear to me now that you are, John, a Ham/Hovind type creationist i.e. evolution is the root of evil, evolution means no morals, no ethics etc etc. How sad, even committed creationists try to distance themselves from this type of foolhardy approach.

    Despite trying to end this, like a fool, I won’t, I will just respond to some of your more ridiculous arguments to show their falsehood.

    JH Basically, you have misrepresented my position and then proceeded to argue against it.

    How so? I think your basic position is one of misunderstanding science, the nature of science and how science works. I can recommend a good book on this if you wish to read about how we teach the process of science in schools (including chapter 8 on moral and ethical issues in science – see later why this is relevant). The book is my own book on the subject: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Science-Works-Teaching-Classroom/dp/1441147071 I’m happy to post/e-mail you a leaflet for a discounted copy (£15 rather than £19.99).

    JH It is a cheap (and unnecessary) attack to claim that creationist refuse to accept science particularly when throughout my ENTIRE debate with DaveGilbert I have repeatedly quoted and made reference to scientists (some of which are ardent evolutionists) and science articles.

    But you do not accept the science for evolution, which is what I claimed – not that you do not accept science at all. Just because you quote scientists does not mean you accept evolution science. I quoted creationists, but I do not accept creationism.

    JH You subsequently compared my religious belief in God, to your alleged “scientific” belief in evolution!

    I do not believe in evolution, I accept it due to the weight of evidence, in the same way that I do not ‘believe’ in gravity, atoms etc. Science is not about belief in the way you believe in religion. You should look at the concept of belief in a philosophical sense (I suggest Cohen (1992) An essay on belief and acceptance. http://philpapers.org/rec/COHAEO )

    JH So it is reasonable of me to ask you to provide evidence for what you call science whilst you continue teaching it in SCIENCE classrooms.

    Yes, and it has been provided and you refuse to accept it.

    JH You incorrectly and unfairly state that when evidence is provided I will stick my fingers in my ears saying “la ,la, la I can’t hear you”. Not sure what evidence you have for this accusation.

    See statement above. You ask for evidence it is provided you refuse to accept the evidence so what else are you doing but metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears?

    JH Regarding my comment that “fossils DO NOT EXIST”; this was done with reference to the fact that you are UNABLE to submit any fossils as evidence (without first invoking your worldview), as opposed to a reflection on my general attitude that I simply reject fossil evidence brought forward by evolutionist.

    I assume that you mean transition forms rather than not accepting fossils at all.

    OK a list of transition form fossils. I normally would not use Wikipedia as a source (I am a so-called academic after all, but I don’t have the time so it will have to do), it’s very good, but you would have to research the original published peer reviewed papers for the full details (good luck John, it’s a lot of reading!)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    That’s a list of about 150 – 200 transition forms that is VERY incomplete. I hope that meets your criteria of' ONE just ONE' piece of evidence.

    I’m going to assume (perhaps unfairly) that you will just brush these to one side and claim that they are all false and do not support evolution and are not transitional.

    JH Also, you must admit that it is unreasonable of you to declare a fully formed and functioning creature as a missing link and accuse me of not accepting evidence.

    First off 'missing link' is not a very scientific term. I must say I do get annoyed with scientists when they use the term, as palaeontologists know that the concept of a 'missing link' is a very poor one. Evolution does not happen to individuals, but to populations over time. Transitional forms are representative of populations that are, over time, evolving. That's why when you look at Tiktalik it is taxonomically classified as a 'fish' as taxonomy is a human construct that groups things according to its features and taxonomy does not have transitional groups as such. So archaeopetryx may be called a 'bird' but it is one with substantial reptilian features hence transitional. 'Missing Link' makes it sound as if there is an animal - just one or a small number, that is caught between one or another species. The reality is that it's about whole populations, not individuals, so the manatee poulation (all varieties) represent a population evolving between a fully land based population and a marine population. I do hope you get this - space is - believe it or not, limited!

    Please also tell me that you don’t think that a transitional form animal cannot be fully functional and THAT’S the reason you refuse to accept any of them???? That would be laughable in the extreme. The sea cow is a FANTASTIC example of ‘evolution caught in time’ front legs (with toenails, though some have lost toenails so we are seeing the loss of a feature as it is of no evolutionary advantage to have toenails when you live in the sea) and a rear paddle – an adapted tail, with vestigial rear limb stumps on the rear pelvic girdle. What more could you want in a transition form and, so, proof – scientific and indisputable – which is what you require to show that evolution happened/is happening??

    Either that or you do accept this evidence and you have been playing Devil’s advocate all along and you are really an evolutionist who is just having a laugh! So which is it?

    JH Besides, what is interesting is the fact that having such vast amount of fossils available to us is proof alone that the evolution theory is false. Dead animals today don’t hang around after they die for millions of years until a new layer is deposited on them so that they can get fossilised, they would decompose first (not to mention the requirement of water to affect minerals and quick burial etc.).

    I’m sorry but this really shows your ignorance of science, geology, sedimentology, taphonomy (the science of decomposition and fossilisation) etc. Fossilisation of soft parts is extremely rare, often in anoxic conditions and the overwhelming majority of organisms HAVE DECOMPOSED, then it is those parts resistant to decomposition that fossilize. Rate of sedimentation is dependent on a whole host of factors and some sediments are deposited very quickly (see the deposits in Japan from the tsunami) and others are deposited slowly by comparison – see the sediments at the Niger/Mississippi delta and yet more over incredibly long periods e.g. the calcareous muds formed from the deposits of billions and trillions of formaminifera or through precipitation from saturated seawater. So a statement like “Dead animals today don’t hang around after they die for millions of years until a new layer is deposited on them so that they can get fossilised” is the sort of silly argument creationists use with their congregations, playing on the fact that people generally do not understand sedimentation rates and so you will never be challenged. In the bay of Biscay, sedimentation rates of about 0.1 – 0.2 cm per year. But in deep oceans it will be very much longer. Please don’t make statements like the one above unless and until you understand the science behind it, otherwise you are doing yourself and anyone you say that to a great disservice. Geology is dynamic and is both incredibly slow and sometimes catastrophic.

    JH And if it had children, why would it have DIFFERENT children and do something that animals cannot do TODAY?

    That’s variation and natural selection, unless it’s offspring were the result of asexual reproduction in which case it would be genetically identical, you keep pushing ‘variation within a kind’ (by the way what is the definition of a kind?) as accepted creationist 'science'. You are now seemingly arguing against yourself for the fixity of species and that the animals we have today are exactly the same as those created by God as detailed in Genesis which is an argument that creationist organisations say creationists should not use because they know that it’s wrong.

    JH You have claimed that the school is engaged in “deceitful and dishonest practices”. You have also accused the school of “deliberately, mischievously and deceitfully being ignorant”.

    NO, I said that I had a suspicion. I don’t know this as a fact, or a common theory not even a hypothesis or an accepted idea – just a suspicion. Time will, no doubt, tell if my suspicion is correct.

    JH What I would really like to know is this; if evolution is true, why would it be wrong to behave in this way?

    Now I’m really struggling to see what evolution has to do with moral, ethical, honest behaviour. It sounds to me that you are in the HOVIND/HAM camp that evolution is the root of all evil. So are you saying that anyone who accepts evolution cannot therefore be moral, honest and ethical? If so, stand up the Archbishop of Canterbury and proclaim your immorality, your deceit and your dishonesty. This really does show how bereft you are that you have stooped so low as to pull this old chestnut out of the bag.

    Evangelical Christians have a long history of dishonesty, unethical conduct, immoral/amoral behaviour. But I don’t condemn all evangelicals for the actions of people like Kent Hovind (convicted cheat, liar and tax evader) or all the others (Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, Bob Morehead etc.)

    JH If we are nothing but a chemical reaction that appeared through random accident that formed through chance and natural processes, then HOW and WHY would DECEIT, DISHONESTY and being DELIBERATELY MISCHIEVOUSLY ignorant, be a bad thing?

    If you don’t know why these things are wrong and you can only see that they are wrong from a biblical perspective then I feel very sorry for you. Also, again you are confusing the origin of life with the evolution of life. Evolution is not random.

    JH So bottom line is this; If I’m right, then evolution should NOT be taught in schools (ie science classrooms).

    You are not right, but my main argument still stands. If you believe that evolution is not science then evolution should NOT be taught in this church free school at all in science and you should oppose it and insist that they fight for the exclusion of evolution from their science curriculum even if you know that as a result the school will be refused permission to have state funding. Otherwise you will be deceitful and dishonest and that, my friend, is unchristian and a sin.

    JH If you‘re right, then all the morality issues you mentioned and disapprove of, become irrelevant. You choose!

    Evolution is neither ‘right’ nor ‘wrong’ it is the best scientific explanation for the development and diversity of life on earth. Morality/ethics/honesty is independent of evolution just as accepting atomic theory does not mean that you can consider morality issues as irrelevant in chemistry.

    JH This anti-science theory will continue to be taught in science classrooms (without proof) brainwashing our kids with lies, teaching them NOT TO HAVE ANY MORALS, despite the lack of evidence. That’s not science, it’s not even education; IT'S INDOCTRINATION!

    If you really believe this, stand up and fight this church tooth and nail for daring to teach evolution in its science curriculum. Or do you know something about this church’s proposal that I don’t (actuall the DfE won't let anyone see any proposals) – perhaps you know that they will not teach evolution properly or they will merely do what I suspect, which is hire teachers who teach it badly using false, discredited evidence against it to indoctrinate children against evolution encouraging them to lie in their exams.

    I personally consider your last statement to be very misguided at best and very dangerous as you are clearly not thinking rationally about evolution and you have let the messages of some very dangerous people get to you.

    OK, so let’s end this pointless ping pong. I have things to do, people to see, places to go. I’m not an evangelical Christian, but was brought up as a Christian in the Church in Wales. At present I see myself as an agnostic. I don’t reject God or the idea of God. I don’t reject faith as a human condition that can be good and positive. I believe that everyone is entitled to a belief – in a religious sense, but I am also a science educator and, as such, believe that that glory of life (insert God if you wish) can be seen in the natural world, but that ultimately we can explain things in a naturalistic way without having to invoke a supernatural cause. For me religion and God(s) are a human construct to help us make sense of our lives. Not everybody needs such a construct.

    Atheists, Agnostics and people of faith (any faith) can be some of the most moral, ethical, compassionate people I know. They are understanding, forgiving, accommodating and rational.

    I have met bigoted, irrational, manipulative, deceitful, dishonest, immoral, unethical ‘Christians’, atheists and agnostics as well as similar people in the various ‘faiths’. There is no ‘us or them’ – those with the ‘correct’ religion defined by whichever means you wish – or those with no religion/a false religion, there is merely the hope that we can all live out our lives in a positive way.

    Goodbye John, try and educate yourself. Evolution is a glorious explanation for the development and diversity of life (NOT the origin of life). It's not evil, not unethical and not the cause of immorality in our society. It tells us to respect all life as we are all related - animals were not put on this earth for humans - as the Bible claims, we are all of one life interconnected and interrelated - knowing this means that we should better see the consequnces of our actions on this planet and how we can affect the biosphere. If we think of animals as lesser creatures not 'of us' and we hold to the Biblical message that as humans we have dominion over all life (Genesis 1:28) or that animals and life is there to simply serve us then we are, in my view less ethical.

    Remember that it was God who first slaughtered animals for their skins to cloth Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21) "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." when he could quite easily have whipped up a nice cotton robe from the cotton plants.

    It was also to God that Noah sacrificed animals from the ark after the so-called global flood. (Genesis 8:20) "And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." But it seems that God did not object...

    indeed God seemingly wants sacrifices and offerings (Exodus 20:24) "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.", but there again God forbids sacrifices and offerings to him (Isaiah 1:11) "I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats." and (Jeremiah 6:20)
    Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me."

    But I guess that these are not contradictions either?

    Evolution respects life and evolutionists and biologists work to preserve species and life on this planet. Evolution is good science in all respects.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:16
    14 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Ok, call me a sentimental old fool, but I can't see you carry on making a idiot of yourself John. If you are a committed creationist then the least I can do is help you by providing you with a range of arguments that people like Hovind uses that even the best creationists avoid like the plague!

    So if you enter into debates, please, for your own sake, don't use any of the following Hovind arguments otherwise even your creationist buddies will disown you. I offer this list as a way of helping you. You seem like a nice guy who has just been influenced by the wrong sort of creationist, the sort of creationist who is not even wrong - they are so way off the mark that even the best creationist pretends not to know them at the annual creationist conference. The list (not the full list just those often used by Hovind) is:

    Moon dust thickness proves a young moon

    Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe

    Dubois renounced Java man as a missing link and claimed it was just a giant gibbon

    The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand

    The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall

    Archaeopteryx is a fraud

    There are no beneficial mutations

    No new species have been produced (one of yours)

    Earth's axis was vertical before the Flood

    Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed

    Darwin's quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species

    Earth's division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents

    The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 refers to evolution

    Ron Wyatt has found Noah's Ark

    Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible

    Canopy theory

    There was no rain before the Flood

    Natural selection as tautology

    Evolution is 'just a theory' (one of the Church free school's claims)

    The speed of light has decreased over time

    There are no transitional forms (one of yours)

    Gold chains have been found in coal

    Plate tectonics is fallacious

    Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution (sounds like one of yours)

    The Gospel is in the stars

    Now some of these you have stated - as indicated (but I may have missed some as I have not read the full debate between you and DAVE), so please follow the advice of Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use ) and stop using such arguments. Many of them you have not mentioned, so please use this as a reference list to prevent future embarrassment.

    All the best

    James

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:16
    14 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Ok James, you appear to refuse to debate this matter properly but happily post a 2,685 “essay” in response to my last post– lol.

    I really did try to keep this brief but there is so much to say. You should have accepted my offer to debate @ 500 words per day - max 2000 words : -)

    Firstly, I am very interested in your book on “How Science Works: Teaching and Learning in the Science Classroom”. Is there a Kindle version?

    By the way James, just before I finished preparing my response ready to submit it I saw your list of “arguments that creationists should not use”. Thank you but I am very aware of them and know how to use them (if and when I use them). You can also find a list here: http://creationwiki.org/Arguments_creationists_should_not_use. In return you must also promise me to stop saying you have any proof for evolution :-). Oh by the way, I don’t believe I used “No new species have been produced”. One last comment on this subject, please avoid being patronising and resist insults such as “I can’t see you carry on making a[sic] idiot of yourself”. For a moment, I really thought you cared, but never mind (besides why should an evolutionist care about anyone else – more of this later). Just remember that I am not one of your students! By the way, is this your recommended method of “Teaching and Learning in the Science Classroom”? This approach is called the fallacy of question begging epithet which should DEFINITELY be avoided (add this one to YOUR list). You committed this fallacy many times in your comments thus contradicting your original post to DavidGilbert on 9 March when you said “Ridicule is not the answer Dave”.

    I guess in one way, such language is an effective tool to make students get in line with your worldview. It’s a form of harassment that sadly many teachers and professors exercise to force their way of thinking. It’s very sad that we have such teachers/professors in our education system. It really doesn’t help!

    Therefore, perhaps I will skip buying your book for now!


    ########################################################
    “JH It is a cheap (and unnecessary) attack to claim that creationist refuse to accept science........But you do not accept the science for evolution, which is what I claimed – not that you do not accept science at all. Just because you quote scientists does not mean you accept evolution science. I quoted creationists, but I do not accept creationism.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your original claim was “It's easy to win a debate when you refuse to accept the science”. This generally implies that creationists cannot accept science otherwise they would be evolutionists (hence my response regarding the “cheap attack”). As you no doubt know, such comments are made far too regularly by evolutionists. If this is the general approach with your students during a lecture (ie without qualification), it would be considered a subtle brainwashing exercise against creationist.

    Regarding “Just because you quote scientists does not mean you accept evolution science” is CORRECT. I quote them to explain WHY I don’t believe in evolution.


    ########################################################
    “Science is not about belief in the way you believe in religion”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I’m sure you would agree that if a theory cannot be tested, demonstrated or observed, then it falls in the category of belief ie faith. The only question remains is whether evolution can be tested, demonstrated and observed (ie empirical science).

    You claim that you offered evidence for evolution. Is that true? Is it irrefutable/indisputable? Anyone can invent a theory and then go around claiming it’s a fact. What is dreadful about evolution is that if you refute it you are accused of rejecting science. Please identify who is doing the “la, la, la I can’t hear you” here?

    What is interesting about evolution is that they would make a claim about some supporting evidence and maintain that claim until science catches up with the lie. A perfect example is the alleged vestigial organs. Initially (1960s) they listed over 200 vestigial structures in the human body. This was reduced to 180 (Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case 1990, p. 268). This was further reduced “Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions.” (Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 - 1946 ed., p. 926) and now finally:

    “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution ....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures .... leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”(S.R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 394.)

    In fact the very same tactic is used within your post when you provided the link for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils. You specifically said “(good luck John, it’s a lot of reading!)”. That’s funny and very typical of evolutionists. Any way I checked the list and examined the website. These are not fossils that prove evolution other than by implication and presupposition. It commits the question begging fallacy. The examples given will at best fit the creationist teaching of variation-within-a-kind.

    Evolutionists distort the meaning of “transitional” to support their claim. Please read http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_fossils_are_lacking_(Talk.Origins).

    Having said that, if you feel that one of these fossils indisputably supports your claim afterall, then feel free to bring it forward.


    ########################################################
    “Please also tell me that you don’t think that a transitional form animal cannot be fully functional and THAT’S the reason you refuse to accept any of them???? That would be laughable in the extreme. The sea cow is a FANTASTIC example of ‘evolution caught in time’ front legs (with toenails, though some have lost toenails so we are seeing the loss of a feature as it is of no evolutionary advantage to have toenails when you live in the sea) and a rear paddle – an adapted tail, with vestigial rear limb stumps on the rear pelvic girdle. What more could you want in a transition form and, so, proof – scientific and indisputable – which is what you require to show that evolution happened/is happening??”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Firstly, I see that we are playing the “word” game here. You are redefining the meaning of “transitional” (from layman’s term to the evolutionists technical term) to make the evolution theory seem stronger than it really is whilst all the examples you give are either a variation-within-a-kind or simply a completely separate kind of animal where you are imposing your worldview. What exactly is the sea cow (manatee) supposed to have transitioned from or transitioning to and what evidence do you have for this (other than your strong religions worldview - fallacy of question begging again)? Your claims are strongly refuted here:

    http://creation.com/ancient-mutant-jamaican-sea-cows
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0927manatees.asp

    I’m still waiting for ONE solid/watertight/indisputable evidence!


    ########################################################
    Re Fossilisation: “I’m sorry but this really shows your ignorance of science, geology, sedimentology, taphonomy (the science of decomposition and fossilisation) etc”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mmmm.....not nice again (remember the question begging epithet?).... let's check your examples:

    Your Example 1: “Rate of sedimentation is dependent on a whole host of factors and some sediments are deposited very quickly (see the deposits in Japan from the tsunami)”

    Fossilisation may occur under such circumstances and supports my claim of water and quick burial.

    Your Example 2: “and others are deposited slowly by comparison – see the sediments at the Niger/Mississippi delta”

    Are you referring to the Mississippi delta that is between the Mississippi and Yazoo river which was created by regular flooding over thousands of years? If so, the fossilisation may occur under such circumstances and supports my claim of water and quick burial.

    All animals that die today, if left alone, will not fossilise based on the principle of geology where sediments are deposited over millions of years without a burial that occurs before decomposition and the introduction of water (in any form). Nowhere on earth today do we have fossils forming on the scale that we see in geologic deposits. The Karro Beds in Africa, for example, contain the remains of perhaps 800 billion vertebrates! But such fossils are not forming today. A million fish can be killed in red tides in the Gulf of Mexico, but they simply decay away; they do not become fossils. Similarly, debris from vegetation does not today become coal. In order for fossilization to occur, the vegetation would have to be rapidly buried under an extremely heavy load of sediment. It required massive flood conditions to do all that burying. All this can be explained with a worldwide catastrophe that occurred in the past. It produced the Sicilian hippopotamus beds, the fossils of which are so extensive that they are mined as a source of charcoal; the great mammal beds of the Rockies; the dinosaur beds of the Black Hills and the Rockies, as well as in the Gobi Desert; the fish beds of the Scottish Devonian stratum, the Baltic amber beds, Agate Spring Quarry in Nebraska, and hundreds more. None of this fossil-making is being done today. It only happened one time in history - at the time of the Flood.

    According to G. Pinna “In fact, when an organism dies, the substances that compose its soft parts undergo more or less rapid decay, due to such factors as attack by bacteria and erosion by water (particularly the sea) . . If an organism is to be preserved, it must be protected from destructive agents as quickly as possible . . And the sooner that this consolidation occurs, the more likely it is that the organism will be preserved . . there are also certain layers, such as those formed from extremely finegrained calcareous rocks, which have consolidated so rapidly as to permit the preservation of the most delicate structures of many organisms.” (The Dawn of Life, pp. 1-2 [Deputy Director of the Museum of Natural History in Milan, Italy])

    In spite of these facts, there are still science writers who imagine that when an animal falls into mud, tar, or water - and dies, - it becomes a fossil! But such an idea is only fiction: “We can easily imagine the predicament which led to the fossilization of the three individuals [three fossil birds] so long ago. They were probably forced into reluctant flight by some pursuing reptilian predator, only to flop down on the water and mud from which they could not rise.” (R. Peterson, The Birds, p. 10)


    ########################################################
    “You are now seemingly arguing against yourself for the fixity of species and that the animals we have today are exactly the same as those created by God as detailed in Genesis which is an argument that creationist organisations say creationists should not use because they know that it’s wrong”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Biblical view does not oppose the idea of variation within a kind neither do creationists argue against natural selection. Creationists argue that there is a limit to these variations which do not create new “kinds” of animals. This limitation is now supported though the discovery of DNA hence new-Darwinism. You either misunderstand where creationists stand on this subject in which case I recommend the following link http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species or you are deliberately committing the fallacy of straw-man.


    ########################################################
    Issue of Morality
    ########################################################
    You either deliberately or accidentally miss my point on the morality issue. I am not claiming that an evolutionist does not know the difference between right and wrong (ie morality etc.). My question was HOW would an evolutionist know the difference between right and wrong (or whether deceit, dishonesty etc. is bad)? DaveGilbert tried to answer the question by using philosophy (28 Feb) or by borrowing from my Worldview – the “Golden Rule”– and then proceeded to discredit it (7 March). On the other hand James, you COMPLETELY avoided answering the question by saying ”If you don’t know why these things are wrong and you can only see that they are wrong from a biblical perspective then I feel very sorry for you.”. Perhaps you can explain by quoting from chapter 8 of your book. Sadly, there was a slight hint of “la la la I can’t hear you” syndrome. I require answers, not attacks!


    ########################################################
    Rational Thinking
    ########################################################
    You accuse me of “not thinking rationally”. That’s funny. I would argue that without the principles of the Bible, the concept of rationality does not even exist.

    During my debate with DaveGilbert, I asked him to explain how he can even account for rational thinking in a universe that was created by accident and random chance? That in itself is NOT rational. A materialistic atheist/agnostic does not believe in anything beyond the physical universe. In this view, all that exists is matter in motion. But of course laws of logic has nothing to do with matter; they are not part of the physical universe (ie cannot be touched or seen). Therefore, laws of logic cannot exist if materialism is true! Not only is the materialistic atheist unable to account for the existence of laws of logic, but they are actually contrary to his worldview. His worldview is necessarily irrational. If the universe and our minds are simply results of time and chance, then why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? Evolution is anti-science and anti-knowledge. If evolution were true, science would not make sense because there would be no reason to accept the uniformity of nature on which all science and technology depend. Nor would there be any reason to think that rational analysis would be possible since the thoughts of our mind would be nothing more than the inevitable result of mindless chemical reactions. Perhaps you can respond to this in a way that is more scientific than DaveGilbert’s response on 8 March: “Now you are talking crap. It must be getting late. You have a lie down for a few days and come back when you are a bit more lucid”. Sadly this response just didn’t do it for me scientifically :-) It would have been better for him to avoid responding all together. Was this a demonstration of “la la la, I can’t hear you”? Are you sure that evolutionists don’t behave that way too?


    ########################################################
    “Remember that it was God who first slaughtered animals for their skins to cloth Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21) "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." when he could quite easily have whipped up a nice cotton robe from the cotton plants.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similar to the sacrifice before and after the flood, it was symbolic of the ultimate type of sacrifice that was required/necessary for the sins of the world. This symbolism goes back as far as Adam/Eve when the first sin was committed (thus the symbolic covering of sin via “the coats of skins”). It was only through these sacrifices would humanity understand the price required and the severity of sin that could only be rectified through the blood of Jesus on the cross. Surely you would have known that if you were brought up as a Christian in the Church in Wales?


    ########################################################
    “I believe that everyone is entitled to a belief – in a religious sense, but I am also a science educator and, as such, believe that that glory of life (insert God if you wish) can be seen in the natural world, but that ultimately we can explain things in a naturalistic way without having to invoke a supernatural cause. For me religion and God(s) are a human construct to help us make sense of our lives. Not everybody needs such a construct.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most people confuse and think that the believing in a creator/designer should somehow distort or affect our ability or desire to “explain things in a naturalistic way”. I love discovering HOW God did it. But we should stick to what we can observe, demonstrate and test. As far as education is concerned, evolution should be kept out science COMPLETELY. We NEITHER have evidence for organic evolution NOR macro-evolution (oops I used that word – you know what it means!). So leave it out! Likewise, I am not suggesting we should discuss the subject of creator/designer in a science classroom either. We should stick to FACTS of what we KNOW and not impose our worldviews on our kids. The subject of origin (or evolution) should be discussed in a separate classroom where all theories can happily compete against each other!

    Leaving evolution out will certainly not affect the intelligence of a student and will help them think more critically. Also, more time will be dedicated towards subjects that really matter and children can become better doctors, engineers, pilots, plumbers, electricians, astronauts etc.

    You see even if evolution is true, it’s useless: “Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (Professor Louis Bounoure (1957), Determinism and Finality. University of Strasbourg. p. 79. Former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, France)


    ########################################################
    “those with the ‘correct’ religion defined by whichever means you wish – or those with no religion/a false religion, there is merely the hope that we can all live out our lives in a positive way.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yes, it is my wish too that we all live our lives in a positive way. But please remember that if we believe that we all originated from a medieval soup and essentially evolved from animals, there is no great incentive to live our lives in a positive way. Remember what Darwin said:

    “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows” (On the Origin of Species)

    Is this how we are to live in a positive way? Is it done through “war of nature, from famine and death”? You see if evolution is true, then THAT’S the way to produce “higher animals”.

    Despite this ugly picture, I’m not even asking you to get rid of evolution from schools, just science classrooms. The kids think it’s real because it’s taught from people with authority (such as yourself)!


    ########################################################
    “Evolution is a glorious explanation for the development and diversity of life (NOT the origin of life). It's not evil, not unethical and not the cause of immorality in our society. It tells us to respect all life as we are all related - animals were not put on this earth for humans”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I do not agree. Please read my response above and also my last response below.


    ########################################################
    Bible contradictions
    ########################################################
    I thought this was settled. You offered several Bible contradictions and I responded by giving you 3 sites for reference. I will repeat them here:

    http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX
    http://www.thedevineevidence.com/skeptic_contradictions.html
    http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php

    As explained, the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired word for the living God. Therefore, it can’t have any contradictions. The contradiction you presented in your last post can be found in the first link above. Although this is not an example of “la, la, la I can’t hear you”, it certainly demonstrates that you don’t want to know the truth, but simply attack the opposing worldview. This is a very religious behaviour.

    In fact, if you were familiar with the Law of Non-Contradiction and how we can define a contradiction to be false, you would know that it is impossible to discredit the Bible based on this law alone.


    ########################################################
    “Evolution respects life and evolutionists and biologists work to preserve species and life on this planet. Evolution is good science in all respects.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Whilst I do believe that evolutionists will try their best to preserve species, I can’t see how they would justify this behaviour. Surely getting rid of competition would benefit their survival value. Evolution is BAD science that if truly believed and followed, promotes BAD morality (amongst other things). Despite all that, my only grievance with this theory is how it’s forced on children as a scientific subject in a science classroom! Put it in a religious classroom until it is proven empirically true with indisputable evidence.

    “Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History [in Chicago], and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time; and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—that it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” (Colin Patterson, address at American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981)

    The real question is whether people in authority, such as yourself will do something about it? Sadly "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke). Over to you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    2:18
    15 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Had some time on my train journey back from London so...

    JH Ok James, you appear to refuse to debate this matter properly

    This is a comment site, I’m commenting and correcting your misunderstanding/mistakes

    JH Firstly, I am very interested in your book ... Is there a Kindle version?
    No, but if enough people want it...

    JH Thank you but I am very aware of them (arguments not to use)

    So don’t use them

    JH I don’t believe I used “No new species have been produced”.

    You did: post dated: 10th March 3:22 “We don’t accept the idea of “new species”.

    JH One last comment on this subject, please avoid being patronising and resist insults such as “I can’t see you carry on making a[sic] idiot of yourself”. ...“Ridicule is not the answer Dave”.

    Only trying to help you, sorry you feel I’m patronising, that usually happens when people know they are wrong but just can’t admit it. Ridicule is something quite different.

    JH It’s a form of harassment that sadly many teachers and professors exercise to force their way of thinking. It’s very sad that we have such teachers/professors in our education system. It really doesn’t help!

    Now who’s being patronising

    JH Your original claim was “It's easy to win a debate when you refuse to accept the science”. This generally implies that creationists cannot accept science otherwise they would be evolutionists (hence my response regarding the “cheap attack”).

    Read the words - if I said you refuse to accept ‘science’ it would mean what it says and I would be accusing you of not accepting ALL science. The words are ‘the science’ which means some, not all, science and in particular you refuse to accept any evolution science.

    JH f this is the general approach with your students during a lecture (ie without qualification), it would be considered a subtle brainwashing exercise against creationist.

    Now who is insulting?

    JH I’m sure you would agree that if a theory cannot be tested, demonstrated or observed, then it falls in the category of belief ie faith. The only question remains is whether evolution can be tested, demonstrated and observed (ie empirical science).

    Yes, it can be tested (show me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian) has been demonstrated and has been observed (evidence above from Answers in Genesis).

    JH You claim that you offered evidence for evolution. Is that true?
    Yes, see the posts above

    JH Is it irrefutable/indisputable?

    No science is irrefutable/indisputable – that’s a level of evidence that not even gravity can meet!

    JH Anyone can invent a theory and then go around claiming it’s a fact.

    Anyone can invent a theory, but you need evidence for a scientific theory. Don’t confuse the vernacular with the specific.

    JH What is dreadful about evolution is that if you refute it you are accused of rejecting science.

    No, you are accused as rejecting the science for evolution

    JH Please identify who is doing the “la, la, la I can’t hear you” here?

    You

    JH What is interesting about evolution is that they would make a claim about some supporting evidence and maintain that claim until science catches up with the lie.

    You really need to read my book on How Science Works.

    JH These are not fossils that prove evolution other than by implication and presupposition. It commits the question begging fallacy. The examples given will at best fit the creationist teaching of variation-within-a-kind.

    I Knew you would simply brush them off (by the way, exactly what is a kind?)

    JH Firstly, I see that we are playing the “word” game here. You are redefining the meaning of “transitional” (from layman’s term to the evolutionists technical term) to make the evolution theory seem stronger than it really is

    I’m not re-defining anything. Science uses technical terms and there are layman versions (e.g. Theory and Theory where one is a guess and the other an evidenced explanation). When talking science I prefer to use the technical term – but I do agree that creationists often mix and match when it suits them to misunderstand something – e.g. the status of a theory as demonstrated by the Church setting up this free school.

    JH What exactly is the sea cow (manatee) supposed to have transitioned from or transitioning to and what evidence do you have for this (other than your strong religions worldview - fallacy of question begging again)?

    Sirenian evolution is well documented, though like all major transitions is incomplete. They originated as fully land based mammals with four legs and are now as you see them.

    JH I’m still waiting for ONE solid/watertight/indisputable evidence!

    Sorry, can’t help it if you refuse to accept the science (see above for clarification that I don’t mean you reject all science)

    JH Are you referring to the Mississippi delta that is between the Mississippi and Yazoo river which was created by regular flooding over thousands of years? If so, the fossilisation may occur under such circumstances and supports my claim of water and quick burial.

    Most fossilisation happens in watery environments and the burial may be rapid or slow in aerobic or anaerobic conditions – none of this supports a global flood. Bone up on sedimentology and taphonomy etc.

    JH In spite of these facts, there are still science writers who imagine that when an animal falls into mud, tar, or water - and dies, - it becomes a fossil!

    It may, or it may not. I refuse to accept you are trying to argue that fossilisation is not happening/underway today.

    JH The Biblical view does not oppose the idea of variation within a kind

    Perhaps not (by the way, exactly what is a kind?) but neither does it support it, it argues for the fixity of species (each after their own ‘kind’).

    JH neither do creationists argue against natural selection.

    No, which is why I say that creationists actually accept evolution – which you deny.

    JH Creationists argue that there is a limit to these variations which do not create new “kinds” of animals.

    Exactly what is a kind? As monkeys, humans and apes all appear to be one ‘kind’ to me.

    JH You either deliberately or accidentally miss my point on the morality issue. I am not claiming that an evolutionist does not know the difference between right and wrong (ie morality etc.).

    Good

    JH My question was HOW would an evolutionist know the difference between right and wrong (or whether deceit, dishonesty etc. is bad)?

    The same way everyone else does – how I was taught, by my parents and how my Grandchildren are being taught. Also an interesting article this morning: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8378975/Parents-who-shun-fairytales-miss-chance-to-teach-children-morality.html

    JH you COMPLETELY avoided answering the question by saying ”If you don’t know why these things are wrong and you can only see that they are wrong from a biblical perspective then I feel very sorry for you.”. Perhaps you can explain by quoting from chapter 8 of your book. Sadly, there was a slight hint of “la la la I can’t hear you” syndrome. I require answers, not attacks!

    See above

    JH You accuse me of “not thinking rationally”. That’s funny. I would argue that without the principles of the Bible, the concept of rationality does not even exist.

    So only Christians are rational then – you cannot follow another religion and be rational? No rational Hindus? Buddhists? Sikhs? Muslims? Etc.?

    JH During my debate with DaveGilbert, I asked him to explain how he can even account for rational thinking in a universe that was created by accident and random chance?

    This has nothing to do with evolution.

    JH “Remember that it was God who first slaughtered animals for their skins to cloth Adam and Eve... Similar to the sacrifice before and after the flood, it was symbolic of the ultimate type of sacrifice that was required/necessary for the sins of the world.

    So you agree that the story is not real, it didn’t happen, it’s symbolic, as you say, but it’s not real

    JH Most people confuse and think that the believing in a creator/designer should somehow distort or affect our ability or desire to “explain things in a naturalistic way”. I love discovering HOW God did it.

    Maybe God did it (the development and diversity of life) by evolution.

    JH But we should stick to what we can observe, demonstrate and test.

    Agreed, evolution has been observed, demonstrated and can be tested.

    JH As far as education is concerned, evolution should be kept out science COMPLETELY. ... So leave it out!

    Good, so you will be campaigning against the setting up of a free school that teaches evolution in science then. Welcome aboard.

    JH Likewise, I am not suggesting we should discuss the subject of creator/designer in a science classroom either. We should stick to FACTS of what we KNOW and not impose our worldviews on our kids.

    Great, hopefully creationism will be kept out of science in all schools, not just this one.

    JH The subject of origin (or evolution) should be discussed in a separate classroom where all theories can happily compete against each other!

    That’ll be a short lesson then, as there is only one currently accepted scientific theory for evolution (assuming you are not doing a sleight of hand and using the vernacular/layman definition of theory)

    JH children can become better doctors,

    No they won’t, if they don’t understand evolution.

    JH You see even if evolution is true,

    No evolution is correct, science does not say if something is ‘true’ or not

    JH it’s useless: “Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (Professor Louis Bounoure (1957), Determinism and Finality. University of Strasbourg. p. 79. Former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, France)

    If you are quote mining out of context be courteous and attribute the quote to the correct person. The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand who didn’t dispute evolution but was talking about the mechanisms. He also said: "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions] the fact of evolution.”

    JH Yes, it is my wish too that we all live our lives in a positive way. But please remember that if we believe that we all originated from a medieval soup and essentially evolved from animals, there is no great incentive to live our lives in a positive way.

    Why? (And by the way it’s primeval not medieval – that’s a period in history)
    JH Is this how we are to live in a positive way? Is it done through “war of nature, from famine and death”? You see if evolution is true, then THAT’S the way to produce “higher animals”.

    Again you show your ignorance of evolution – evolution is not directed and does not move towards higher animals you are giving evolution a sense of purpose and direction that it does not have. If there was no death, humans lived for a 1,000 years and nothing ever died as in the GoE) just how was God going to sustain this very small and insignificant planet? Enforced non-reproduction of all animal/plant/bacterial/fungal/single celled life?

    JH Despite this ugly picture, I’m not even asking you to get rid of evolution from schools, just science classrooms.

    Very gracious of you, thank you.

    JH The kids think it’s real because it’s taught from people with authority (such as yourself)!

    No, because they see the evidence and we teach critical thinking skills.

    JH As explained, the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired word for the living God.

    Which Bible translation is inerrant etc.?

    JH Therefore, it can’t have any contradictions.

    But it does.

    Are we saved by faith only? Ephesians 2:8-9 says so. Are we saved by works? James 2:14-26 seems to say that is the case. Is water baptism essential to salvation? John 3:16 leaves it out. But Acts 2:38 puts it in. Are musical instruments a part of healthy worship? A hundred references in Psalms would say so. But Ephesians 5:19, one of the few New Testament references to worship music, makes no mention of them. Is the Bible itself the Word of God? II Timothy 3:15-17 seems to leave no question. But II Peter 1:21 says God used "holy men of old" to pen it (he could have created a Bible from nothing that was his direct word, but seemingly chose not to). We should do good works and keep them to ourselves (Matthew 6:1). But in the preceding chapter, Jesus tells us to work so that "others may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

    JH (Colin Patterson, address at American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981)

    Again, if you quote mine do it properly and don’t just be selective and use it out of context and ignore subsequent representations by the man himself. As you probably know he was secretly recorded and a transcript of this written then published/distributed.

    "I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly present my views. (Letter from Colin Patterson to Steven W. Binkley, June 17, 1982)

    Note the unethical creationist, or is this an example of being ‘unethical for Jesus’ in the same way that some creationists ‘lie for Jesus’?

    "(he) asserts that 'we are drowning' in evidence against Darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed to me. It seems possible that he confuses two theories under the name of Darwinism, the general theory of common ancestry or descent with modification, and Darwin's special theory of mechanism, natural selection. If he knows of evidence inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell us what it is. I know of none." (Nature letter 332:580, 1988).

    So Patterson was no ally of the creationists, nor did he doubt the veracity of common descent.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:12
    15 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Thank you James. Can I ask you for your permission to add this discussion (or what appears to be an informal debate) to my list of debates?

    ########################################################
    “This is a comment site, I’m commenting and correcting your misunderstanding/mistakes”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The feeling is mutual James!

    It appears that there is a lot of words wasted on irrelevant and useless points. I would rather focus on the main issue at hand; where is the evidence?

    But let me give you some examples of this waste first:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “JH I don’t believe I used ‘No new species have been produced’.
    You did: post dated: 10th March 3:22 ‘We don’t accept the idea of “new species’.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My full quote was “Natural Selection idea was first suggested by a Creationist BEFORE Darwin. Please check http://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-creationists-idea/. We don’t accept the idea of ‘new species’. It’s simply variation-within-a-kind. There is a difference.”

    It is disappointing that someone with your credentials would get caught “quote mining”. Worse still it’s a petty argument. The idea of the “arguments not to use” principle is not to AVOID USING THE WORD ALTOGETHER but to be rather careful not to use it in an argument! My point was that we DO NOT ACCEPT the idea of “new species” but rather focus on the variation-within-a-kind.

    I’ll continue with the irrelevant and useless points:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “Only trying to help you, sorry you feel I’m patronising, that usually happens when people know they are wrong but just can’t admit it. Ridicule is something quite different.”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No James, people don’t mind being wrong, but do mind being insulted! Is this in your teaching technique? Besides, it would have been sufficient if you simply said “Only trying to help you, sorry you feel I’m patronising”. The remainder of that sentence did nothing to justify your behaviour. I expect a little better from someone who allegedly mastered the art of teaching!

    I’ll continue with the irrelevant and useless points:

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “JH f this is the general approach with your students during a lecture (ie without qualification), it would be considered a subtle brainwashing exercise against creationist.
    Now who is insulting?”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    James, how is that an insult? I neither used abusive language nor abusive words; simply stating a process that is often found with lecturers and professors to force students to accept a worldview. I have children in university who are experiencing the same behaviour from their humanistic teachers. I remind them that THEIR (ie my children’s) worldview does not allow them to respond in a similar fashion. Having said ALL that, please accept my apologies if my comments was offensive in any way! NO insult intended!

    Can I ask you to resist being pedantic and to stop majoring on minor issues?


    ########################################################
    “The only question remains is whether evolution can be tested, demonstrated and observed (ie empirical science).
    ‘Yes, it can be tested (show me a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian) has been demonstrated and has been observed (evidence above from Answers in Genesis).’”
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear James, if I only had a £1 each time this argument was used. Firstly, the rabbit in the pre-cambrian rock is what would FALSIFY the theory, rather than the lack-of-it PROVING the theory :). Lack-of-evidence is NOT evidence, lack-of-evidence is NOT something you can OBSERVE or DEMONSTRATE – lol. Besides, although I don’t think you will ever find a rabbit in a pre-cambrian rock (from a Creationists point of view), it is the most ridiculous (intended politely) example yet for offering evidence as you will NEVER know whether a rabbit is really there or not without looking EVERYWHERE . Have you looked EVERYWHERE? This is why I say evolution is TWISTED logic, TWISTED science that teaches our children to think in a TWISTED way - lol.

    Finally, please explain your comment re “(evidence above from Answers in Genesis)”. Also you appear to think that you offered irrefutable evidence. I can only see evidence that is easily refutable or evidence that proves the Genesis account of creation. Please let me know what I missed.


    ########################################################
    “JH You claim that you offered evidence for evolution. Is that true?
    Yes, see the posts above
    JH Is it irrefutable/indisputable?
    No science is irrefutable/indisputable – that’s a level of evidence that not even gravity can meet!”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No, James. Gravity can be proven using empirical science (it can be tested, demonstrated and observed). Evolution cannot! However, it is precisely this kind of comment that makes evolution BAD science. You use such illogical arguments to prove evolution thus brainwashing children in thinking that evolution is science. This is known as the fallacy of false analogy. I thought you cared about offering good and proper scientific education.


    ########################################################
    “JH What is interesting about evolution is that they would make a claim about some supporting evidence and maintain that claim until science catches up with the lie.
    You really need to read my book on How Science Works”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I didn’t say that’s how science works, I said that’s how “evolution” works. There is a difference. One of the is SCIENCE and the other is a BELIEF!


    ########################################################
    “I’m not re-defining anything. Science uses technical terms and there are layman versions (e.g. Theory and Theory where one is a guess and the other an evidenced explanation). When talking science I prefer to use the technical term – but I do agree that creationists often mix and match when it suits them to misunderstand something – e.g. the status of a theory as demonstrated by the Church setting up this free school.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Perhaps you should define your terms before debating this subject to avoid confusion. Even evolutionists mix and match between these words as you rightly pointed out with regards to “missing link” (15:16 - 14 March). The purpose of such a debate is to understand each other’s position, not to trap each other with terms!


    ########################################################
    “Sirenian evolution is well documented, though like all major transitions is incomplete. They originated as fully land based mammals with four legs and are now as you see them.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This claim is a presupposition. It is imposed AFTER adopting the evolutionary belief. In itself, it cannot be used as proof for the belief. Scientifically, such an explanation can only be forced after having some OTHER scientific evidence for the theory. You are simply assuming what you are trying to prove (also known as the fallacy of begging the question and imposing circular reasoning).


    ########################################################
    “JH I’m still waiting for ONE solid/watertight/indisputable evidence!
    Sorry, can’t help it if you refuse to accept the science (see above for clarification that I don’t mean you reject all science)”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Evolution is not science. It’s a worldview full of presuppositions. You can only make the evidence fit the theory, AFTER you already believe in the theory. This is based on a belief system, inherently religious. Strictly speaking it a perfect fit for the humanistic faith. Please check out the first 3 tenants in their manifesto (http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I). It spells out evolution!


    ########################################################
    “JH neither do creationists argue against natural selection.
    No, which is why I say that creationists actually accept evolution – which you deny.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No James, you are missing my point. Creationists ACCEPT small changes within a kind. This is empirical science that can be observed, tested and demonstrated. Unlike evolution which imposes the imagination that these variations are limitless and thus can eventually produce a different kind of creature. Therefore, a dog (through small changes) will never produce a cat or any other type of animal. With the discovery of DNA, we can now confirm that the creationist’s worldview is correct. This is the reason why we now have the all-new-and-shiny neo-Darwinian theory which is used as a “Rescuing Device” (check this out, it’s a good word).


    ########################################################
    Exactly what is a kind? As monkeys, humans and apes all appear to be one ‘kind’ to me.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Monkeys produce monkeys, humans produce humans, apes produce apes. You will never change that no matter how hard you try and no matter how long you have. It’s in their DNA code (see above). For hundreds of years dog-breeders have been breeding dogs but they were NEVER able to produce something other than a dog. If you give them another million years, they will only get another variety of dog. What is absolutely mind-blowing about evolution is that they teach that there is no limit to this variation which we now know is ANTI-SCIENCE. When breeding a dog, the variation within the DNA code is REDUCED not INCREASED. For example, you may be able to produce a poodle from a wolf but NEVER a wolf from a poodle. That’s a reduction in information. I hope you can now see why I resent this teaching in science classroom. It’s just ANTI-SCIENCE. Our children are being UNEDUCATED! We can talk mutations if you want but it will not help your case as it will sooner cause extinction (see http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm) thus a scientific fallacy!

    I think this covers the basic principle to the question “Exactly what is a kind?”. However, you can find out more in the following links:

    http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
    http://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind


    ########################################################
    “JH My question was HOW would an evolutionist know the difference between right and wrong (or whether deceit, dishonesty etc. is bad)?
    The same way everyone else does – how I was taught, by my parents and how my Grandchildren are being taught.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No my friend James, you have missed my point again (I’m sure by accident). All you did is shift the responsibility of answering this question to the parents. The question automatically becomes HOW (and indeed WHY) do the parents know the difference between right and wrong? The point I’m making is that even the most basic moral question could not be accounted for in the evolutionary worldview. There is no moral code outside the biblical worldview. But if the Bible is false, then so are its morals. Who will NOW decide how we know right from wrong? Will it be majority of opinion? Will it be the government? Will it be the Teacher? Will morality be the same and applicable everywhere (ie different countries)? Even the laws of logic and laws of uniformity cannot be justified and accounted for in the evolutionary world. Indeed why would it make sense if we are nothing but one big chemical reaction in a universe made by chance and no purpose?


    ########################################################
    So only Christians are rational then – you cannot follow another religion and be rational? No rational Hindus? Buddhists? Sikhs? Muslims? Etc.?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So the question is this; “can rationality exist in any other religion?”. The answer is: perhaps. But regardless, we know it CANNOT exist in evolution. But now comes another question; how do we know that the Bible is the only true way. Well that’s easy. Jesus left no room for any other religion. He said that he is the ONLY way, truth and the life and that no one comes to the father except through him (John 14:6). Either Christianity is true and ALL others are wrong, or ALL others are true and Christianity is wrong. Besides, the Bible is the only book that declares uniformity and consistency in the universe. That’s why the concept of contradictions would no longer be false if a contradiction is found in the Bible, as the concept of contradiction could not be used to discredit the Bible (the law of non-contradiction).


    ########################################################
    “JH During my debate with DaveGilbert, I asked him to explain how he can even account for rational thinking in a universe that was created by accident and random chance?
    This has nothing to do with evolution.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. If evolution is true, then “rational thinking” does not and cannot exist. Yet you are trying to argue “rationally” that evolution is a scientific fact. By definition that’s irrational! Therefore, evolutionist are teaching our kids to be irrational, not scientific?


    ########################################################
    “JH Remember that it was God who first slaughtered animals for their skins to cloth Adam and Eve... Similar to the sacrifice before and after the flood, it was symbolic of the ultimate type of sacrifice that was required/necessary for the sins of the world.
    So you agree that the story is not real, it didn’t happen, it’s symbolic, as you say, but it’s not real
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lol James, I must be really bad in explaining this event. The symbolism is in the ACT not the STORY. The story is real. I’m not sure whether you are genuinely asking or just trying to trap me. But I don’t mind either way.


    ########################################################
    “JH Most people confuse and think that the believing in a creator/designer should somehow distort or affect our ability or desire to “explain things in a naturalistic way”. I love discovering HOW God did it.
    Maybe God did it (the development and diversity of life) by evolution.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yes God did do the diversity of life (provided you mean small changes within a kind). I explained this in detail above.


    ########################################################
    “JH But we should stick to what we can observe, demonstrate and test.
    Agreed, evolution has been observed, demonstrated and can be tested.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No James, only small changes have been observed, demonstrated and tested. Large changes which is what you are implying did NOT happen. Again explained in detail above.


    ########################################################
    “JH As far as education is concerned, evolution should be kept out science COMPLETELY. ... So leave it out!
    Good, so you will be campaigning against the setting up of a free school that teaches evolution in science then. Welcome aboard.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don’t do that James. You are an intelligent and educated person. I don’t want to have to explain this to you. The problem is our ENTIRE EDUCATION SYSTEM, not this school. Our Curriculum is unscientific and you are playing games. The question is whether YOU will join and help me fix the Curriculum or will you simply stand back and let our children suffer being taught ANTI-SCIENCE?


    ########################################################
    “JH Likewise, I am not suggesting we should discuss the subject of creator/designer in a science classroom either. We should stick to FACTS of what we KNOW and not impose our worldviews on our kids.
    Great, hopefully creationism will be kept out of science in all schools, not just this one.”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No James, you must stop attacking unnecessarily. You are fully aware of what point I am trying to make. I am not proposing Creationism to be taught in science classrooms, I am asking for Evolutionism to be removed from science classrooms. Please don’t just dismiss this subject with unnecessary light remarks. This is a serious matter that is destroying this generation (and the generation to come).


    ########################################################
    “JH The subject of origin (or evolution) should be discussed in a separate classroom where all theories can happily compete against each other!
    That’ll be a short lesson then, as there is only one currently accepted scientific theory for evolution (assuming you are not doing a sleight of hand and using the vernacular/layman definition of theory)”
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sorry, not sure what point you’re making. Are you saying that you agree with putting the subject of origin in a separate classroom but it will easily compete and win? If so, that’s great! Leave it there! Or are you saying that your theory is the only one currently accepted scientifically so therefore it should be put in a science classroom? If it’s the latter, then that would be as ridiculous as me saying that Christianity is the only one currently accepted theory of creation, and therefore, it should be taught in a science classroom! Both are religious and both belong in a religious classroom! Or, on the other hand, both should be taught in a science classroom!

    Now, here comes my next challenge (you already declined an official debate); If we both take a science classroom where you teach the theory of evolution and I teach the theory of creation (for geology, radiometric dating, carbon dating, palaeontology and molecular biology) I guarantee that my theory would be more scientific and coherent than yours without even mentioning the word GOD once (unless I was asked of course).


    ########################################################
    “JH it’s useless: ‘Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” (Professor Louis Bounoure (1957), Determinism and Finality. University of Strasbourg. p. 79. Former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, France)
    If you are quote mining out of context be courteous and attribute the quote to the correct person. The beginning of the quotation, ‘Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand who didn’t dispute evolution but was talking about the mechanisms. He also said: "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions] the fact of evolution.’”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    James, again, not sure the point you’re making. I quoted Professor Louis Bounoure from his book “Determinism and Finality”. If I wanted to quote Jean Rostand I would have referred to his book Age Nouveau, p.12 "Transformism (evolution) is a fairy tale for adults," (February, 1959 a famous French biologist and member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). Whether Louis Bounoure misquoted someone else or not, is not my problem. Also, I’m fully aware of the rest of the quotation by Jean Rostand. All it shows is that evolutionists are so closed-minded that despite knowing that it’s a fairy tale for adults, they still believe in it. So what is your point? This is a typical tactic by evolutionist to try to discredit what you say by minor technicalities. You major on minors again!


    ########################################################
    “JH Is this how we are to live in a positive way? Is it done through “war of nature, from famine and death”? You see if evolution is true, then THAT’S the way to produce “higher animals”.
    Again you show your ignorance of evolution”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I only quoted what Darwin said. Are you saying that Darwin shows ignorance of evolution? What is your “Rescuing Device” now?


    ########################################################
    “Evolution is not directed and does not move towards higher animals you are giving evolution a sense of purpose and direction that it does not have. If there was no death, humans lived for a 1,000 years and nothing ever died as in the GoE) just how was God going to sustain this very small and insignificant planet? Enforced non-reproduction of all animal/plant/bacterial/fungal/single celled life?”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is a basic misconception made by evolutionist. Before you worry about what is death, you need to define what is life and who/what is alive. You also made the faulty assumption that the world we live in today is the same as the one God created when Adam/Eve were still alive. It’s getting late, I’ll explain another time. I don’t mind you attacking my worldview and creation theory but please remember that it is your self-proclaimed “scientific” theory that is in question which you insist on teaching in science classrooms. Therefore, it is YOU who has to justify himself. I’m happy to justify my theory when we are AT LEAST treated equally (although that would be still unacceptable as your theory is ANTI-SCIENCE)!


    ########################################################
    “JH The kids think it’s real because it’s taught from people with authority (such as yourself)!
    No, because they see the evidence and we teach critical thinking skills.”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you teach students to think critically by telling them that this theory is a FACT when it isn’t! Do you teach students to think critically by asking them questions like “Do you think humans are still evolving?” (Holt Biology 1994)? Does this question teach children to think critically? If they say no, then they are accepting that the theory happened, if they say yes, then they are accepting the theory is still happening. Either way, it’s “evolution are us” – lol. No James, at least have the honesty to admit that we are indoctrinating our children one way or another with this theory.


    ########################################################
    “JH As explained, the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired word for the living God.
    Which Bible translation is inerrant etc.?”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Good question. I’m more than happy to explain the origin of Biblical translations and how it matters which translations we should (or shouldn’t use). Do we have original manuscripts? Should we use Bibles that are translated based on the Textus Receptus or Alexandrian copy etc.. Please visit http://avpublications.com/ and http://www.chick.com/default.asp for a basic understanding of this subject. This is something we can certainly discuss but first let’s get rid of the evolution lies!


    ########################################################
    “JH Therefore, it can’t have any contradictions.
    But it does.
    Are we saved by faith only? Ephesians 2:8-9 says so. Are we saved by works? James 2:14-26 seems to say that is the case. Is water baptism essential to salvation? John 3:16 leaves it out. But Acts 2:38 puts it in. Are musical instruments a part of healthy worship? A hundred references in Psalms would say so. But Ephesians 5:19, one of the few New Testament references to worship music, makes no mention of them. Is the Bible itself the Word of God? II Timothy 3:15-17 seems to leave no question. But II Peter 1:21 says God used ‘holy men of old’ to pen it (he could have created a Bible from nothing that was his direct word, but seemingly chose not to). We should do good works and keep them to ourselves (Matthew 6:1). But in the preceding chapter, Jesus tells us to work so that ‘others may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven’ (Matthew 5:16).”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    James, the Bible is the Word of God, therefore, it cannot have any contradictions. But if I answer these questions for you will you be satisfied that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the living God? The listed items are not contradictions and very simple to answer. In fact you haven’t even realised that you have committed the fallacy of “Bifurcation” (“The False Dilemma” and the “Either-Or“ fallacy) which are subcategories of the Fallacy of Presumption. You also do not seem to understand what a contradiction is (ie the principle of “A and not A within the same relationship”). I’ll give you a clue; the first so-called contradiction you mentioned falls in that category (by the way this “contradiction” is typically supposed to be between Romans 4:2-3 and James 2:21-24). Please consider purchasing some books about this subject or at least check on the Internet. Have you checked the links I gave you?
    Here is a good book you should get http://www.amazon.com/Demolishing-Contradictions-Ken-Ham/dp/0890516006. Also find and purchase “’Errors’ in the King James Bible”.

    James, the Bible has no contradictions. It’s God Word. His Word tells us that we have all sinned and fallen short of His glory (Romans 3:23). The punishment of this sin is death (Romans 3:26) and eternal punishment in hell. But if you accept Jesus (Romans 10:13), repent and get Him to pay for the consequence of your sin, you will be saved!


    ########################################################
    “JH (Colin Patterson, address at American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981)
    Again, if you quote mine do it properly and don’t just be selective and use it out of context and ignore subsequent representations by the man himself. As you probably know he was secretly recorded and a transcript of this written then published/distributed.”
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I know the story James. I was not quote-mining. The remainder of his statement was not just irrelevant but also detrimental to Colin Patterson where he actually contradicted himself. I was not suggesting for ONE MINUTE that Collin Patterson was an ally for the Creationist, just pointing out his comments - whilst under relaxed circumstances (albeit, according to Collin Patterson, recorded without his knowledge). Sadly he remains brainwashed to believe in one thing and in one way. Indeed evolutionists are more religious than me.


    Thank you for your time. Do you intend to keep this going? Can I add this discussion to my debate list please?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    3:03
    16 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Dear John

    No I don’t give permission for what you ask, but I’m sure that, working to type, you’ll get around that anyway.

    Thank you very much for all your time and effort on this comment thread. You have performed to type (not a holotype I'm afraid) and you have fulfilled all my predictions about the range of responses and the characteristics of creationist types. I must admit there were a few curved balls in your responses that I hadn't predicted, but overall you conformed. You rose to the challenges and took the bait in one or more of my posts.

    I think we should end this ‘experiment’ (not scientific) now. Don’t worry this experiment is not official or part of my work-related research so I haven’t broken any ethical codes by conducting covert research. It’s just a personal taxonomy that I work on in my free time just for my own satisfaction. I am working on creationist typologies. You will not be referred to, identified or this thread linked to in any way in any ‘official’ research on creationist typologies that I do produce in the future. This is merely some informal, unofficial background stuff.

    You sensibly avoided making explicit the links you have with the Everyday Champions Church and your admiration for Kent Hovind, even when I kept baiting you over Hovind’s imprisonment and how corrupt and immoral some evangelical Christians were you didn’t bite. All my calls for you to condemn the Church, again, you didn’t bite or reveal your links – just dismissed my calls. Congratulations. You were consistent in your use of argument with your podcasts, but kept your ridicule of evolutionists (not even a donkey, not even wrong!) to a minimum on a public forum, again reverting to type (even though I had hinted at that in my earlier posts using the phrase – ‘not even wrong’ and that in private creationists simply ridicule evolutionists) you can, it seems, be very restrained in a public forum when you wish to keep up an entirely professional front so that your contributions compare favourably with those of the ‘evolutionists’ you bait who then descend to ridicule and personal insult. Again, to type, when I started to be deliberately ‘less professional’ in my posts you seized on this and made great capital, just as I would expect/predict.

    Your use of philosophy, logic, the characterisation of logical argument again conforms to type, but here you were less consistent and did, I feel, let the ‘faith’ take over, but I’m sure you will reject this. For me I’m less inclined to worry about those sorts of things as they are not at the core of the characteristics of my taxonomy.

    Would I be right in thinking that you are relatively new to the creationist debating scene? I can’t find you listed in many places and your ‘list’, though I may be wrong, seems quite short – is it just the June, July and August 2010 blogs? (no need to answer if you don’t want to. As I said I’m not into lists or claiming great victories of ‘science over faith’. I actually subscribe to Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping MAgisteria) – I quite like that).

    I love the idea that your forum (defined in dictionaries as: a place where the public may debate an issue) has no registered users and is not for debate but information giving only, that did make me smile a lot – why not just post downloadable documents, I thought. I thought about adding that to my taxonomy but decided that it would be very unfair it was just a device on your part to give out stuff, I suppose. You may wish to put all the Bible contradictions I listed and their rebuttals on there to help your peers. Here you did not respond to type but merely posted the usual ‘Bible is inerrant etc. comment and listed some contradiction ‘correction’ websites. That was one of your ‘curved balls’ where normally I get rambling explanations of the contradictions. Another curve was your continual refusal to define a Kind even though I asked 5 or 6 times in posts (exactly what is a kind?) and it was only when I lumped together monkeys apes, humans as a kind did you eventually bite, even then not a very convincing definition however, there are much better ones. This is a useful website for you on the subject: http://objectiveministries.org/creation/baraminology.html

    In some instances you did get quite angry (in an online comment way) about how evolution under no circumstances should be seen as science or taught in science and that could be damaging to the Church's free school status application given your links.

    Frankly, exchanges like this could go on for years and ultimately are pointless as you will never accept evolution as a science (responding to type) though I am willing to accept that there is a God.

    James

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:03
    16 March, 2011

    James Williams

  • Dear James

    I too wish to thank you for all the efforts you have put in this discussion. I totally respect your desire not to include this discussion/debate on my website. Therefore, rest assured that I will not announce or reference this discussion anywhere (other than my debate with DaveGilbert as previously mentioned).

    Firstly, although I acknowledge that the points brought forward are typical of what an informed Creationist (or Christian apologetic) would argue, I’m not sure whether you have inadvertently or deliberately discrediting it by referring to it as a “type”. Having said that, I also agree that the responses given were generally predictable (to both sides) which makes the whole argument even more frustrating. Therefore, my question is this: if both sides are familiar with each other’s responses why can we not solve these differences scientifically and promptly? That’s because it all boils down to personal opinion, worldviews and preferences! Not science!

    Secondly, it disturbs me somewhat that you referred to this discussion/debate as an “experiment”. This appears to be belittling the importance of this subject (although I choose to think that it was not what you meant). I would rather you address such discussions as a way to seek the truth. Isn’t that what Linus Pauling said “Science should be the search for truth”. Sadly, for some people, the theory of evolution has become their god and not even science would shake that.

    Nevertheless, it appears that people are still confused about this subject, and often refer to it as “science and faith”. However, I appear to have made a very interesting discovery! As I continue to debate and discuss this subject with teachers, lecturers and scientists, I found that a more accurate description is “evolution vs. science”. Evolution has become a global religion acknowledged and accepted worldwide. A perfect recipe for one world religion, government and currency! Meanwhile we will destroy and distort morality in the classroom teaching children that right/wrong is relative and dictated by personal/majority of opinion or authority. We teach our kids to commit the fallacy of appealing to majority and the fallacy of appealing to authority (hardly an education) but necessary for one world government. Children are taught that there is no such thing as ABSOLUTES (the philosophy of relativism - only applicable if evolution is true), yet they wish to ABSOLUTELY reject any other option (which makes sense if evolution is true as such logical fallacies would not be acceptable in the biblical worldview). This is a self-defeating philosophy (hardly an education).

    Apparently, in some instances, I got quite angry (in an online comment way). However, I would rather describe it as a PASSIONATE response. I am sure you would respond in the same way if you knew that your children are being lied to daily with ANTI-SCIENCE by humanistic teachers who are teaching their religious views (disguised as science); whilst those in authority and the ability to make a difference spend their spare time “experimenting” and categorising, those who are trying to fix this problem, into “types” etc.

    Although my argument regarding the fallacies of evolution has nothing to do with God’s existence, interestingly, you are “willing to accept that there is a God”. However, please note that your acceptance of whether God exists or not would not at all affect your destiny if He really DOES exist (which of course He does). You see if God exists then He owns the world (universe). That means there are rules (for example check out the 10 commandment). Breaking ONE rule only ONCE makes us guilty of sin. Sin carries the penalty of punishment (due to God’s perfect and holy nature), similar to the punishment we receive by a judge when we break the law of our nation. However, Jesus took that punishment (due to God’s perfect love) so that all those who repent and accept this gift will not have to face God’s judgement since God’s wrath will be directed at Jesus via the death on the cross. So just believing God exists is not good enough since even the devil knows that He exists but still won’t be saved. This is the reason why Jesus is the SAVIOUR and why no other religion can offer a solution since sin (breaking God’s laws) needs to be paid for.

    Finally, I do agree that exchanges like this could go on for years and are pointless (if it does not lead to better education).

    Once again, it has been a pleasure communicating with you. If you change your mind about letting me use this discussion/debate on my website, please let me know. It won’t bring any harm to your career or profession. Integrity will be maintained at all times (this is important in my worldview). In the meantime, it would be great if you keep in touch via my public email address john.public.cs@gmail.com.

    I hope you receive the God of the Bible and be blessed richly (Ezekiel 34:26)

    John

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:10
    17 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi JohnHarris. It has been interesting to observe your postings with James from the sidelines. One thing that has struck me and should have been cleared up right from the start (although I did ask you this if you remember) was for you to define what your understanding of evolution is. In my opinion, our conversation has been somewhat circular due to a lack of an understanding of key fundamentals. Perhaps, if we are to continue, it would help if you would have an attempt to answer the following,

    What is your definition of evolution exactly?
    What is your definition of science?
    What is your definition of god?
    What evidence do you have for your god?
    What makes your god different from all the rest?
    Why should anybody believe you?
    Why is the idea of evolution so reprehensible to you?

    If you answer these questions honestly and in the spirit they are intended then we might be able to move forward. What do you think?
    Respect always.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:09
    18 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Thank you Dave,

    I’ll be happy to answer these questions honestly for you. Perhaps if we are going to continue this, we should limit our comments to 500 words per posting per day (up to 2000 words) as I originally suggested to James. I hope you are ok with this. I’ll begin with answering all your questions which will be more than 500 words to start with (nearer 1000 words).

    We can focus on one point/subject at a time if you want, but I don’t really want to discuss God/Creation until we can agree on Evolution, otherwise it will just be a hypothetical philosophical discussion that I’m not willing to do.


    ########################################################
    “What is your definition of evolution exactly? “
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We observe small variations within a kind but not large changes. Darwin used this observable fact of small variations within a kind and implied therefore that “all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other.”. This is a statement of faith not a scientific fact. With the discovery of DNA, we now know that this is impossible unless you believe in new-Darwinism (yet another “Rescuing Device”) which we now know that it’s not possible without affecting “fitness cost”. Therefore, mutation would sooner cause extension rather than advancement etc. I gave James some websites to explain the meaning of the variation-within-a-kind (every other meaning of evolution is rejected):

    http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
    http://creation.com/variation-information-and-the-created-kind

    Funny enough, James also offered another a website which is also very informative: http://objectiveministries.org/creation/baraminology.html


    ########################################################
    “What is your definition of science? “
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Webster’s dictionary: Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study,...etc. Most dictionaries would generally agree with this in principle.

    In contrast, “religion” in the same dictionary, means: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...etc. Some dictionaries will include God in their explanation and others such as Oxford American Dictionary would vary slightly, for example: a particular system of faith etc...

    Either way, I’m mainly interested in empirical science; things we can observe, test and demonstrate. In evolution terms, small changes can be observed whilst large changes are implied (not observable, not testable and certainly cannot be demonstrated).


    ########################################################
    “What is your definition of god? “
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The creator, designer and the cause (law of causality) responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it! This creator is outside of, not affected by, above and beyond His creation who is responsible for creating time, space of matter and the laws of physics. He also created rational think, uniformity and logic etc. That’s why these attributes are consistent across countries, nations, race, and even universe (otherwise the method in which to detect intelligence in the universe using the SETI programme would be pointless)!


    ########################################################
    “What makes your god different from all the rest?“
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The God of the Bible tells me that He is the ONLY way, truth and life (John 14:6). There is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we can be saved (Acts 4:12). He has the power to forgive sin (Ephesians 1:7) who took the penalty of sin and through whom we can have eternal life through Jesus (Romans 6:23).

    There is a big difference between my God and the rest of the gods. Only the Christian God has a saviour. Otherwise, it is impossible to enter heaven through good works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Having said that, good works is the outworking of our faith (2 Peter 1:5-11).


    ########################################################
    “Why should anybody believe you? “
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First of all, they don’t have to believe me. My fight is against the lies of evolution, not religions. Having said that, if evolution is not true then there must be a creator! Once we come to that conclusion then we must discuss who this creator is and what He wants. According to the God of the Bible, He is a PERFECTLY HOLY, PERFECTLY JUST and PERFECTLY LOVING creator. If he’s PERFECTLY HOLY, then He can’t tolerate sin (AT ALL). If he’s PERFECTLY JUST, He must pass the MAXIMUM sentence for sin (eternal punishment in hell). If He’s PERFECTLY LOVING, then He will somehow find a way out for me. This is what Jesus did by paying for the punishment Himself on the cross.

    If you find any other saviour that is willing to take your place for God’s punishment, then go ahead and follow him but be sure he fits all the criteria. For example, he himself will have to be perfect otherwise he himself will need a saviour and won’t qualify to take your place of punishment (2 Corinthians 5:21). It would be similar to a CRIMINAL trying to bail you out of a CRIME you have committed. It’s your soul and your eternal life, make sure it’s in safe hands.

    The Christian/Biblical God is the only God that can offer you a way into heaven and protection from a well deserved eternal punishment.


    ########################################################
    “Why is the idea of evolution so reprehensible to you?”
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It teaches our children lies! It teaches our children to have no morality! It teaches our children to reject observable science, common sense, rationality and logic! And most of all it deceives them in thinking there is no creator thus affecting their lives for eternity. The Bible has a serious warning for those who mislead children; it would be better for them if a millstone were hung around their neck and drowned in the depth of the sea (Matthew 18:6) – God takes this very seriously. Don’t mess with the creator!


    I hope this helps. For the sake of time and public interest, I suggest we stick to 500 words/day/posting (max 2000 words).

    Finally, please allow me to reserve the right to include this in my debate list. Of course, I am always happy to discuss this privately via my public email address if you wish.

    Take care Dave

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:44
    18 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi John. Thanks for your reply. Yes. Let’s keep it succinct and to the point. That way we won’t get lost in meaningless and irrelevance.

    “We observe small variations within a kind but not large changes.”
    So, you are not against evolution within a kind in other words, species. But that is what evolution is. It’s the small changes in the short term that manifest to into transitions toward new species. Don’t forget we humans seek causality and order in what we see. Therefore we ‘pigeon hole’ all living (and non living) things into groups; species, genus, family, order, etc. We don’t see intermediates because we have already created a group for it. If we came back in 10,000 years say, we may indeed find animals that no longer fit into those neat little boxes and so, one would have to fit them into new boxes (new species). This is not an article of faith because we have seen it happen in the fossil record and evidence for it in our DNA. Remember I likened it to you being a detective coming across a murder scene. You weren’t there when the foul deed was committed. Nonetheless, you gather all the evidence, DNA, fingerprints, circumstantial witness testimony and, providing you have enough of that evidence you find the culprit. This is how scientists have found the evidence for evolution over long periods of time.

    Yes, you are right, we don’t observe, “large changes”, the transition into new species because they happen over long periods often brought about as a response to some dramatic change in their environment. The closest we get to it is in the petri dish with bacteria and other ‘short lived’ beings. But now extrapolate that to a time span of over millions of year and it is clear (to me anyway) that longer lived beings will evolve into new species just as you state Darwin predicted, “all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other”.

    So we can maintain an order of precision, please explain your following statements,
    How does the “discovery of DNA” contradict this?
    What do you define as “new-Darwinism”?
    What do you mean by, “mutation would sooner cause extension rather than advancement etc”?

    Your websites are all creationist based so hardly independent. I am aware the tricks of those that contribute to them in distorting evidence and even publishing blatant lies so I can’t reply on them, sorry. If we remain honest with each other, I believe we may reach common ground. After all, you have already conceded to some of what evolution states with variety amongst species (kind).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:51
    19 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Okay, let’s look at how you define science.?“According to Webster’s dictionary: Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study,...etc. Most dictionaries would generally agree with this in principle.”
    I thought we were going to be honest with each other John? You are quote mining again. Only picking those passages that suit your cause and ignoring the one’s that don’t. I too looked at the Webster’s definition. The bit you quoted doesn’t mention “derived from observation, study” The correct quote is;
    1: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
    2: a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
    b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
    3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
    b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
    4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

    No way is the science of evolution discounted in that definition. I think you are clutching at straws to draw a parallel with religion based on that definition so I think you had better drop that one.
    Okay, as you say, let’s leave the rest until we’ve sorted those two out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:51
    19 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • John Harris, by what authority do you speak for Christianity? Or, indeed, for ECC? What is your training in the science about which you are so helpfully enlightening us?

    Regarding carbon 14, I thought it couldn't be used before 50,000 years ago because of its lifetime, but I also thought that the oldest dates were derived using uranium/lead starting with Rutherford, before carbon 14 was even discovered. Am I wrong?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:36
    19 March, 2011

    VerumQuaerens

  • I have just noticed that Mr Harris wrote "Please be aware, that I reserve the right to add the contents of this website and your response to my collection of debates on my website for everyone to see!"

    You can't do that! Breach of copyright! Theft of intellectual property!

    Seventh Commandment!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:24
    19 March, 2011

    PaulBraterman

  • Oops! Eighth!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:28
    19 March, 2011

    PaulBraterman

  • Hi Dave, good reply. This should help us understand each other’s position.

    Are you happy if we (or at least I) limit each posting to 500words/day (max 2000words)?


    ########################################################
    Meaning of “Evolution”
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Creationists and evolutionists understanding of evolution overlap on “small changes” but totally disagree on “large changes” within-a-kind. Small changes are scientifically observable but large changes are not (you seem to agree by saying: “Yes, you are right, we don’t observe, ‘large changes’”).

    Having said that, I believe you are claiming that if enough “small changes” occur we’ll eventually see “large changes” etc over a very long period of time thus producing a new kind of animal. Your supporting material for this claim seems to be based on the fact that; because it happens over a long period of time, it is by definition not observable therefore it’s a fact. You also claim that you have fossil records to support your claim.

    Let me give you an example of what’s happing here. It’s like saying; we observe that people grow taller from the day they’re born by 3inches a year (just an example), therefore, by the time they’re 40 years old, they’ll be approx 10 feet tall. Of course, the person who’s making this claim apparently is not aware that people stop growing taller after the age of 19-25 because they had only a limited period to observe the growth and therefore, not realising that the growth is limited. The fact that they cannot observe this growth (because of their limited observation time) is NOT PROOF for their theory. In fact even if this observer FINDS fossil remains of humans that are 10 feet tall, it will still NOT prove their theory (ie the idea of unlimited growth). By the way, please don’t take this example too far. I’m simply making the point of UNLIMITED growth to compare the idea of UNLIMITED changes that evolutionists claim can occur within the DNA.

    As per our discovery of the DNA sequence in 1953 J.D.Watson and F.Crick (http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf) we now know that DNA code limits the variation-within-a-kind. The reason for this is because natural selection will only select from the existing DNA sequence. In fact, natural selection reduces/limits genetic information within the DNA. That’s why you may be able to produce a poodle from a wolf but NEVER a wolf from a poodle.

    Before I answer your DNA questions, can I ask you what mechanism are you relying on to increase the genetic information in the DNA code (ie to produce larger and better changes)? Is it Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian, Lamarckism, Gradual, Punctual etc.? Can you give an example or demonstrate such additional information?


    ########################################################
    Meaning of “Science”
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I’m very confused by your accusation of quote-mining. What purpose did the remainder of the definition serve? I gave an abbreviated definition which doesn’t contradict your expanded definition. Accusation of quote-mining only works if what’s left out contradicts the quoted text!

    Please spell out your accusations so that I can follow them!

    Cheers

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:41
    20 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • @PaulBraterman

    Don’t worry, any material copied will be with permission.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi VerumQuaerens

    There is a limit to how many half-lives we can measure depending on the three different methods of detecting C14. So far, up to 5-10 half-lives is the approximate limit (depending on method of dating) giving an approx date of 30,000 - 60,000 years old. C14 is used to date living organisms such as plants, bones, trees, skins, coal etc. (anything that lived). Typically the term radiometric dating is used to date rocks using different isotopes of: Uranium-Lead, Rubidium-Strontium, Potassium-Argon (most commonly used). These have a MUCH longer half-life than Carbon dating systems (also known as Radiocarbon dating or just C14 dating).

    When scientists find a fossil, they simply date the rock using Radiometric dating (not Carbon dating). They then decide the age of the fossil by the date of the rock. Having said that, a fossil is more commonly dated by the layer that it’s found in. They assume the date of the layer by the index fossil that is found in it. Basically certain fossils have assumed dates that determines the age of the rock. This kind of dating causes a circular reasoning problem.

    If you wish to know more about how the aging process works and the assumptions made for Carbon and Radiometric dating systems, please communicate with me on my public email address and I’ll be happy to send you a document that I have written about 20 pages long that explains this in a little more detail. It explains the process, half-lives, assumptions, leaching, leaking,etc,etc. with examples. I may have to make some minor changes before I send you a copy but I kept it deliberately simple and short avoiding subjects such as statistical analysis and in-depth discussion of the decay process (alpha, beta, gamma and electron or positron capture etc.).

    There are many good websites available that could also be useful:

    http://www.gotquestions.org/radiometric-dating.html
    http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible


    I hope this helps

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:45
    20 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • John Harris, you did not answer my questions:

    By what authority do you speak for Christianity? Or, indeed, for ECC? What is your training in the science about which you are so helpfully enlightening us?

    I fear you are one of those mentioned by Aquinas, who bring the faith into disrepute by believing in impossibilities. Example; your claim on your blog that the grand Canyon was made by Noah's flood, and that the flood could cover the mountains because they were much less high in Noah's time.

    And could you give us a yes/no on whether there were dinosaurs in the Ark?

    Why did you suggest that geologists are cheating when they use methods other than carbon-14 to date ancient specimens, when as you yourself now admit carbon-14 is useless beyond 60,000 years?

    My own favourite site on this stuff is

    Wiens, R.C. Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective. By a Los Alamos physicist. Discusses all the different methods, and deals with the scientific and religious so-called objections:
    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WIENS.html

    Read it and learn

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    2:12
    20 March, 2011

    VerumQuaerens

  • It's clear John that you are way out of your depth on the science. I'd be surprised if you have any science qualification (biology, chemistry, physics or geology) past GCSE or A level, even then if you have it's clear that your religion has stopped you from understanding science and therefore you are a great advert as to why we shouldn't have religious schools and indoctrination of the type you are proposing for your free school.

    Geologists do not date fossils by dating the age if the rock in which it is found by radiometric dating and if you knew anything about it you would know why.

    That paragraph about dating alone shows your complete ignorance of the subject. Stick to religion, though it looks like you don't even get that right. The poster above is right. You are an embarassment to decent Christians. As an atheist I'm beginning to feel sorry for Christians if you are an example of the best they have!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:40
    20 March, 2011

    Plato

  • @VerumQuaerens

    Mmmm.....Sorry VerumQuaerens, the fallacy in your response is surprising; I’m not sure where to begin. I’ll be happy to answer all your questions (it’s really not all that difficult) but first you must tell me where life first began and HOW do you know that (use empirical science please)? Just for the record, I don’t have authority to speak on behalf of this school (and I don’t) - any more than you, or anyone on this website, has the authority to speak against it! If you had read my previous comments, you would have known that I was criticising the ENTIRE education system!

    Also, I’m really not interested in holding several debates with different people at the same time on this website. DaveGuilbert is doing a good job so far (and so did James Williams). And I am certainly not interested in continually correcting severe logical fallacies. I just want the evolutionists to provide evidence for their theory otherwise it should be called a belief system (religion) and put in a separate classroom. It sounds fair to me! Let me give you an example of one of the fallacies in your response.

    You said: “Why did you suggest that geologists are cheating when they use methods other than carbon-14 to date ancient specimens, when as you yourself now admit carbon-14 is useless beyond 60,000 years?”.

    VerumQuaerens, the point was that there is STILL carbon in the majority (if NOT ALL) of the so-called old specimens found. But evolutionists refuse to carbon date it or reject the carbon dating results if they discover it conflicts with their OLD-AGE beliefs (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html). You see, the theory takes precedence OVER the evidence.

    Plato committed a similar fallacy with his response regarding the rock dating and had the audacity to commit an additional fallacy called the question-begging epithet. I think Plato should take James Williams’ advice in his post dated 9th March (21:43). He won’t have to read much, it’s the first sentence. Lol. This is what happens when our children are taught a dumb theory! They just don’t have time for real education.

    By the way, VerumQuaerens, I checked the link you gave (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WIENS.html). Unfortunately it didn’t work. It said “Page not Found (404 Error)”. Did you actually read this yourself? I don’t mean to sound negative, but I am regularly given links to sites to refute a claim that the evolutionist himself has not read (it’s usually obvious when the link fails).

    VerumQuaerens, if it’s ok with you, please monitor the progress between me and DaveGilbert after which I will be very pleased to answer any questions you wish. In the meantime, it is very time consuming being on this website daily, so I will now check this website every 2 days. The next time I will check its contents will be on Tuesday evening where I look forward to seeing DaveGuilbert’s challenging response (meant in good spirit – as always).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:54
    20 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Oh I get it now, John Harris (if that is your real name even), you can't answer any of the questions and you just spend your time avoiding. So you still haven't answered any direct questions have you? But now, so that you don't ahve to you ask a question which you know has no answer (skimming the above posts many times you've been told that science doesn't have the answer to how life started and, you've also been told that this isn't part of the theory of evolution anyway. So now you avoid answering questions by saying " but first you must tell me where life first began and HOW do you know that" OK well, before we watse any more time on playing silly games with you why don't you show us the evidence that God exists - and none of this second hand 'it's in the bibile, he wrote that he exists so he must have existed".

    Not one shred of physical evidence for Jesus, no bones, nothinbg. Not one physical shred of God, nothing. So to take you seriously why not post a link to a website that has photos of God sharing his wisodm with all you evangelicals - you can't because he/she only exists in your heads and there is no evidence.

    You keep asking for evidence of evolution and reject everything. Total ignornace man, total ignorance. Thatr's what you show.

    Do you know why your statement about measuirng the dates of the rocks in which fossils are found by radiometric dating is wrong? Don't deflect or evade say yes or no. THEN show us that you do know if you say yes by explaining why you are wrong/. Answer the question, DO YOU KNOW? Can you say why such a statement is so silly? There again I guess that you are never wring are you 'John Harris'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:23
    20 March, 2011

    Plato

  • I am sorry about the link problem. Since you ask, I have indeed read Wiens's posting. I have corresponded with him, and used his posting in my own teaching for many years.

    I don't know if the shift from capitals matters, but I successfully downloaded it from

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

    (NB wiens is now lower case), either directly, or via googling
    "radiometric dating a christian perspective"

    I do strongly recommend this source to all and sundry.

    Fossils are dated by reference to their enclosing rocks, but these rocks are sedimentary by definition, so they in turn are dated by reference to inclusions or volcanic ash. Secondary dating by fossil type depends on such calibration points, is therefore NOT circular, and gives consistent results, which would not be possible unless they reflect evolutionary history. Organic carbon will long since have been replaced, and small amounts of adventitous carbon will place an upper limit on the apparent age. All predicable, foreseeable and foreseen from the beginnings of carbon-14 dating, and convincing reasons for rejecting it for mineral specimens in favour of uranium-lead, thorium-lead, and all the others listed by the estimable Wiens.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:25
    20 March, 2011

    VerumQuaerens

  • Hi John.
    “Creationists and evolutionists understanding of evolution overlap on “small changes” but totally disagree on “large changes” within-a-kind. Small changes are scientifically observable but large changes are not (you seem to agree by saying: “Yes, you are right, we don’t observe, ‘large changes’”)."

    I take it you are referring to the fallacious dichotomy between micro and macro evolution? There is no distinction, common decent by evolution encompasses all changes both small and large (see below).

    I won’t take the example of growth at all because it is irrelevant. I still don’t understand what you are getting at with your assertion that, “we now know that DNA code limits the variation-within-a-kind”. Reference please. As I have said all along, the comparative sequencing analysis of DNA is still one of the strongest evidence for common decent. It has shown the phylogenetic route taken by all species just as Darwin predicted in his ‘tree of life’ metaphor where lineage can be traced back to a common ancestor of all living things. If you take just one species and examine its DNA then you will see a direct and predictable pattern in the gene sequence including its unique inherited mutations with that of more ancient species. I don’t quite understand the point you are trying to make with your example of producing, “a poodle from a wolf but NEVER a wolf from a poodle”. Unfortunately, I am not a geneticist and so I don’t know where you get the idea that DNA limits natural selection. Can you enlighten me please?

    “Before I answer your DNA questions, can I ask you what mechanism are you relying on to increase the genetic information in the DNA code (ie to produce larger and better changes)?”
    Natural section by evolution. Lamarckism was discredited following the publication of ‘Origin of Species‘ in 1859. The terms, ‘Darwinian’ and ‘Neo-Darwinian’ used nowadays are often intended pejoratively by people that do not understand evolution or manipulate it to there own ends. Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) was a term used by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to argue that, rather than evolution being seen in the small changes called ‘phyletic gradualism’, it takes place in sudden dramatic changes, ‘punctuated equilibria‘. There is merit to this idea but why not accept that both occur? It all depends on the environment. If that changes relatively suddenly in geological time, as might have been the case during the great Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction 65 million years ago. In such cases, we are going to see relatively sudden changes in speciation as predicted by Eldredge and Gould. However, during the vast amount of geological and climatic changes, variation will occur over longer time and so evolution will be gradual. Moreover, I hope you are not one of those that misunderstand PE to occur in a sudden huge bursts like a creation event, because that is not what they meant.

    As to my criticism with how you used Websters‘ definition, you are right, the whole article did not add anything to the discourse but I wanted to point out that it was you that entered the extra bit about, “derived from observation, study,...etc”. “Accusation of quote-mining only works if what’s left out contradicts the quoted text!” and also what is inserted to make out it was there all the time, that my friend was a ‘no ball’.

    Respect to you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:54
    20 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • "what mechanism ... increase[s] the genetic information in the DNA code"

    A fair question that deserves a fair answer, in case anyone imagines, as JH would have us imagine, that it's unanswerable

    1) Mutation followed by selection, increases information content of a diverse population
    2) Gene duplication followed by selection for differentiation between the two copies, thus increasing the number of available pathways. This has happened twice in the evolution of the photosystem I /photosystem II assemblage.
    3) Horizontal gene transfer followed by the prcesses described above.

    JH is referring to Dembski's fallacy, echoed by Behe, that evolution involves loss of information and cannot enhance it. (But even Behe in december's QRB admits that innovation can happen). That BTW was the point of the JH's stuff about wolf to chihuahua.

    The fallacy, one of several at the heart of the creationist argument, requires both innovation and selection to occur in a single step. Of course they don't; it's a special case of the creo/ID pretense of enormous improbability which depends on ignoring the difference between events and sequences.

    More, much more, on innovation in Lawrence A. David, Eric J. Alm. Rapid evolutionary innovation during an Archaean genetic expansion. Nature, 469, 2011, 93 DOI: 10.1038/nature09649.

    Give instruction to a wise man and he will be yet wiser. JH, you know the rest - will you learn from instruction or do you prefer to persist?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:21
    21 March, 2011

    VerumQuaerens

  • Looks like Gove has seen sense and the ECC church school will fail!

    So, your proposed school 'John Harris' won't get off the ground the way it is being proposed and a good thing too.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/21/free-schools-creationism-department-education

    End of discussion here maybe??

    But I bet you will be slippery, lie about what you are going to do to get the cash for the schoolk and hope you don'yt get caught indoctrinating your children that creationism explains everything. I'm not a Gove fan, but support him fully on this one!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:30
    22 March, 2011

    Plato

  • Firstly, I have to politely decide to resist responding to VerumQuaerens. I really can’t respond to more than one person at a time. Maybe later.

    As for Plato, please try to get rid of that anger my friend, it’s really not healthy.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi DaveGuilbert, I hope you're well - I do mean that; I feel like I know you already :). If you’re local to me, perhaps we can go out for a drink one day.

    In order to get to the bottom of the point I’m making, we need to briefly discuss DNA. Please forgive me for the lengthy(ish) explanation. I hope it makes sense.

    The DNA molecule is like a microscopic computer with a built-in memory which is one of the most important discoveries within the 20th century. It stores a fantastic number of “blueprints,” and at the right time and place sends orders for distant parts of the body to build its cells and structures. Inside each cell in your body is a nucleus (as you know). Inside that nucleus are, among other complicated things, chromosomes. Inside the chromosomes are genes. The genes are attached to chromosomes like beads on a chain. Inside the genes is the complicated chemical structure we call DNA. Each gene has a thousand or more of these DNA units within it. Inside each cell are tens of thousands of these genes, grouped into 23 pairs of chromosomes. I am not necessarily claiming that you don’t know these things, I’m just pointing out the awesome structure.

    Inside the DNA is the total of all the genetic possibilities for a given species. This is called the gene pool of genetic traits. It is also called the genome. That is all the traits your species can have; in contrast, the specific subcode for YOU is the genotype, which is the code for all the possible inherited features you could have. The genotype is the individual’s code; the genome applies to populations, the entire species. Of course I won’t mention the incredible double-stranded helix without which it would be impossible to squash the immense length into the tiny chromosome. I apologise if I’m boring you, please stay with me, this is important.

    I will end by telling you that although the genotype includes all the features you could possibly have in your body, what you will actually have is called the phenotype. This is because there are many unexpressed or recessive characters in the genotype that do not show up in the phenotype. For example, you may have had both blue and brown eye colour in your genotype from your ancestors, but your irises will normally only show one colour.

    Sorry about the long winded explanation but the summary is this. Every attribute and structure of your/my body is defined and pre-programmed in your DNA code. This code is so large and complicated that C. Haskins wrote “Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible
    that any such coincidences could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation.”(“Advances and Challenges in Science” in American Scientist 59 (1971), pp. 298).

    Please don’t misunderstand me; I don’t believe that C. Haskins became a creationist (despite that statement). A committed evolutionist is not affected by such discoveries or statements.

    But it does not end there. The information in DNA is indeed fascinating BUT the translation of this code is EVEN MORE fascinating. In fact this translation package has been named an “adapter function”. Without a translator, the highly complex coding contained within the DNA molecule would be useless to the organism. We have special enzymes that will copy, cut, edit, join and TRANSLATE sections of the DNA (working of a copy, NOT the original, called mRNA and tRNA etc. – I can explain another time). These enzymes have the functionality of self correction (yes, they can tell when the decoding or indeed the DNA code has gone wrong and have basic ability to correct them). Through this process, the ENcoded DNA are then DEcoded (ie translated) so that the appropriate protein is built. Now if you thought that’s fascinating, then get this: the enzymes THEMSELVES are made by the same DNA and the SAME process ie other enzymes, SO WHICH ENZYME CAME FIRST and HOW? That's why I said that Dr F. Crick refers to them as the frozen miracles (Evidence for Truth, Volume 1, Dr E. K. Victor Pearce, p. 100) in one of my previous posts - not that he believed in divine miracles of course. What makes me laugh about evolutionists is that they believe that non-life can "create" life, an unconscious universe can create conscious beings but insist that miracles don't happen - lol.

    This is so amazing that H.Yockey (evolutionist) said “The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physiochemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present.” (“Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” in Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981), p. 13).

    Of course, this does not affect the devote evolutionists in the slightest, because this faith is not affected by such statements or discoveries (not even science).

    So now another question is presented to us; which came first the DNA “code” or the DNA “decode” (ie translator) facility? That’s why Michael Pitman said “Cells and organisms are also informed [intelligently designed and operated] life-support systems. The basic component of any informed system is its plan. Here, argues the creationist, an impenetrable circle excludes the evolutionist. Any attempt to form a model or theory of the evolution of the genetic code is futile because that code is without function unless, and until, it is translated, i.e., unless it leads to the synthesis of proteins. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of about seventy components which are themselves the product of the code.” (Adam and Evolution 1984, p. 147 [emphasis his]).

    Don’t worry, Michael Pitman is an evolutionists because committed evolutionists are not affected by such discoveries or knowledge.

    Ok, so what if the DNA has these functionalities. What point am I making? Well, DNA dictates everything. It is a sequence of INFORMATION that dictates who you are. A human cannot EVER produce an offspring to something OTHER than a human. The CODE in the DNA just couldn’t do something else. Having said that, the variation that is ALREAY encoded in the DNA gives us the variety within humans that we have (tall, short, hair colour, eye colour, skin colour etc.). Darwin thought that these varieties can produce something new. That’s because he/we didn’t know about DNA information at that time. But we now know better. The same applies to variety in Dogs (big, small, black, white, ginger etc.). We can through breeding LIMIT/DECREASE the genetic variation of dogs but NEVER INCREASE the information within the DNA. That’s why I said that a Wolf (that contains all the variation encoded within the DNA) can produce a poodle (that has a reduced variation within the DNA due to the breeding process) but NOT the other way around.

    To make the gradual evolution of genetic codes even more impossible, geneticists discovered that instead of each gene controlling many different factors in the body, it turns out that DIFFERENT genes control each factor (a gene is a set of base-pairs spread in sections across the whole code sequence). So the enzyme will need to use and translate each relevant section in the relevant order to build the appropriate protein successfully and know where to go again to repeat the process if necessary (and of course it needs to know when to stop this process). All built into the DNA code.

    That’s why G.R.Taylor (evolutionist) said “However it gradually emerged that most characters, even simple ones, are regulated by many genes: for instance, fourteen genes affect eye color in Drosophila. (Not only that. The mutation which suppresses ‘purple eye’ enhances ‘hairy wing,’ for instance. The mechanism is not understood.) Worse still, a single gene may influence several different characters. This was particularly bad news for the selectionists, of course..... In 1966 Henry Harris of London University demonstrated, to everyone’s surprise, that as much as 30 per cent of all characters are polymorphic [that is, each character controlled several different factors instead of merely one]. It seemed unbelievable, but his work was soon confirmed by Richard Lewontin and others.” (Great Evolution
    Mystery 1983, pp. 165-166).

    That’s why I asked you to give me the process that you believe is responsible for INCREASING this information. Saying that it can happen slowly, quickly or both will unfortunately not give me the mechanism of HOW NEW INFORMATION was added into this DNA structure to create something other than it is intended (ie human, dog, flower, ape, cat, monkey, bat etc.). Therefore, claiming similarities within gene sequence as your proof is unfortunately nothing more than just a presupposition; no more convincing than me claiming that the same similarities confirm a common designer. The mechanism/process for new INFORMATION is important.

    I really hope this makes sense. If not, I’ll be happy to expand on any aspect you wish.

    I appear to have exceeded 1500 words on this post (3 days worth at my self-imposed 500words/day limit), I will punish myself by not revisiting this site until Saturday evening (lol). Sorry, there was so much to say. I’ll try to control myself next time :)

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    All the best
    John

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:35
    22 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Oops, sorry, just noticed I spelt your name wrong. It should have been DaveGilbert. I accidentally spelt it as DaveGuilbert - to my shame I've noticed I have done this before :(

    It's all the late nights :(

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:40
    22 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Hi John. Yes, so much for your 500 word limit.

    “That’s why I asked you to give me the process that you believe is responsible for INCREASING this information.”
    I don’t 'believe' in evolution, I have already told you that. The evidence we have available to us presently indicates that genetic information can be increased via mutations. Obviously you will disagree with that. If you want to debate that further then fine. One thing though, what is your definition of information?
    Geneticists and evolutionists refer to Shannon’s mathematical model called ‘Information Theory’ (IT). Here, information refers to the degree of uncertainty in any given situation.
    I think where creationists get confused (or dare I say, deliberately manipulate the theory) is by failing to define what they mean by information or by replacing the actual definition with the common usage of the word. Moreover, I would guess that they also target the IT use of the word entropy which means the degree of randomness or disorder in any given situation. Rather, they latch on to the thermodynamical use of the word which suggests that entropy always decreases and so information is always lost and can never be replaced. What say you?

    Gene duplication is also responsible for adding information. Often, the duplicated gene will experience a mutation that changes it or even changes the original as well. It has been shown during genetic sequencing that this is most probably how some proteins have come about.
    Having said all that, mutations alone cannot cause adaptation. As an addition to classical Shannon Information Theory, Shannon-Weaver IT included the element of random noise. With natural selection in mind, it suggests that, if the random noise of nonadaptive variations are eliminated, then the organism will be able to adapt better to a change in its environment. Therefore, a greater quality of information in the genome can be increased by the elimination of its nonadaptive sections allowing more information about the environment to flow between it and the organism.

    As I said, I am not a geneticist and so to avoid you accusing me of falling at the knees of authority, I will leave you to research it yourself if you really want to find out how the Hovinds, Hams, Behes and Steins of the world have lied to you.

    I hope you will appreciate the gist of the theory by me using this analogy. I have provided you with what I hope is a useful answer to your question by using less than 500 words. I have eliminated the random noise by being succinct and have increased your knowledge (information) with less words, rather than the 1,500 or so you used to communicate your information to me. Okay, it might not be a brilliant analogy but its amused me.

    May Zeus bless you my friend.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:25
    25 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Whoops. That should read entropy always increases. Sorry...my bad.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:29
    25 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • I have to give you credit 'John Harris' for how well you evade and avoid the difficult questions and how well you duck the real issues to go off on one about detailed arguments that evade the point. Good on you!

    By the way you're not very good at spotting emotion - I'm not angry in the least - I'm highly amused by your approach and your attempts to try and disprove what is a blatant scientific fact - evolution and how you wriggle out of things by slight of hand.

    I've been looking at some of your 'arguments' only to find that they are not even yours - just rubbish lifted from Kent Hovind (never knew about that guy before but what an idiot who really got his cumuppence with a ten year jail sentence!!!) - Such a 'great' man of God who cheats, lies, doesn't pay taxes, threatens people - fantastic role model you have there John! So he doesn't accept evolution so what's his excuse for behaving like a scumbag? I thought it was evolution that meant you didn't have morlas - not those who follow the good 'ol book.

    Your arguments are just plagiarised bits of his stuff - not even your own. I'd like to bet that this is a test for you, I bet you are trying to gain acceptance into the crackpot creationist community and one of the things you have to do is 'prove' yourself by getting into public debates where you 'win' - that's why you are so desperate to paste this debate on your website - just for brownie points - has Kents' crew promised you a Phoney PhD like his?

    So do you also keep a loaded gun like Kent did before he went to prison? Are you into his conspriacy theories as well - the 'new world order'?? The global governemnat? Do you believe as Kent does that flu vaccines are drugging the masses to make them compliant? Do you believe that the ultimate cure for cancer has been suppressed like Kent does?

    What's thye bet that you won't answer the questions and just evade. Simple yes or no will do 'John Harris' (or is your name really Eric??)

    This is great 'Eric Harris' - keep it up man, it's giving me and my matesa great laugh!!

    By the way did the dinosaurs come on the ark two by two or in sevens?? Just the baby ones of course as the ark wasn't big enough for the adults - or so says another fruit loop Ken Ham. This stuff cannot be serious!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:56
    26 March, 2011

    Plato

  • Hi Dave, I’m going to surprise you. I’m going to stick to my 500words limit today:)

    Not sure if I’m following your mechanism regarding the increase of information in DNA, but I think you’re suggesting that mutation adds information. If so, then can you please provide an example of such mutation that doesn’t affect “fitness cost” and provides a benefit to the organism itself within its normal population (for example bacteria resistant to antibiotics has a “fitness cost” and is at a disadvantage when re-introduced to its normal population).

    Regarding Shannon’s mathematical model called “Information Theory”, I’m not sure how that helps your case with DNA information, but to ensure I keep the number of words down, please visit http://creation.com/information-science-and-biology. Please also visit http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/information-theory to see how the information theory supports the creation model. Regarding the definition of information, please get a book by Werner Gitt called “In the Beginning Was Information” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginning-Was-Information-Scientist-Incredible/dp/0890514615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301186198&sr=8-1). You can also get a Kindle version.

    Regarding Gene Duplication, I’m not sure I have followed the argument well. Are you suggesting that gene duplication causes mutation thus adds information? It sounds like you are relying on mutation again? If so, I’m back to my original question; please offer an example to demonstrate such beneficial mutations etc (as oppose to just theorising possibilities)? For information on this subject please visit:

    http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Genetic_mutation
    http://creation.com/do-new-functions-arise-by-gene-duplication
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/gene-duplication
    (I'm just trying to keep the number of words down).

    I’ll leave you with a quick thought. Pretend you have a DVD containing x86 DOS1.0 operating system (approx 217KB). Imagine you have a couple of unreliable drives that you use to make continuous copies of this DVD. We’ll make this easy by assuming YOU act as Darwin’s natural selection throwing away all DVDs that have undesirable traits. Is it EVER possible that you will endup with a completely functional 64bit Windows7 (approx 3.04GB) matching Microsoft’s latest “Home Premium” O/S? If so, how long will it take? Of course, you must assume you will be making copies at the same rate as the increase of human population – commonly accepted as p (1 + r)^t where p=starting number of people, r=rate of growth, t=time in years.

    By the way, I have already given you a good start for life (using Dos1.0) because if we believe what evolutionists tell us, then we sooner started as a BIT. Also, a human DNA is more complicated than Windows7:-). So in reality I should be asking you to start the above example as a BIT and endup with something MORE complicated than Google Data Centre.

    Again, I’ll try to get back to you in the next 3-4days (possibly Thursday).

    Finally, to Plato. I’m not Eric Hovind (or Eric Harris - lol). He’s younger, cleverer and better looking;-). Also, regarding wanting to “win”; it’s not a game; it’s not about brownie points; your soul is at stake for eternity! But it’s your life, your choice! Finally, regarding Kent Hovind’s true story please visit http://creationwiki.org/Kent_Hovind.

    Thanks Dave, will catchup with you later.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:20
    27 March, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Thanks 'John Harris', yes, it is as I stated, he's a tax cheat a kier and a fraud. Also, if I were the police going to arrest someone who publicly proclaims that he keeps a loaded gun with him, then I'd take a swat team in with me as well.

    So his defence then is that everything belongs to something that cannot be seen, questioned or even proved to exist therefore he shouldn't pay taxes!!!

    Ok I see that he should not be in jail - he should cbe committed to a looney bin.

    Well done on evading all the questions again.

    Yes it is my life and I choose to live my life in the real world with real people, pay my fair share to help those less fortunate not try to cheatnpeople and make masses of money then claim it's not mine while enjoying free travel and luxury 700+ times a year while sticking two fingers up to the authorities. Hovind claims he is poor, I bet he's never been poor in his life. Like most decent Christians I'd be ashamed of him. The man's clearly a corrupt parasite living off gullible Christians, I bet he was laughing his A*** off before he got caught!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:25
    27 March, 2011

    Plato

  • Whoops. That should read entropy always increases. Sorry...my bad.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:54
    27 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi John. I am saying that some mutations can add information, whilst some subtract it. My reference to information theory was to define what biologists mean when they say information which, I guess is different from what the creationists mean when they talk about it (because, like using the everyday definition of ‘theory’ rather than the scientific one, when they want to disparage the ‘theory of evolution’ and muddy the waters so ignorant people will listen to them).
    With that in mind and as I said before, I would like to know what your definition of information is rather than you referencing creationist material. As I and others here have said, it is clear that their biases make them unreliable. If you want me to clarify anything I posted about information theory then please ask. Again, please don’t refer me to creationist’s sites because they just make it up as they go along. If there was anything of any worth, then we would have seen it in the scientific literature. Please either quote me evidence for your claims that have been peer reviewed and published in the scientific community or drop them because they will not move your argument beyond being like religion, wishful thinking.
    Your analogy with CDs and Microsoft formats reminds me of Fred Hoyle’s building a 747 jumbo jet in a scrap yard after a hurricane (look this flawed analogy up). Both are built upon a gross misunderstanding of how evolution works. Again, I will expand on this if you wish.

    As for beneficial mutations, some of those observed include bacteria that have evolved to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995), AIDS resistance (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983) and making human bones stronger (Boyden et al. 2002).
    I mentioned antibiotic resistance before and, obviously they caused great problems to health organisations. Also mutations that cause resistance to pesticides can be a headache to agriculture (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997).

    Often, it is impossible to predict how a mutation will affect its host. Much depends on the environment. A mutation that is beneficial in one way may in fact be harmful in another way. Likewise, if an environment that caused a harmful mutation changes, then that mutation might now turn out to be beneficial and since environments are changing all the time then variations can help species survive better than others. It has been shown that when beneficial mutations do occur then they can sweep through a population quite rapidly.
    In some environments, high mutation rates can be very advantageous as with the case of Pseudomonas aeruginosa a common disease causing bacterium found in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients. Scientists have found it to have shown a greater selection pressure and variability than in patients whom do not experience this debilitating complaint. (Oliver et al. 2000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance

    May Ra shine on you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:55
    27 March, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi Dave, I hope you’re well.

    Firstly, regarding your examples of mutations: “bacteria that have evolved to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995), AIDS resistance (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983) and making human bones stronger (Boyden et al. 2002)..... antibiotic resistance (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997)...... Pseudomonas aeruginosa disease (Oliver et al. 2000)”

    These are not good examples of mutations and I can see that they are extracted directly from TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html). All these claims are refuted in CreationWiki. My brief answers are as follows:

    - “Bacteria....degrade nylon” caused by “Natural Genetic Engineering”
    - The “AIDS resistance” is genetic deletion (loss of information)
    - “heart disease” suffers fitness cost
    - “bones stronger” suffers fitness cost
    - “antibiotic resistance” caused by “Natural Genetic Engineering” AND suffers fitness cost
    - “Pseudomonas aeruginosa” caused by “Natural Genetic Engineering” and suffers fitness cost

    The detailed answers to your examples can be found in:
    http://creationwiki.org/Most_mutations_are_harmful_(Talk.Origins)
    http://creation.com/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste
    http://creation.com/creationist-article-saved-my-favourite-cow
    http://creation.com/a-i-milano-mutationevidence-for-evolution
    http://creation.com/how-life-works

    None of the above offer beneficial mutations without fitness cost and some were even caused by “Natural Genetic Engineering” which is a mechanism already built into the DNA system proposed by Dr. James A. Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro). It turns out that two creationists are also known to independently proposed the same basic idea.

    I will continue to wait for an example of how mutation can produce a new kind of animal or even just one beneficial mutation without affecting fitness cost (and not produced through a mechanism that is already part of the DNA structure).

    Regarding, “what is your definition of information”, I’m surprised you’re unable to accept Werner Gitt’s book on this subject just because he’s a creationist. Not accepting any other material than those submitted by evolutionists is not being a critical thinker, but just biased. Due to such biased worldviews is precisely why such information is not found in mainstream evolution publications. I have explained this previously and added links to show you why this happens (24 February, 2011). Surely if I share the same bias towards evolution then we will both refuse to accept each other’s references. Nevertheless, in addition to the recommended book, a good definition of information is found here http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers and here http://creation.com/information-theory-questions-and-answers. I hope you take the time to read this so that you know my definition of information. Regardless of whether we can agree on the definition, all I’m asking is for the mechanism you are relying on to produce something NEW in the DNA of an organism.

    The reason I used “CDs and Microsoft formats” analogy is because the DNA base-pairs (and gene) are similar to the concept of bits and bytes etc. in binary coded programs. The DNA is essentially a sequentially encoded instructions used for the construction of living organism. This is similar to the binary structure of a computer program. Although I agree with Fred Hoyle’s analogy which basically opposes the idea of order-out-of-chaos (by the way, please provide an example of how you can produce order from chaos – please avoid the snowflake example, it’s too lame), my analogy has nothing to do with it and is not similar. I’m asking you to explain the basic principle of mutation which you believe is responsible for evolution using binary coded instructions as an example along with calculations that includes frequency of beneficial (and non-beneficial) mutations taking into account population increases and to show how an organism can improve before it becomes extinct (http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm).

    Also, what would be helpful is if there is a practical (scientific) mechanism to explain what these primordial organisms lived on during their survival ie energy source (electricity was taken for granted in the Microsoft O/S CDs analogy)? What did they eat? Was it plants? But that would suggest more complicated form of photosynthesis cells evolved first! How would they even digest this? No, perhaps they lived on other organisms? But such food source would sooner cause each other’s extinction. Again, how would they digest this food source anyway? No, perhaps they generated their own food source. If so, what did they survive on before they were able to generate their own food source particularly if such mutations happen really slowly (I’m told over millions of years)? How would they even know what food source they would need? No, perhaps they needed another type of food source that happened to be miraculously sitting around waiting for something to evolve and eat it. That would make an amazing coincidence lol. If I ask you for an answer, would it be based on scientific observations or would be just a guess - a “really good” guess :)?

    But it doesn’t stop there. The problem is compounded with symbiotic relationships. Why would two different species mutate separately and independently for each other’s benefit particularly if they are unable to survive separately? But if you insist they evolved, then which evolved first and why? If the answer is both, then why didn’t they just evolve into the same organism (which offers a greater survival rate)? Why have two distinct and separate DNA structures for each organism that survive on two DIFFERENT food sources but rely on each other? That sounds like a dumb thing to do. Evolving separately should diminish their survival rate particularly in view of other organisms that are also evolving but are not affected by symbiotic relationships. Again, will you answer based on scientific observations or would it be a “really good” guess? lol.

    If all we have is “really good” guesses that cannot be repeated in the most ideal laboratory conditions even on a small scale or perhaps in an accelerated model, then would you at least concede that organic evolution is NOT a FACT? What if organic evolution NEVER happened that way anyway, how would you EVER find the correct answer if you insist that this process is a FACT? Again, we are back to one of my original questions; if our children cannot see past ONE possibility, then are we educating our children or are we indoctrinating them?

    The reason why it’s important you identify the mutation rates and replication speed etc. bearing in mind the above factors (and their competition for survival etc), is so that you work out for YOURSELF why this is IMPOSSIBLE. Organic evolutionist is not based on scientific observation; they are just-so stories (like a fairytale)! This is why I said that “evolutionists are guilty of all the fallacies they accuse the Creationists” in my post dated 25 February, 2011.

    Having said all that, I feel I may have jumped the gun here. You may have an indisputable scientific answer to ALL my questions that simply surprise me. If this happens, I will happily eat humble pie. Can it be apple pie though? I like apple pie with warm/hot custard cream - or ice cream is also good? :)

    What would it take for you to even consider that evolution is not true - other than a rabbit in the precambrian rock - lol - which doesn’t even fit the creationist model (see 16 March, 2011)? I really don’t mind you believing in evolution but my question is this; will you insist on evolution to be true even if ALL the evidence is questionable and disputable? Will you remain faithful to this hypothesis no matter what?

    Take care my friend. I’m still sticking to my 500 words/day (max 2000 words). I’m doing well for now :) I’ll try to respond to any comments you leave me within a week. In the meantime, have a great weekend.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:21
    1 April, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • As usual, the creationist requires whatvthey know is impossible in order to prove something. You really do not understand evolution do you 'John Harris' - asking for an example of a mutation that would result in one animal turning into another shows just how ignorant you are of evolution and that you don't understand it ast all do you. I think you have already been told that individual animals do not evolve that only happens to populations over time, so giving one or two mutations is meaningless. EVOLUTION TAKES TIME and lots of it. Try reading some books on it and stop asking stupid ignorant questions!

    Still avoiding answering any questions then JH?

    OK a few more that Kent an his tribe of followers can't answer...

    How did Noah manage to feed all the animals on the ark? How did he get rid of all the excrement? How did he control all the necessary environments? How did he stop them eating each other? How did he deal with all the births? What about those that died?

    This global flood and ark rubbish just makes you look stupid and ignorant JH you try to be so clever with your pseudo arguments and yet you can't even see how silly the arguments are that you avoid - or maybe you know how stupid they are which is why you avoids answering the questions.

    I look CFO rears to your next avoidance tactic - probably a glib "all this has been answered on creationist propaganda sites just go and look" is that it JH avoid all the real questions and refer to higher authorities and when you get exasperated stick in a 'well it's your should and when the day of reckoning blah blah blah."

    fact is you know that the Bible is just stories and you just can't bring yourself to admit that life is all connected because you think you a above all elese - well my son, you are not we are all animals and we don't need a Bible to be moral and ethical only really weak people like you need a book and some just so stories to make you moral and ethical in the world. Most people can think for themselves to know what's right and wrong you clearly can't think for yourself and unless you have a little book you don't have a clue about what's right and wrong do you. sad really.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:48
    3 April, 2011

    Plato

  • Hi John. Thanks for your reply. Yes, you found me out. I did get those examples from 'Talk Origins', partly because I am somewhat lazy but mainly because I am getting bored with this to’ing and fro’ing. You keep insisting on referring me to creationist literature to back up your claims. I maintain that this is disingenuous and quite apparent that you cannot back up anything you claim from peer reviewed scientific literature. I will not debate any further
    on mutations as nothing I say will help you take the blinkers off. Please don’t take this to mean I am impressed by any reasoning you may think is sophisticated on your part because I still haven’t seen any yet.
    Regarding your recommendation of Werner Gitt’s book, its not that he is a Creationist that puts me off, but that nothing he says is based on peer review and scientifically published material. Moreover, I don’t except evidence only from evolutionists. I will accept any work that purports to be based on evidence providing it has gone through the proper channels. It is not due to bias but to honesty. If you refuse to accept peer reviewed work then your blinkers are over your eyes tighter than I thought. However, you seem to accept the peer review work when you go to visit your doctor (mmm picking and choosing eh?).

    Like Hoyle’s junkyard 747, the CD analogy is futile because it relies on a known end product. If you understood evolution like you claim to do, you would know that natural selection does not operate with an end goal in mind. If you had lived at the appropriate age, you would never have predicted that a particular reptile would eventually have evolved a wing given enough time because you would not have know of all the environmental pressures occurring on its lineage that would have necessitated the evolution of a wing. Again you appear to over complicate the process because you think it makes your argument more sophisticated.

    What would it take for me to accept that evolution wasn’t true?
    Evidence, scientific peer reviewed and published evidence. Show me that and I'll rethink. Until you do you just might as well talk to the hand. And for the umpteenth time, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION! (there, you’ve made me shout). I accept it because it it is backed up by, guess what?
    Evidence, scientific peer reviewed and published evidence.
    By the way, while we are on the subject of evidence, why is it you demand so much of it from me when your entire world view is predicated on faith?

    In view of the fact that, I think we have gone as far as we will get with our first discussion, if you agree, let’s now get on to the second part of the challenges I set for you.
    In reply to my question, “What is your definition of god?”
    You replied, “The creator, designer and the cause (law of causality) responsible for the creation of the universe and everything within it! This creator is outside of, not affected by, above and beyond His creation who is responsible for creating time, space of matter and the laws of physics. He also created rational think, uniformity and logic etc. That’s why these attributes are consistent across countries, nations, race, and even universe (otherwise the method in which to detect intelligence in the universe using the SETI programme would be pointless)!”
    My reply to you is, how do you know and why is this information available to you and not me?

    Jus before I go, let me leave you with this link. It shows that our exchange is not unique and typical of those between rationalists and creationists. Ray Comfort (whom you parrot admirably) was interviewed recently on a US public access show. It’s an hour long but well worth it, I think. I will be interested to her your views on it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zyzF8SMQOxU

    Bye for now and may Poseidon part the waves for you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:45
    4 April, 2011

    DaveGilbert

  • Hi Dave.

    Firstly thank you for being honest about my comments regarding your quote from “Talk Origins”. It’s noble of you to admit it. You also admitted that you are lazy/bored etc. However, if we are to continue this discussion, I really must insist that you put some time investigating the claims that are being made in order to reach a scientific conclusion.

    You said: “If you refuse to accept peer reviewed work then your blinkers are over your eyes tighter than I thought. However, you seem to accept the peer review work when you go to visit your doctor (mmm picking and choosing eh?).”.

    No my friend. You have committed two fallacies here: The fallacy of false analogy and straw-man fallacy. You related what the doctor does (which IS science) to evolution (which is ANTI-science). You have also misrepresented my position and then proceeded to argue against it (ie claiming that I’m “picking and choosing”). Please offer your evidence before attacking your opponent. Please remember it is you (or your theory) that is in question not me or my theory! My theory is not being taught in science classes, but you insist that yours should be!

    You have unfairly accused me of having “blinkers” on when all I’m asking for is evidence. Is this how science works these days? If you question it, you have blinkers on? How can you accuse me of having the blinkers on when (unlike you) I don’t even object to biased evolutionists peer reviews! I even quote them! I am even happy to accept your word that mutation will produce something new (that’s called faith by the way), but I’m now asking for evidence to support that belief. Actually, some scientists might consider asking for evidence a wise thing to do!

    Regarding mutations, it’s really simple; decide when and how exactly life first began, then workout how many POSITIVE mutations would require to change an organism to a human (bearing in mind fitness-cost and that NEGATIVE mutations would cause extinction because as you rightly point out “natural selection does not operate with an end goal in mind”) etc. Now look around and see if your expectations of mutation match the evidence. If it does, then offer that as proof so that we can all rejoice together :). Please don’t offer bad examples and then blame ME for not accepting it. That’s not science!

    By the way, thank you for the youtube link. I enjoyed watching the debate between Ray Comfort and Matt/Russell. It was a good discussion that was tastefully hosted. Despite that, it was a little frustrating that the discussion was ultimately pointless. It all appears to have come down to presuppositions with biased worldviews. You see, evolutionists claim that evolution is science, so I want/require/demand a scientific conclusion!

    I must confess, I’m a little concerned that our discussion seems to be heading the same way. I strongly oppose the evolution hypothesis; that it can produce something other than a variation “within a kind” - ie organisms vary within the preset DNA code limits. I also strongly resent that evolutionists continue to uphold this view despite the evidence (not BECAUSE OF the evidence) - ie lack of mutation without “fitness cost” etc. - and then commit the fallacy of “question begging epithet“ when just simply asked for evidence.

    Thank you for persisting Dave. It’s fun (and hopefully productive) communicating with you. As always, I’ll try to respond soon after your next post. I’ll aim within 10 days or so (due to my current workload). In the meantime, take care.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:18
    7 April, 2011

    JohnHarris

  • Talk about hypocritical!

    You are unbelievable JH. You take quotes loick stock and barrel from Kent Hovind - word for word - and weave them into you replies as if they were hyour own. You are a star plagiarist and no mistake. You simply have no arguments of your own just recycledd rubbish from Hovind and his kind (there I used the 'kind' word in its real sense!)

    So still avoiding all the awkward questions JH - I guess avoiding them is better than having to show how stupid the creationist movement is stiucking with dinosuars in the garden of eden as adam and eve's pets.

    Luckily there are some really sensible Christians out there who unlike you don't make all Christians look stupid and backwatd.

    Try this quote for size:

    "It is so important for us Christians to understand that religious stories, religious myths such as the Genesis story of creation, teach religious truths. They are not literally true. The Genesis story is not a historical or scientific account of the creation of the world. We now know that the world was not created in seven days. Thanks to our microscopes and telescopes, we know today what our ancestors could never have known, namely, that the universe burst into being (the Big Bang) some 14 billion years ago, and over these billions and billions of years has evolved from pure energy, to matter, to life, to conscious life and on to self-reflexive consciousness in the human species, and the marvelous thing is, this universe story – this creation story - continues as the universe itself continues to evolve and unfold.

    For me as a Christian, for me as a Catholic, there is no conflict between the Genesis story that I learned as a child and evolution, because the religious truth that these sacred stories are trying to convey is that God, or that creative, mysterious power that pervades and penetrates the cosmos, is at the heart of this stupendous, unfolding process and has been from the very beginning."

    About the mosts sensible quote on this page from a devout Christian. Though I guess JH that your view of this person would be that they are working for the Devil to undermine your faith.

    The quote comes from
    Sister Mimi Maloney SNJM is a member of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary.

    So I would rather trust her take on the Bible than yours, which is an uninformed simplistic, literal interpretation that shows a complete ignorance of what faith and belief really means.

    JH faitha nd belief is not blind to science as you are. Faith and belief is not subservient to the written text of ancient men who knew nothing about the world in which they lived.

    You need to smarten up JH and open your eyes to the real world and stiop damaging the very faith that you purport to follow. You are a dangerous damaging influence on Christians JH. I really do hope that yopu have nothing to do with the education of children - you will cause them serious harm with your medieval views of religion.

    You are ignorant of evolution
    You are ignorant of the true meaning of the Bible
    You are ignornat of the damage you and your 'kind' are doing to mainstream, healthy, positive Christianity

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:06
    10 April, 2011

    Plato

  • So, JH, still not answering my easy questions on animals on the ark? What's the matter can't you find Kent and Ken's responses? I found them, all youi have to do is what you normally do, copy and paste then give some creationist links. There done and dusted.

    So Christians are the only ones with morals eh? Can't get those if you don't accept the Bible?

    Wellington Menezes de Oliveira, he accepted the Bible, he was a Christian then he went out and shot 12 chiuldren dead in the Brazilian massacre recently.

    So how do we know he was a Christain?

    From his letter:

    He wrote (translated from Portuguese): "I need a faithful follower of God to visit my tomb at least once; I need that person to pray in front of it, asking for God’s forgiveness for what I did, asking that when Jesus comes he will wake me up from the sleep of death to life."

    So add him to your list mate, get on your knees, he's gonna need it.

    Isn't it funny how the creationists like Ham and Hovind (sounds like a really bad sandwich to me) are the first to shout from the rooftops that evolution causes young pweople to run wild and shot up cam,puses and schools, yet this time - they are all very very quiet.

    Nothing on the site - zip, but hey, guess what there is this story!

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0306news.asp

    Linking school shootings and violence to evolution.

    How about we link school shooting and violence to religion then? same use of evidence. TRhe brazilian was 'religious' and extremely violent.

    But of course you lot will just disown him and say that even if he asks for repentence ther'll be a passage somewhere in the Bible where you can deny it to him. Convenient that the Bible is so full of contradictions and vague messages that you can twist and turn to meet you needs. Or maybe you'll decide he was the 'wrong' type of religion and not of yours so there yet more evidence that only you are right and everybody else is wrong.

    So what is it? He was mad, a religious nut, the wrong religion? What's your excuse?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:17
    18 April, 2011

    Plato

  • I think we can put this one to bed now. JH has no answers - he's been exposed and his arguments are empty and bereft. Gove has ruled taht creationism in free schools is a no no, but I bet that ECC will still twist and try to get one and subtly undermine good science (poor kids).

    By the way JH, are you haveing a bad day? Seems the world didn't end and the biblical predictions didn't come true. Never mind, keep praying I'm sure that one day things will turn out good for you, death destruction, hell fire, etrenal damnation and all that, and there ytou'll be all nice and smug on your little cloud laughing all the way to Heaven.

    Debate closed: evolution 1 Creationism 0

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:38
    22 May, 2011

    Plato

  • If Creationists spent a fraction of the time they spend amassing hugh libraries of sophistry to support their claims, to learn more about what science really is, then I can't help but think there would be far fewer of them. Can I recommend two books? Firstly Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations" which describes the nature of scientific theories; and of course Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" which convincingly refutes just about every claim in this thread that Creationists have made against Darwinian Evolution.
    A major error made on both sides, as explained by Popper, is that no scientific theory is ever provable, only disprovable. There is no such thing as scientific truth, only the best theory we have that hasn't been disproved by experimantation or reason. But, before the Creationists whoop for joy, this is science's strength -- and Creationism's weakness. Rather a theory open to refinement through new evidence than Creationism's "theories" which are received wisdom, immutable, and not disprovable, and therefore not scientific. I suspect the above reading recommendations will be a little too scary for most Creationists. Let us not forget that the reason Creatonism (aka Intelligent Design) started to try to wear the clothes of scientific respectability is that US law says that only science can be taught in public school classes, not religion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:55
    12 September, 2011

    sifaka

  • The arrogance of people to think they will explain through science the eternal existence of some trigger that created time space matter , without the inclusion of the supernatural ,you know like beyond natural law ,ie something cant exist forever or bring itself into being from nothing,, it is the simplest logic that,allegedly they are bound to follow, there is no answer apart from the supernatural,get used to it ,your not going to come up with a breakthrough thats going to circumvent logic, 0=0 are they really that stupid? and hypocritical to deny there own logic ,never mind logic itself .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:29
    26 February, 2013

    tommyburns1

Add your comment

Subscribe to the magazine
Join TES for free now

Join TES for free now

Four great reasons to join today...

1. Be part of the largest network of teachers in the world – over 2m members
2. Download over 600,000 free teaching resources
3. Get a personalized email of the most relevant resources for you delivered to your inbox.
4. Find out first about the latest jobs in education