Belief in Evolution still struggling in America - ZIONICA.com

Kalev

Evolution is a lie. God created everything there is per the Bible account.

Chris

I'm sorry that you have been brainwashed. Don't bother being vaccinated in the future.
- petroskhan1262
  
  Sorry you believe something without a shred of verifiable evidence to support it.
  
  Read a bit more. It's good for you.
  - orienteer
    
    Please tell us how life developed from non-living chemicals with no intelligent guidance. When has science observed this ? How did DNA originate without intelligent guidance? Where are the millions of transitional fossils that Darwin said must exist if his theory is true?
    - petroskhan1262
      
      You directing that at me? I'm the one always making fun of the stupidity of the claims of evolution, and how true objective science supports the creation account of the Bible.
daves

And millions of people just pretend that they found human fossils older than 10,000 years, in various stages of development. Or that they have found dinosaur fossils millions of years old.

This is insane!
- Eric
  
  "millions of people just pretend"
  
  No, they actually believe it. This doesn't make it factual though. Evolution has had a relatively unchallenged run in the public schools since 1925 and its proponents have not made significant strides toward convincing the American population of its validity. Perhaps it takes more than repeated indoctrination to convince people that they are nothing more than animated carbon storage units.
  - daves
    
    Are you saying they believe it because they have found the fossils but they are wrong for dating the fossils prior to 10,000 years ago?
- Dionesius3
  
  There has never been a fossil of a "developmental stage of human" there have been human fossils found and there have been extinct animal fossils found, but there has never been intermediate fossils of ANY creature found anywhere.
  Read some real research on the matter and learn something.
  - daves
    
    I can give you a hundred examples if you would like.
    
    Fossils from Liang Bua (LB) on Flores, Indonesia, including a nearly complete skeleton (LB1) dated to 18 kyr BP, were assigned to a new species, Homo floresiensis. We hypothesize that these individuals are myxoedematous endemic (ME) cretins, part of an inland population of (mostly unaffected) Homo sapiens. ME cretins are born without a functioning thyroid; their congenital hypothyroidism leads to severe dwarfism and reduced brain size, but less severe mental retardation and motor disability than neurological endemic cretins. We show that the fossils display many signs of congenital hypothyroidism, including enlarged pituitary fossa, and that distinctive primitive features of LB1 such as the double rooted lower premolar and the primitive wrist morphology are consistent with the hypothesis. We find that the null hypothesis (that LB1 is not a cretin) is rejected by the pituitary fossa size of LB1, and by multivariate analyses of cranial measures. We show that critical environmental factors were potentially present on Flores, how remains of cretins but not of unaffected individuals could be preserved in caves, and that extant oral traditions may provide a record of cretinism
    - Ever
      
      What an imagination!!!
    - Dionesius3
      
      Your example proves nothing except that there were some humans there who had thyroid problems. You can't make a deformed human into your missing link. Either the remains are human or they are not human. Cretinism is not the missing link it has existed among humans since the fall. Your hypotheses are based upon false premises and your argument fails the test of cogency. It is not possible to postulate a missing link from known human remains that are deformed or have congenital defects that are easily explained. You found a population of dwarf humans who could and did pass their congenial defects down by natural means. And your dating of the remains is highly suspect. Just as all supposed scientific dating methods that now exist are suspect.
      
      Pick up a rock from near Mt. Saint Helen's and test it by any means you wish, and let's see how old it turns out to be by the scientific method. It will test out to be around 2.5 million years old. But we who were old enough to have seen the explosion in 1982 know better. The volcanic rock, and every other type of rock is next to impossible to date reliably by any existing means. The best you can hope for is to find some element or mineral that identifies it as either terrestrial or extra-terrestrial.
    - daves
      
      You really, really believe that the planet is less than 10,000 years old?
    - keyboardshark
      
      daves says: "You really, really believe that the planet is less than 10,000 years old?"
      
      Yes, there is much evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, rather than millions or billions of years old. The dating methodologies that arrive at these outrageous ages of millions or billions of years are all based on assumptions and have been proven to be false when used on samples of known age.
      
      There are at least 22 different time clocks that indicate that the age of the earth is only thousands of years:
      
      "In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young. Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years old, and that the 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have LOUDLY proclaimed — over and over — is incorrect.
      
      Time Clocks:
      A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been going on for. All clocks (including radiometric ones) require the use of at least three assumptions. These are:
      
      1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.
      2. The original conditions are known.
      3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.
      
      In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the assumptions are true. For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation rates, and with clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty. Therefore scientists must make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been. The shorter the time involved, the more likely that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.
      
      The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young — probably less than 10,000 years old.
      
      TO SEE LIST: <a href="http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm" target="_blank">http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
    - Dionesius3
      
      Thanks for your timely, and informative response to -daves, keyboard shark, you said it in a much nicer way than I likely would have.
      
      -daves, see keyboard sharks answer, I agree 100% with what he said, and I add;
      
      So you really, really believe the earth is billions of years old???
      
      You must have watched too much Carl Sagan and Bill Nye the science guy growing up. Not to mention that you have apparently been brain-washed by your government controlled education system.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?
      he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
      
      Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
      
      The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
      
      While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
      
      The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.
      
      If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.
      
      Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.
      
      If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.
      
      A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth….
    - Dionesius3
      
      Blah, blah, blah,blah evolution,blah blah, blah , blah, solar system, blah, blah, blah,
      
      That is and exact duplicate of what Dixon just posted, only it's concise, and makes a great deal more sense.
      
      Read the post by keyboard shark, you moron Dixon, and visit the website listed, to learn something for a change.
      
      Your are without a doubt the single dumbest human being on this site.
      
      But what can we expect from a mental midget like Dixon?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      To you, I am sure it makes much more sense. It uses words you can understand and relate to far easier than actual science.
    - Dionesius3
      
      What's the matter Dave's you can't respond?
- petroskhan1262
  
  You might want to do some reading. It should be interesting…
  http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/pdf_dl/book/res…
  
  Enjoy.
ConstIva2

@Kalev:

Dear Kalev,
if X is a lie, and Mr. Y refers to X in a positive way, will you call Mr. Y "a liar" or "ignorant"?
Why am I asking you such strange things?
Because EVOLUTION that you call "a lie" has been acknowledged and recognized by the Pope.
So, if you insist that "evolution is a lie," then you have to call the Pope either "a liar" or "ignorant," whichever you prefer…
In my opinion, though, the Pope seems to be a little more educated, than you. Maybe, I am wrong…
Oh, by the way, could you tell, what for had God created species that do not exist anymore, like dinosaurs, stegosauri, tyrannosaurs, pterodactyls, ichthyosauria, mammoths, etc.
And what for did God create Australopithecus, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons?
Hopefully, you will find the answer in the Bible and will be able to help me…
- Despeville
  
  Pope is indeed a liar and caricature of science known as "evolution" has the least with that fact.
  - ConstIva2
    
    @Despeville:
    As soon as you answer my questions (what for had God created species that do not exist anymore, like dinosaurs, stegosauri, tyrannosaurs, pterodactyls, ichthyosauria, mammoths, etc. And what for did God create Australopithecus, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons? Hopefully, you will find the answer in the Bible and will be able to help me…), I will be willing to treat your utterance regarding the Pope and evolution as at least worthy of some attention.
    Otherwise, you seem to me even less knowledgeable than bushmen in Kalahari.
  - Kalev
    
    We agree once in awhile, the pope is indeed a liar, who cares what that son of satan recognizes.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    He is indeed caught up with the same self delusion of religion that you are. His acknowledgement of the reality of evolution is simply an acceptance of the overwhelming scientific evidence of this fact.
    - ConstIva2
      
      @Jeff Dixon and Kalev and Despeville :
      I mentioned the Pope simply because I don't know who enjoys the incontestable authority with religious people (besides God, of course).
      But the very fact that none of you has answered my questions proves that your personal piousness has either blinded you or prevented from learning FACTS.
      In short, EVOLUTION is evident and/or DOES NOT EXCLUDE existence of God (which, by the way, was acknowledged by Darwin himself, who in his theory of Evolution DID NOT even try to explain how everything appeared on the Earth.)
      I assume that your fervent rejection of evolution is caused by a belief that Darwin refuted God as CREATOR, which he didn't.
      If this is the reason, then it means that you don't check the facts and rely on somebody's propaganda.
      DARWIN DID NOT REFUTE GOD AS CREATOR. Period. Take his works and read by yourself. God does not prohibit studies.

Esteban Cafe

Evolution is a belief in which adherents must have faith–they dismiss much of the mystery with euphemisms such as "The Missing Link" and other phrasing that excuses proof and reason from the discussion. If something is "Missing" one must have faith that it will be found, no? Unfortunately, if something isn't true can one really have "faith" in it? Not according to Paul.

This is not to say that certain observations made by Mssr Darwin are not true–such as Natural Selection. I noticed an article in which your state of Texas saw wild hogs killing and eating any rattlesnake that rattled (Making them "Rattle Snacks?"–I love your English language!). Rattle snakes that don't rattle when something is near lived to reproduce an entire generation of snakes that do not rattle…making it more dangerous for Texans hiking in their wilderness.

But we should be careful that some truth does not 'leverage' the tag-along falsehoods into the same category.

Steve03

Actually, it's creationists who keep harping on "missing links." Transitional forms (the half-reptile and half-bird which would mark the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, for example) aren't called for by evolutionary theory, which posits only common ancestors. That said, paleonotologists have found thousands of creatures that qualify the creationists' criteria for being a missing link, and each time the creationists have said "You haven't proved anything — there's now two more missing links, one on each side of this creature."
And do take a look at the first graph in the linked article: the percentages of those believing man was created "as is" less than 10,000 years ago and those believing that God guided evolution have held relatively steady since 1982, while the percentage of those believing in God-less evolution has almost doubled over the same time span. The recent (and small) uptick in the percentage of hard-shell creationists may have more to do with political polarization than with the cogency of creationist rhetoric.
- Esteban Cafe
  
  Sir, both Creationists and Evolutionists must have Faith in what they believe–the piont: Both are religions. What percentage of believers their might be in any given camp at this time seems irrelevant, unless you're a "Consensus" thinker (Mssr Al Gore, et al).
  
  I suppose the article underscored the concern that Science is for sale and subject to the same political polarization you tagged creationism with, to wit: Global Warming, East Anglia, etc. Adherents have jumped from an ice age to global warming in a span of 25 years. That's quite a reversal in such a short time.
  
  And to complete the "Political Polariztion" you refer to, let me say: freeze or fry, the problem is always capitalism and the solution is always socialism. It never varies. Ever. There seems to be a political narrative of sorts running through Science in this regard. Interested in your reply.
  - Chris
    
    Where are the fossils to support creationism? Were you there? How come our DNA contains a mixture of sources and cannot be tied to an Adam and Eve.
    
    Do you know squat about biology?
    - keyboardshark
      
      Chris says: "Where are the fossils to support creationism?"
      
      They are buried in massive layers worldwide, deposited there by the actions of the flood of Noah's day. Creatures appear abruptly and fully formed, not transitionally between one modern form and another. We also have polystrate fossils that extend vertically through multiple layers which evolutionists claim were deposited millions of years apart.
      
      Chris also says: "How come our DNA contains a mixture of sources and cannot be tied to an Adam and Eve."
      
      I would have to see the source of this type of information, which sounds suspect, before I could comment on it. I would bet there is something in the fine print that they are hoping we will not notice. But at any rate, even if it were true, it certainly does not disprove a literal Adam and Eve. Even secular scientists talk about a 'Mitochondrial Eve' as the woman from whom all living humans today descend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
  - daves
    
    It is sad that you still believe the lies about East Anglia, several investigations have proven no wrongdoing.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      It's sad that you will follow any sort of "cause" shown to be filled with fraud and deceit. If you believe in Al Gore so much, have him explain to you how we, on Earth, are causing other planets' temperatures to increase as well.
      
      Should be good for a laugh.
    - daves
      
      Like I just said, several investigations have concluded that there was not fraud or deceit. Just because Rush Limbaugh says something does not mean it is true.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      First off, you mentioned Rush Limbaugh, not me. Irrelevant and immaterial. Ignored.
      
      Second off, yes, you did claim that several investigations had declared there was no fraud. I could also probably find sources that state the earth is flat, but that would be irrelevant and untrue.
      
      The emails that were uncovered, along with objective/impartial data analysis, prove that the whole "global warming" thing is a lie.
      
      From one of the emails:
      "Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
      
      Or:" The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
      
      There is true scientific objectivity for you. Make an assumption FIRST, the doubt the data when it doesn't fit your pre-conceptions. THEN…fudge the data using a "trick", to "hide" the results you don't like.
      
      And, as I said, explain the rise in the temperatures of OTHER planets, if man is the cause of this non-existent "warming".
    - daves
      
      The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
      Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and demonstrates ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.
      
      Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Okay, they're talking about tree rings. I will admit that I was not aware of that.
      
      I must also confess that I don't care. If there is, as you state, a divergence over the last 50 years, then couldn't there be another, of which they are unaware? From a time when there were no thermometers to even record the temperatures, say, during those "hundreds of years" for which they are using those rings? Seems to me that the method has been shown to be unreliable. Why stick to it, or even attempt to claim that the results are valid for periods for which there is no substantiating data?
      
      And still my question is unanswered. If you, along with the High Priest of Global Warming, Al Gore, think we are causing temperature increases, then explain why the temperatures on other planets are increasing as well.
      
      Couldn't be the sun, could it? Naw…how could the source of light and heat throughout our solar system POSSIBLY contribute to the planets' temperature?
    - keyboardshark
      
      Isn't it interesting that most people who adhere to evolutionary thinking have also been duped by the global warming hysteria? Actually, the two pseudo-science ideas are tied together in a sense. Evolution is a speculation about something which supposedly happened in the past, but is not occurring today. And global warming catastrophism is a speculation about something that will supposedly happen in the future, but is not occurring today. Both ideas are outside the realm of operational science, meaning that they cannot be observed or tested in the present, yet they are believed to be true by generally the same group of people.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Well, both of those viewpoints require a similar mindset. They require the existence of a preconceived notion, and the willingness to disregard the evidence in favor of that preconception. They require that the person also believe that man is the ultimate intelligence, which fosters the opinion that he must, then, be responsible for everything.
      
      All in all, a fallacy built upon a fallacy. Sad, actually.
    - daves
      
      It is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can’t even agree what’s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work – and therefore that it isn’t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.
      
      The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur. We do have information from various orbiting missions and the few lander explorations to date, yet even this small amount of data has been misunderstood, in terms of causal complexity and significance.
      
      There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing:
      
      Planets do not orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars' orbit are five times greater than the Earth.
      Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia – the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.
      The whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet’s climate, very little of which we understand yet.
      We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings (and latterly, photographs) that reveal changes in gross surface features (i.e. features that can be seen from Earth through telescopes). It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      The first sentence of your post says it all. "…we can't even agree what's happening on the planet we live on."
      
      There are too many scientists on both sides of this issue (global warming) for anyone to hold steadfastly to one viewpoint or the other. Any opinion on this subject is simply that, an opinion. Without provable, irrefutable evidence one way or the other, holding forth a belief on either side of the issue is simply a matter of faith. My irritation with this subject comes in when talking heads like Al Gore and his acolytes start demanding worldwide legislation to solve a problem that has to be proven to even exist.
      
      You're right, we don't really understand our own planet very well. Until we do, let's all agree to stop claiming that sky is falling, and dig in and do some real, objective research.
    - daves
      
      The real, objective research exists and the so called "climategate" did not disprove anything.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      And you, of course, would be willing to provide links to such things? I can show you a link or two, just to help out. Here's a good one for you:
      http://www.petitionproject.org/
      
      When 31,000 scientists in the US alone (with over 9,000 Ph.D.'s) disagree, it's worth looking into, wouldn't you say?
- lambsev11
  
  I'm wondering how why we should believe what some tell us happened (evolved) over the course of millions of years as opposed to what is written in the Bible. The Bible's history begins close to 6000 years ago, and it has eye witness accounts to it's events. There are more ancient manuscripts of the Bible than of any other ancient document. What witnesses do we have to the process of evolution? None! Only theory which is unsubstantiated by scientific method. Neither evolutionists or creationists can prove their case scientifically which is why both are matters of faith in the unseen events, and persons and God. As Esteban points out this makes them both matters of faith more than facts of science! Believe or don't believe, but all people will believe, that is they will have faith in something or someOne!
- keyboardshark
  
  Steve03 says: "That said, paleonotologists have found thousands of creatures that qualify the creationists' criteria for being a missing link,…"
  
  Examples, please??
aceituna

Nothing is more dangerous than a lie that contains elements of truth.
- keyboardshark
  
  aceituna says: "Nothing is more dangerous than a lie that contains elements of truth."
  
  Except perhaps a statement that is 99% true but contains one big whopper of a lie hidden within :-)

Sharon

Gods Word tells us He will judge us with creation nothing comes from nothing an art piece has an artist, a house is built through a builder, everything created has a creator what a beautiful creation God has given us even those who don't believe can enjoy his gift to us but God say the best is yet to come NO EYE HAS SEEN NOR EAR HAS HEARD WHAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE THAT LOVE HIM!! GOD IS SO GOOD!

Chris

If god created us he did an awful job. Human anatomy sucks.
- lambsev11
  
  But life IS good, yes? Or, Chris, why do we all get up each morning to live it?
- Eric
  
  In comparison to what exactly? Other humans that have been created or have evolved in other parts of the universe?
  
  Have you really evolved so far that you know a better way than the very mechanism that brought you into being in the first place? You must be the most fit of "the fittest."
  - petroskhan1262
    
    Maybe he's not human…he could be the next step in evolution. A step DOWN, but a step. LOL
- petroskhan1262
  
  "Human anatomy sucks."??
  
  And you were asking Esteban if HE knew squat about biology? LOL
  
  You're always good for a laugh.

Evermyrtle

Maybe 30% of people did evolve but 000% of GOD'S people evolved. You can tell the difference by being around them for a while. GOD'S people are so different. We have a 100% different beliefs and out looks in life and in after life. We have HIS WORD which we go to for information and leader ship when we need it. It covers everything we need to know!!

aceituna

The 30% did not "evolove" they "devolved"!

Marie

The problem with those that believe in evolution [ one way or another ] is that they all want to see with their eyes something, anything, that comes from nothing…be it a monkey, fish,etc dosen't matter….so long as its not a story about a real God, that they can't see. I don't know how many people I've told that you cannot get something from nothing. Then the next question that comes up, is…I can't see an invisiable God and you're saying that he created all this [ something from nothing ]? I say yes He did. Then I give them the scripture from the bible { Revelations 16: 5 ] that says…Are and was and shall be. God has ALWAYS BEEN…has monkeys or fish or water or a tree or anything else for that matter always been? There has to be a creator. Then the old question comes up…then where did God come from? Again, Revelation 16:5 …He was, is and always has been. But, in order for evolutionist to believe this, they have got to believe there is a God in the first place…if they don't, they won't. That simple!

Esteban Cafe

But see how disappointed "believers" in evolutionary religion are? They still must 'believe" in things they cannot see; believers in Christ must also do so. Evolutionists are not so different from us…except that they are trying desperately to have faith in something that cannot be true, and so they run from "doctrine" to "doctrine" ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Now, having said that, let me say that many Christians also move from "church to church" always looking for the truth; we divide over the smallest scripture. Having the truth but not understanding it is almost as bad as not having it at all.. It seems to be a human condition for all of us, but writ large for evolutionist.

steve

The evolutionists cannot wrap their heads around the fact God has always been and always will be. Their mind is stuck in the material universe and cannot accept something they cannot see or touch. God's infinity escapes their feeble minds.

Vinny

Actually, even the strongest created minds can't comprehend God's infinity. This is not to say evolutionists are right-I am a creationist-but to say not even the archangels fully understand God.
- Marie
  
  Vinny, you too are right. Angels are curious about us humans and don't fully understand Gods plan.
  - Don L
    
    Why should angels be curious of man. They were there when God's promise of salvation was given. Just as you and all who are born into flesh were there also. If you believe the Bible, then know that sin as rebellion began before the world. Thus the world was made that through flesh and blood the promise could be fulfilled and the One who gave that promise would also become flesh to fulfill that promise. Did not Satan and a third of the host rebel and were they not cast down from heaven to this world. Not one can ascend to heaven at will, but only when allowed to return, but for a limited time. Surely Jab 1 and 2 should bear this out.
    Oh, but the angels did and do understand fully God's plan. They were there when a great rebellion established itself. God desires reconciliation with his sons who had fallen. The angels that did not rebel can never know the salvation of God firsthand. But they do witness and attest to the wonderment of God and his Holiness and Righteousness. If a man has entered into the world and has been clothed in the garment of God's salvation the purpose has been made complete. That man will have returned to God, made whole, not of himself, but by the work and sacrifice of God, who became as a man. But those return, having rejected the clothing of salvation, return in their continued state of rebellion. One returns reconciled as a son of God. The other returns as an enemy. And neither shall return to the same place, but are separated. One to the right and the other to the left of God.
Marie

Steve, you're right…their minds ARE stuck in the material universe.
- Chris
  
  Correct – as against stuck in the sand. You people are bloviating fact free clowns.
  
  Truly ignorant of your own humanity.
  - petroskhan1262
    
    Do some reading, Chris. The facts support the God of the Bible, not your Gods Darwin and Dawkins. Those are the "fact free clowns", once you do a bit of digging.
    
    Carry on, though. Your passion for the unprovable is amusing to no end.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Only in the delusional world of the religious does anyone think that the facts of the universe support the bible.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      It is truly impressive, almost awe-inspiring. The frequency with which you are so horribly, appallingly wrong, and so totally off-base on every single thing you state or claim.
      
      And yet, you still, like a puppy with his favorite toy, cling to your fantasy world where things happen without cause, rhyme or reason, in violation of the laws of the very science that you claim explains things it proves cannot happen.
      
      You deride others for having faith in what logically explains, well, everything, while clinging stubbornly to your own faith, which explains nothing.
      
      But hey, carry on. Whatever blows your skirt up.
daves

I believe in God but evolution is just too obvious to discard.
- Dionesius3
  
  Your god is EVOLUTION.
- petroskhan1262
  
  The flaws of evolution are too obvious to discard, would be a better statement.
- Orienteer
  
  When you say evolution is obvious, do you mean Micro-evolution or Macro-evolution?
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    They are the same thing.
    - keyboardshark
      
      Micro evolution = Natural selection, which is a reshuffling of existing genetic information, and which we can observe to be occurring today.
      
      Macro evolution = Distinct changes in form or function of an organism, which would require the creation of new genetic information, and which we do not see occurring today.

msjallen

When in doubt, always go to God's Word; it is infallible.
I Cor 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. He (Jesus Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Jesus Christ controls history.)
Psalm 102:25-27 In the beginning You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. "Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.

Don L

Until people can come to understand WHY life began on the planet, they will believe anything that seems reasonable to them.
I believe the Biblical account of how life came to be. I believe that the earth preceded all other heavenly bodies by three days.
I believe that the Bible is not silent on the whole purpose of creation. I believe than man is more than flesh, blood and bone. And I believe that life is so much more complex than merely composed of flesh. I believe the Bible has answers to all of man's questions.
Perhaps if people would seek after the truth as given by God, rather than settling for the deceptions of men, they could learn much. But they do not, nor will they not believe God, but they will believe the words of men even when they follow such deceivers into their judgment and destruction.
God can be trusted. Man cannot and should not be trusted.

Bob

Biggest scam in history. Bigger than Freud, bigger than Marx, bigger than the AMA and FDA, even bigger than the Federal Reserve, lol. One day (soon, I hope) the tipping point will be reached, and the final scientist to put us over the tipping point's 10% limit will open his eyes wide and shout, “You mean we’ve actually swallowed this evolutionary circular reasoning BS for a whole century and a half. And here we were calling ourselves SCIENTISTS!!! Oh my God!!” Except this time he’d be calling for mercy instead of taking His name in vain. Pray it might be so. That tipping point may be fast approaching, Gloria Dei.

http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Sorry Bob, but religion is the biggest scam in history.
- Dionesius3
  
  No it would have to come in a distant second to your pretended intelligence there Dixon.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Hmm, so you agree that religion is a scam. Interesting.

Ruth Walker

The question is ludicrous. Scientists ACCEPT what the evidence indicates, rather than BELIEVE. At the time of Galileo most people didn't accept that the earth revolved around the sun too – even had him in house arrest over it. Yet anyone could have looked in his telescope to see… Go figure!

Science and medicine research use evolution all the time. With so many so willing to believe how things appeared to tribal leaders in the Bronze Age helps explain why our science scores are so low. These people don't even understand that science is a method rather than a bunch of facts.

Why believe far-out notions that have NO evidence to support them?

petroskhan1262

Actually, an objective analysis of the evidence shows that the Biblical account is accurate, and the nonsense that evolutionists prattle on about is way off base.

And science IS a method. So, that said, where is the proof that life that come from lifelessness? Or that a more complex organism can come from a simpler one? Scientific theory/facts indicate that those are impossible, yet evolutionists insist that that is exactly what happened.
- daves
  
  There is no proof that life came from nothingness or any proof to show how life started.
  
  There is a lot of proof to show that there was life on earth millions of years prior to humans.
  - petroskhan1262
    
    There is no proof that life came from nothingness? Right. Yet, you claim that it somehow happened, against the very laws of the science you worship.
    
    And there is NO proof of this "millions of years" you point to. If you have it, show me.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Starlight shows the millions of years.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      No, actually it doesn't.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Yes, actually it does. For starlight to be reaching the Earth from a source that is millions of light years away would take millions of years to get here.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      In summary: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does…
      
      Covers the bases fairly well, I think.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Sure, lets just assume that the speed of light was different in the past. Fa-la-la, problem solved. lol. And creation scientists wonder why people laugh at them.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      No, let's assume that everything has always been exactly as we see it now, regardless of the evidence (such an MBR), and then go on to assume blatant impossibilities such as life coming from non-living materials. Fa-la-la, problem solved.
      
      And evolutionists wonder why Christians laugh at them.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      The possibility that the speed of light has not been constant has received much attention from physicists, but they have found no evidence for any change. Let me repeat, there is NO evidence that the speed of light has been changing over time. It is a fantasy that Creationists have dreamed up to try and make their absurd views sound plausible.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Repeat what you want all you want. But I'm sorry to inform you that all those guys with Ph.D.'s who are seriously looking into this are NOT going to listen to you.
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/scienc…
      http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/200…
      
      And neither am I. You will also note, I trust, that nowhere in either of those articles is Creationism (or any other "-ism") mentioned.
      
      I would like to also draw your attention to a particular passage from one of the articles:
      "For example, varying light speed could explain why two distant and causally unconnected parts of the universe can be so similar even if, according to conventional thought, there has not been enough time for light or other forces to pass between them."
      
      But I guess since the great multi-Nobel prize winning physicist, cosmologist, philosopher, biologist, etc., etc. Jeff Dixon says it's nonsense, all of those fools looking into these things should just quit and go home. Good thing you're there to set us all straight.
    - daves
      
      I do not make any such claim, I merely claim that fossil records show us that many modern species including humans did not exist a million years ago.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
    - petroskhan1262
      
      In point of fact, you did make such a claim. In denying that God created life here on earth, or that He even exists, then you are, by logical extension, claiming that life "created" itself. That it resulted from lifeless material.
      
      And the fossil record does not show us in any way what did NOT exist. It simply shows a few preserved specimens, sometimes of things that have died out. As for the age of said fossils, that has yet to be proven in any objective and reliable fashion.
  - LouseCA
    
    Certainly, life did not arise from nothingness. That's what we're trying to tell you. But there is no proof whatsoever about there being life on earth millions of years ago. The numbers don't work for you. Try calculation the rate of population growth-backwards. Evolutionists tack on millions and billions because they know the human mind cannot comprehend those kinds of numbers.
    - Steve03
      
      Actually, the numbers don't work for specific creation in 4004 BC — unless you want to accept that 250 people built the pyramids of Giza. You can't extrapolate population growth backwards, because prior to the mid-20th century, infant mortality was about 50%, and 10% of all births killed the mother. And there were frequent famines, plagues, and other mass exterminations that further depressed the rate of increase. If there was no life on earth millions of years ago, what are all those fossils? Or did God create them to mislead us? Note that if you say "yes," then we can't trust anything he wrote, either.
    - Orienteer
      
      who says that fossils must be "millions of years old"?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Nothing says they "must" be. The evidence shows that they are.
    - orienteer
      
      evidence based on what? Unprovable assumptions? You must be talking about evidence like the sample of lava from Mt. St. Helens crater that was OBSERVED to form and cool in 1986 that radiometric dating tests said was 350,000 years old! LOL! Is THAT the kind of "evidence" you are referencing? LOL!
    - Paul
      
      There is no evidence that says they are millions of years old. The only way fossils are believed to be millions of years old is that they are found in rock strata that is believed to be millions of years old. The reason the rock strata is believed to be millions of years old is because uniformitarian views say that it must take millions of years to create certain types of structures. Mount St Helens accomplished in a matter of weeks to create the same structures – it didn't take millions of years. There is no need for the millions of years in the rest of the earth structure either. So there is no evidence for the fossils being millions of years old either.
    - daves
      
      All life is carbon based.
      
      Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1] Raw, i.e., uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates
    - petroskhan1262
      
      The problem with carbon dating is that it relies on three assumptions, none of which is provable or verifiable.
      
      The first assumption is that the original conditions are known. They are not, and no one was around to make or confirm such assumptions.
      
      The second assumption is that no radioactive material has been added since the beginning. Again, there is no way to verify this.
      
      The third assumption is that the decay rates have always been the same. Unprovable, and subject to extreme doubt. "There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [era] to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Frederic B. Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development, June 1982 p:21
      - or –
      "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be ….. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists ….." Written by Dr William D. Stansfield (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in his book "The Science of Evolution", Macmillan: New York, 1977 p:84
  - Paul
    
    Hard to have anything millions of years before humans when the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

lambsev11

Research has shown that alll human DNA is ancestrally linked to one female. She has been called "Mitochondrial Eve." Creation scientists believe her not to be the Eve of the garden of Eden, but one of the four women who survived the flood.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/li…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2…

Ancient Mariner

Whether or not you believe in Creationism or Evolution, you must agree that the Bible we read is what remains after King James made his sweeping changes. The Bible was originally written by many different authors and was not combined until many years after the fact. It must also be considered that the Bible was written in many different tongues and these all had to be translated to one. The Roman Catholics did this and forbade anything but what the Pope approved. It was a death sentence to use anything but his wishes. Those words were screened and applied to the point that the Catholic version was law and they set out to spread it out worldwide. Even in this country, the Pilgrims were bound by the Catholic Church. Our first attempt at freedom in the new world was the many different beliefs brought here by the immigrants of the 1600's and 1700's.

lambsev11

Please cite one sweeping change made by King James including the changed texts. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It was translated by the Roman Church into Latin in the late 4th Century. From that point the Catholic church forbade it be translated further and forbade any but the Roman clergy read and teach it.
- LouseCA
  
  Correct. Thank you.
Paul

Don't know whether you are repeating disinformation you have heard, or you've come up with this disinformation on your own. The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years by 40 authors – but had one author, the Holy Spirit, hence its consistency. It didn't need, nor did it receive "sweeping changes" and the "catholics" for all their errors in doctrine did a pretty good job of translating. So much so that there is very little difference, and none in matters relating to God's plan of salvation, between the Latin Vulgate and translations made today, by non-catholics, from the original languages as recorded in ancient manuscripts.

Face it – it's GOD's Word, He's done a great job ensuring that it remains such.

ken

What is ironic is that Americans think that they are enlightened because they believe in evolution and
science.
In fact, evolution, or some form of it goes back thousands of years to the pagan Greeks who had
a pantheon of "gods" that they adhered to in their daily routines.

Evolution is unenlightenment.
Christ is the way the truth and the light–the real en light enment.

Max Headroom

If "evolution" is so true and that we "evolved" from apes/monkeys than why do we still have monkeys and apes? Ask some evolutionist that question and see how they answer it. I'd be curious to hear the answer!

Steve03

Your argument is based on two false assumptions: that we evolved from apes/monekys, and that when one species evolves from another, the original species is eliminated.
(1) We did not evolve from monkeys or apes, rather we and apes share a common ancestor from which was neither an ape nor a human. (2) When one animal evolves into another, the new form does not necessarily replace the older one. When a proto-ape gives birth to a proto-human (thus becoming the common ancestor of the two species), the other proto-apes continue to reporduce in kind. Unless they are forced to compete for the same ecological niche, both the proto-ape and the proto-human will continue to develop and evolve independently. That's especially true if (as it seems to have happened) that the proto-apes stayed in the jungle and the proto-humans ventured out into the wider world. Ships, like living organisms, have evolved over time: log canoes, sailing ships, steam ships, and now nuclear powered airfcraft carriers. So why do we still have oil-burning ships, sailboats, and canoes?
- Eric
  
  "Ships, like living organisms, have evolved over time"
  
  So ships reproduce? And all this time I thought that people were building them. Reproduction makes a lot more sense though. There's not enough people in the world to build all the ships that currently exist…
  - petroskhan1262
    
    LOL…you beat me to that one!
    - daves
      
      Well if God created humans then why do we have to reproduce?
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Well, shoot, daves…we don't HAVE to reproduce, but isn't it FUN?
  - Steve03
    
    The point wasn't that ships reproduce, but that the emergence of a more advanced form of something doesn't mean that all the less advanced forms disappear in a puff of creationist rhetoric.
- LouseCA
  
  It's impossible for apes and humans to have a common ancestor. I don't have my reference that gives the statistical facts, but it simply is not true. You've been lied to and you're buying it.
  - Steve03
    
    The odds against you being born a human being, AND being born on the day and hour of your actual birth, AND being born in the United States, AND having lived long enough to learn to operate a computer, AND being rich enough to own one, AND being a Christian, AND being a creationist, AND picking "LouseCA" as a tag, AND having visited Zionica.com today, AND having nothing better to do, AND posting on this topic, AND using the exact words in the exact sequence with the exact punctuation and spelling you used, AND not being able to find the source that would prove your case are far greater than the odds against apes and humans sharing a common ancestor. By the sort of "statistical facts" you can't find, it's simply impossible for you to have posted here, and yet here you are. You've been lied to, and you're buying it.
- Orienteer
  
  You committed "berra's blunder". Those ships did not "evolve" by naturalistic means, they evolved by human design I.e. Intelligent Design!!!! The four blind natural forces didn't bring about the changes in ship design, intelligent human beings did!!! LOL! I LOVE it when evolutionists commit "Berra's Blunder". It is so funny!
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    It would be exceedingly difficult to summarize all of the arguments for evolution in a concise fashion here. However, the most important point to remember is that evolution theory, like all scientific theories, was originally a solution to a problem. What's remarkable about anti-evolution propaganda is that it never acknowledges this fact, and so never takes on the burden of producing a better explanation for that original problem.
    
    So what was this original problem that evolution theory was invented to solve? It's called the Linnaean Taxonomy, named after Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). If you are not familiar with the term, it is the categorizations of plant and animal species into a hierarchical structure. This structure has 7 layers: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Now, the remarkable thing about this system is that the early naturalists classified animals into a hierarchical "family tree" structure long before the theory of evolution was proposed. In other words, all naturalists agreed long before Darwin that the animal kingdom appeared to be a family tree.
    
    Now the question becomes: why did they do that? The theory of evolution did not exist yet, so they obviously didn't do it to please "evolutionists", as creationists are wont to call them. What was their reasoning? Well here's where we run into an interesting coincidence in the animal kingdom: the appearance and development of animal features also looks like a family tree. In other words, you can take any given feature and trace its appearance, in various levels of complexity, along lines of animal species. Sometimes a feature will change in one direction for one branch of the tree and another direction for the other branch of the tree, and as you examine more complex organisms on any given branch, the two diverging features always (I must repeat this: ALWAYS) stay that way. They never jump back and forth; while features can jump between bacteria due to genetic material exchange (they're so small that they can literally swap pieces of DNA), we have never observed a feature exchange between complex organisms. There is no reason why an engineer would steadfastly refuse to take features from one product line and use them in another, so why would this be the case for an engineered biosystem?
    
    This is a classic example of a problem in need of a solution. It is not enough to classify it as coincidence, not when it is so incredibly consistent. And the problem gets worse: when those early naturalists examined the geographical distribution of the animal kingdom's "family tree", they discovered yet another impossibly unlikely "coincidence": species which appeared to be very close to one another on the family tree were also geographically close to one another. And whenever someone found what appeared to be an exception to this rule, they discovered a migratory path. Centuries later, the rule is unchanged: when species show a biological connection, they also show a geographical connection.
    
    The significance of these two intertwined globe-spanning coincidences cannot be overstated: it was an enormous problem for taxonomy. If someone had indeed designed and created these species, he went to enormous lengths to make them appear to be related, by carefully arranging their structures and geography to match! Why would he do this? There was no intrinsic need for this, as we have proven in the last century by artificially moving species outside their natural habitat and seeing that in many cases, they thrive in far-off environments. There was no intrinsic need for features to be arranged in a hierarchical fashion, or for structural proximity to invariably mirror geographical proximity. So why would the designer do this? No one ever provided an answer … until Darwin.
    
    This, then, is the single largest argument for evolution: it is a solution to a problem that no other theory can explain. Creationists often try to argue that God could have chosen to make the animal kingdom look that way, but they can't explain why or how. And if they can't explain why or how, then they actually do not have an explanation. Can anyone explain how you would derive the prediction of a "family tree" animal kingdom from the idea of God? It's not enough to say that God reused previous designs; that would explain the similarities but not the divisions in the family tree. The Linnaean taxonomy is a family tree, not a family sponge. Only evolution offers a real explanation: the kind of explanation where you can start from its mechanism and use it to logically work forward to predict the outcome.
    http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Page04…
    - petroskhan1262
      
      And all of these similarities cannot, of course, be due to the fact that each one of those animals was created by the same Designer, could they?
      
      "It is a solution to a problem that no other theory can explain." Really? I see neither a problem, nor a need for grandiose explanations. Especially not an explanation as flawed and nonsensical as evolution.
      
      Apply pseudo-logic all you want, as some sort of justification for denying the obvious, but the simple fact is, the Bible explains all of this quite nicely, in a manner consistent with the evidence.
    - Dionesius3
      
      Hey Dixon
      
      Looks like you still can't think or write a word yourself, all you can do is copy and paste what others have said.
      Your so pathetic it's funny.
      Go smoke another joint before you post again, I think it might increase your I.Q. Score a bit.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      I am sure you believe smoking pot can increase one's IQ. It fits with all your other pointless views.
    - Dionesius3
      
      Nope, you believe it and practice it REGULARLY.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      I see you also have no concern about false witness either. Pretty sure your god frowns on that type of behavior.
- Paul
  
  But evolution's not true, so the arguments are academic.

don

Lets say the concept of evolution is true for minute, then my question is What is evolving and how did we get created?

LouseCA

Exactly. What is it that we are supposed to be becoming? Are they planning on using transhumanism to explain the next "stage of human development"? Is that supposed to explain how evolution from nothing to humans came about? Nice try, but they'd better go back to the drawing board. The rules say you have to start with nothing. Like the joke says…"Go get your own dirt."

orienteer

How did life develop from non-life? When has science ever observed this? The theory of Dariwnian evolution cannot even get off the ground if it cannot answer that question!

Steve03

Neither Darwin nor evolution address that problem. It only tries to explain how we got from the first simple life forms to the complexity we see today. Your objection is like challenging the inerrancy of the Bible by demanding proof that God made the paper.
- Orienteer
  
  Rubbish. If everything happened by random chance with no intelligent guidance, then evolution MUST account for how the first life devloped from non-living chemicals naturalistically. By the way, the first "simple life" is anything but simple. A one-celled amoeba has the information equivalent of 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica! That is anything but simple!

lambsev11

The fingerprints of a superior intelligence are all over the universe.

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

All men at sometime have turned away from God and sinned against Him. But He still loves us and seeks to bring us to our senses and save us. Some of us are persuaded and return to Him. Others do not. God is blameless.

Steve03

"Fingerprints of superior intelligence": the human appendix, males' nipples, a human reproductive system that uses the same organs for procreation and elimination and in which 50% of all fertilized eggs ("beloved human beings for whom God has a wonderful plan" ) spontaneously abort before term, interconnected passages for breathing, speaking, and eating (an ever-present choking hazard), an eye that requires our brains to flip the image on the retina before it makes sense to us (a SIMPLER design would eliminate the problem), the life cycles of the Ichneumonidae and Cochliomyia hominivorax, etc, etc, etc.
- OrienteerMickey
  
  All of that seems to be working pretty well for the human race! We have populated and conquered the planet in spite of your alleged "faults in design". BTW, the appendix has an immune function. Would love to see you create an organ as complicated as the eye!
  - Steve03
    
    Any optician can do better: the trick is to design it ex nihilo, instead of using parts recycled from earlier organisms like God chose to let it happen.
    - orienteer
      
      Hogwash. I'd like to see an optician create an eye from scratch. Tell me, how did the eye "evolve" gradually over millions of years? what good is an eye that isn't fully functional?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Define fully functional. Each of these animals have better vision than humans. Does that mean our vision is not fully functional?
      
      Sharpest eyesight – Birds of prey
      The eyesight of birds such as eagles, hawks and buzzards is 3-4 times sharper than ours. Eagles can spot rabbits from several miles away while hawks and buzzards often scan the earth from a height of 10-15,000 feet looking for tasty rodents! And when they spot one, these birds can dive at over 100mph and still keep their target in complete focus.
      
      Best bird night vision – Owls
      Despite their smaller size, owls have eyes almost as big as ours and their huge pupils capture lots of light. In fact, an owl could probably spot a mouse on a football pitch lit by a single candle. Secondly, like other birds, their brains can capture an ‘at a glance’ picture that a human eye would have to scan back and forth to understand. However because their forward-facing eyes are so big, they can’t move them. Which is why, like eagles, they can swivel their heads 270 degrees – allowing them a wide field of vision.
      
      Best underwater vision – Sharks
      Never play hide and seek with a shark because you’ll lose. They can detect a glow that is ten times dimmer than anything we are capable of seeing. But just in case that wasn’t good enough, sharks have special cells in their brains that detect electrical fields. These not only help them to navigate like a compass but allow them to detect the weak electrical fields given off by the merest twitch of a muscle. Meaning even a distant fish hiding deep underneath the sand will be found and eaten.
      
      Best thermal vision – Snakes
      Temperature-sensitive organs located between the eyes and nostrils of pythons, boas and pit vipers allow these snakes to sense the body heat of their prey. There is one located on each side of the snakes’ head, so the animals can perceive depth and strike with deadly accuracy even in complete darkness.
    - keyboardshark
      
      Jeff says: "Define fully functional. Each of these animals have better vision than humans. Does that mean our vision is not fully functional? "
      
      I don't think he meant that a human eye was superior to any other animal's eye. I believe that he meant that all the parts had to be present at once to have a fully-functioning eye, regardless of how the eye performs in relation to other fully functional eyes. For example, what good would a retina be if there were no cornea to allow the light to come through, or the pupil that controls the amount of light coming in, or the optic nerve to transmit impulses from the retina, etc.
      
      There are at least 20 separate parts that have to be present in order to have a fully functioning eye. There is no possibility that such complex components could have arisen by mere chance, let alone all of them coming together at once to form a fully functional eye. http://www.allaboutvision.com/resources/anatomy.h…
    - petroskhan1262
      
      You are ignoring the fact that we don't NEED the sharpest eyesight (we have other senses, and devices to compensate).
      Nor do we need the best nightvision. We can make light, in a wide variety of ways.
      
      Underwater vision…we live on land. You might have noticed that.
      
      Thermal vision. Again, we have no need for it.
      
      Man is the jack of all trades, but master of only one. Intellect. We have been given no great strength, no huge teeth or claws, etc. We have our intellect, which has proven more than enough to grant us the "dominion" spoken of in the Bible.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      You are missing my point. I am not saying mankind does not have fully functional eyesight. However, orienteer asked what good is an eye that isn't fully functional? As my examples point out, there can be degrees of how good eyesight is and still be functional.
    - Dionesius3
      
      No your point is to be the dumbest and loudest in order to gain as much attention as possible to your stupid rants. You never respond to any cogent argument in fact all you do is copy and paste from people who actually write and think.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      I could never surpass your dumb and loud comments. You have obviously spent a lifetime accumulating massive amounts of nonsense in your mind.
    - Dionesius3
      
      And here is another dixonescue reply,
      
      "Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands are located in northern Canada, above the Arctic circle. The winters are so cold there that the only "trees" able to grow are small shrubs less than a foot in height.59 However something very strange has been found on these islands that testifies to a very different past: i.e. numerous large trees and tree stumps lying on, or buried just beneath the surface.60,61,62
      
      How did they get there? And more importantly, when did they get there?
      
      It is claimed that the trees are leftover remnants of forests which inhabited this area 40-65 million years ago. 60,61,62 The scientific data suggests otherwise. For instance, they are not petrified, 60,61,62 but can be sawed and burned. In addition, pine cones, pine needles, and leaves are also preserved in the sandy/silty soil. 60,61,62 Another clue to the puzzle is that the roots of these trees are missing. 60,61,62 This suggests that they didn't grow here but were uprooted by a catastrophic event and later re-deposited at different levels. This is exactly what has happened in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens; however, the upright trees on the bottom of this lake are still under water. At some time in the future, they may be left standing upright — looking as if they grew there. 63-70
      
      In regard to this, Quiring, states :
      
      "During the eruption many trees from the surrounding hillsides were washed into the lake. Today, thousands of logs, protected within the monument, float back and forth with the changing winds. As some of the trees sink, roots first, they settle upright on the lake floor to form a 'sunken forest.'" 71
      In regard to the preservation of the organic matter on Axel Heiberg Island, an online article states the following:
      
      "The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved as mummifications. Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al, 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles, roots, etc. Where these are not compressed, they are virtually indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests … The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little mineralization remain obscure. Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al, 1991)." Emphasis Added
      
      Although these trees are frozen for most of the year, each summer the snow melts and for about three months the temperature reaches into the 70 degree Fahrenheit range.72  Such warm temperatures should (normally) allow decomposition to take place. One explanation for the remarkable degree of preservation is the suggestion that these trees were "mummified" by being buried under significant amounts of strata, and then, over time, this overlying strata was eroded.
      
      This is perhaps possible, however, it is also possible that these trees are not millions of years old, but rather only a few thousand. Also, the fact that the roots of some of these upright trees are missing suggests that they were uprooted by a catastrophe, and transported by water to these islands (perhaps) in the not-too-distant past. Otherwise they would have decayed.
      
      Similar trees from Siberia are only 7,000 years old. For example, in "Cataclysms of the Earth," by Hugh Auchincloss Brown, on page 31, Mr. Brown makes the following comments:
      
      "In certain areas of northern Siberia innumerable tree trunks called by the natives "Adam's wood" and said to be in all stages of decay are embedded in the solidly frozen tundra. Because they were once growing trees, of types which do not grow in that climate, they confirm that a change in climate has taken place, such as would be caused by a careen of the globe. They could have been broken by a hurricane or flood. If so, they will show a clean break on the side on which the breaking force was imposed and torn fibers on the lee side. A reexamination of the wood, to determine genera and species of the trees, will enable us to establish the latitude range or climate in which these trees grew."   Emphasis Added
      
      "A so called mammoth tree, with fruit and leaves still on it, was discovered and reported after a landslide of Siberian tundra. Such cold storage of fruit 7,000 years old can only be explained by a sudden transportation of the fruit from a warm climate in which it grew to the cold storage climate in which it has been refrigerated. This specimen of fruit, with leaves, and many other specimens of leaves reported found in Siberia also confirm the careen of the globe."
- lambsev11
  
  Just posit for a moment that Adam and Eve were created by God in perfect health. They live in that state until they ate the fruit God warned them not to eat. Then they died just as God said they would. Why? Because God "touched" the creation he made and threw it "out of joint" so to speak. The evidence of God's design is still present, but until God is ready things just die. Even stars die, I'm told. So Steve03, Mr. Intelligent enough to know so much, where did your own intelligence come from and why do you despise it so?

Mike

There are theoretically 8.7 millions species currently on Earth. If one can wrap his mind around that degree of diversity, why would one conclude that evolution would even be a necessity within the realm of creation? Further, if we would consider the vastness of space and all of its billions of galaxies and trillions of stars the scale of creation as it exists on Earth would be statistically insignificant.

http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.

Evolution across species never has happened. It is an impossibility. (But I know someone with always pop-up and ask the question to prove that one)..
Evolution is true within a species group. Look at humans. There are no two who are exactly alike. IThis include 'identical' twins). But even there, there should be enough of a difference that it can be found out and documented.
What I don't understand is that so many people are practically pleading for Evolution to be true. If that were to happen, then they could get rid of God altogether.
Sorry folks. This isn't going to happen.

Paul

But that's not "evolution" in the sense that the general science means it. In their case, evolution is the accumulation of new information (via mutation) that results in a new species. In fact, all variations within the same family is by LOSS of information. There is no new species, just variation in traits. It's not "evolution".
Bob Koomans

I remember a scientist actually saying that evolution in such a short time-frame was about as possible as putting a bible through a cross-cut shredder, throwing the whole residue up into the wind, and having Every part come down Exactly as when it was Whole!
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Well, if one scientist said that then it must be true. (eyes roll)
  - Dionesius3
    
    It's a better alternative than listening to your rubbish.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      You are an expert on rubbish

Orienteer

Rubbish. If everything happened by random chance with no intelligent guidance, then evolution MUST account for how the first life devloped from non-living chemicals naturalistically. By the way, the first "simple life" is anything but simple. A one-celled amoeba has the information equivalent of 1000 sets of Encyclopedia Britannica! That is anything but simple!

http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Evolution does not care how life was first started. It could be by natural means, the biblical god or Quetzalcoatl. Evolution is concerned with what happens after life begins.
- orienteerMickey
  
  but if everything happened through naturalistic means as Darwinian evolution proposes, then the theory must account for how the FIRST life began!
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Evolution does not propose that life must have occurred from naturalistic means. It is not a foundation point of the theory.
    - Dionesius3
      
      Here ya go Dix,
      
      I'll use your methods and see how well you like it;
      
      "9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones:
      A 1987 article in the Journal of Paleontology begins as follows:
      
      "Hadrosaur bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska." 52
      
      What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they "lack any significant degree of permineralization." 53,54 In fact, the people who discovered them didn't report it for 20 years because they thought they were bison bones. Because the bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy silt," 55 and because every year the snow melts and subjects them to the elements for two to three months, these bones also call in question the evolutionary-based ages of dinosaurs, and the Geological Time Chart itself. See also 8 and 9A above. For more on Dragons and Man living together at the same time see Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones. See also this CBS News story and USA Today article for more on organic dinosaur remains."
    - Dionesius3
      
      Here is another;
      "In May of 1996 it was reported that ammonites in pristine condition have been found in "a 'mysterious network' of mud springs on the edge of the 'market town' of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England." 56 What is so interesting about these purportedly 165 million-year-old ammonites is that:
      
      "many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells … (and) they retain their original… aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] … The outsides also retain their iridescence… And… in the words of Dr. Hollingworth, 'There are shells … still have their organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old.'!" 57,58Emphasis Added
      
      It is a fact that water is a component of mud. It is also a fact that oxygen is a component of water. Oxygen allows oxidation to take place. Oxidation causes things to break down. These mud springs are further evidence that something is wrong with the current evolutionary scheme for dating fossils."

Vladimir

Speaking of evolution vs. creationism, if He allowed a proof either way, our opportunity to develop faith would be over because we would know.

I stopped worrying about how He did it, when I learned why He did it.

Bob Koomans

I guess you will always enjoy it when God Himself tells us face-to-face exactly what happened…. After all, we will still have enquiring minds! – Enjoy! – B.T.W: Ever notice that the first few lines in Gen. mentions that this Earth was "without form and void" (voided?) – suggesting a pre-existing condition of this planet, before He remodelled it. It goes deeper, but that is now getting almost as theoretical as darwin's. I also got nasty looks when I theorized (based on biblical signs that God was a deity of Work ethics etc.) – that angels that God gave certain powers and abilities to, helped in Creation. The example used for this was Henry Ford producing and making his Own Car: yet he used tradesmen to build it under (in) his name as it's creator. BTW, notice in Gen-2, that God required mankind to pay all due Respect, Honour, Obedience etc, to The Creator, through a sign or mark upon them as His People in that law, later asking Moses to Remember it? – Food for thought, hey? – The opposite is also true. Obey some man's law above God's, and you Dis-obey, Dis-honour, and Dis-respect Him.

Timothy

Creation science trumps evolutionISM everytime for all rational scientific minds who can separate facts from fairly tales of frogs turning into princes, or sod to god, or goo to you!

That painting in a forest or watch on a beach did not evolve there. Rational minds see design and deceived deceivers see
chance and natural selection CREATING complexity. The insurance goat on TV is has a terse reply to evolutionISM: NAAAAAH ! NNNAAAAAAAHH! Evolution never accounts for the information inherent in the design.

Real quantitative scientific disciplines like probability theory/mathematics, physical chemistry, biochemistry, thermodynamics, information theory and genetics show that evolution of present macro-forms of the whole interdependent biosphere (including all living forms in relationships to one another now) from random processes is a virtual impossibility! You have a better chance of getting a 747 from a tornado ripping thru a junkyard!

Sirwizard

The evolution theory is flawed. SOME of it makes some sense. No one was alive to witness the creation, certainly not the man that wrote the account in the bible. In my humble opinion, the fossil record shows that the earth has an ancient past. Radioactive carbon dating works. It just COULD be that some kind of evolution might be HOW God created the earth and man. I have no doubt that God did the creating, I just have no idea HOW. For those that doubt Radioactive carbon dating…if that doesn't work, neither do nuclear weapons. I am a physicist. I see the complexities that exist in nature. I think random events CANNOT explain it all. God rocks!

Orienteer

Gotta challenge you on Carbon -14 dating. Carbon 14 has a half- life of 5,730 years. Therefore it can only be used to measure something up to about 100,000 years old. It has it's limitations!
Bob Koomans

Notice that the first few lines in Gen. mentions that this Earth was "without form and void" (voided?) – suggesting a pre-existing condition of this planet, before He remodelled it. It goes deeper, but that is now getting almost as theoretical as darwin's. I also got nasty looks when I theorized (based on biblical signs that God was a deity of Work ethics etc.) – that angels that God gave certain powers and abilities to, helped in Creation. The example used for this was Henry Ford producing and making his Own Car: yet he used tradesmen to build it under (in) his name as it's creator. BTW, notice in Gen-2, that God required mankind to pay all due Respect, Honour, Obedience etc, to The Creator, through a sign or mark upon them as His People in that law, later asking Moses to Remember it? – Food for thought, hey? – The opposite is also true. Obey some man's law above God's, and you Dis-obey, Dis-honour, and Dis-respect Him.

orienteer

There are many reasons why macro- evolution is a myth. here are a few of them:

1) Darwinian theory proposes that NATURAL CAUSES ALONE caused the development and subsequent evolution of life on earth. This begs the question- How did life develop from non-living substances? To date, science has NEVER observed life develop from non-life. Even when scientists have attempted it in the lab, they have failed! So if intelligent scientists cannot create life from non-life, then how did the blind forces of nature do it? evolutionists will try to say that this has nothing to do with evolution. It absolutely does! If there was no intelligent designer, as evolutionary theory proposes, then how did life develop from non-life with NO intelligent guidance?

2). The Cambrian Explosion-All the major animal phyla appear fully formed and ready to go in the Cambrian layer with NO transitional fossils as ancestors before them in the Pre-Cambrian layers! How could life evolve from the first single-celled organism to complicated creatures like Trilobites, etc and leave no fossil record?

3). No Transitional Fossils- Darwin himself said there must be thousands of transitional fossils for his theory to be true. So where are they? Even well-known evolutionists like Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge admit there are no transitional fossils! That is why they proposed their theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" which states that evolution happened so fast that it left no fossil record behind. If the transitional fossils were so abundant,Chen why would Gould and Eldredge propose such a theory to explain the ABSENCE of transitional fossils??

Bob Koomans

God may not have made Earth and all that is – From NOTHING! – He could make quarks, He could make Atoms, and engineer anything He wanted from them, including MAN. Note that mankind does Not tolerate artificial chemicals very well, yet his physiology depends on plant based substances. Animal flesh as meat is secondary, but shortens life-span. This suggests an origin which contains all the known elements in clay. Strange, The Bible also mentions that clay in Genesis. But notice that the first few lines in Gen. mentions that this Earth was "without form and void" (voided?) – suggesting a pre-existing condition of this planet, before He remodelled it. It goes deeper, but that is now getting almost as theoretical as darwin's.
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

. Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another. For those who have difficulty in accepting evolution because of what they perceive as contradictions with their fundamental religious beliefs, it may be useful to distinguish the ultimate origin of life from its later evolution. Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences 3.5-4 billion years ago. However, it is not necessary to believe in that view in order to accept that living creatures evolved by natural means after the origin of the first life.

. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
- Dionesius3
  
  Hey Dixon,
  
  Can you not write any thought without copying and pasting from some website? You must have NEVER had an original thought in you whole life. I fear for your sanity and the safety of your family if you go through life spouting dictionary definitions and disparate sources in real life as you do in your silly posts.
  
  You really need to go see a therapist, I think they now have some pills that will calm the many voices you must constantly hear.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    I offer information from informed sources on the topic. I could provide my opinion, but that is not as relevant as information from people directly studying the issues.
    
    I realize that reading factual information in contrary to everything you believe in, but it is actually the way rational people learn.

http://aol.com Ed in Florida

Evolution is real people! I saw a Kenyan on TV acting just like an Afro-American President. Now I believe.

Paul

That's just deception, not evolution. But a good analogy…

Laur

God is the Father who gives us everything, including life with Him if we believe and obey Him by studing the scriptures.
There was a flood at one time because of unbelief. Sad story.

Guest

We all came from Adam and Eve, not monkeys.

Bob Koomans

While people argue this way n that, has anyone noticed that not ONE shred of evidence of evolution has surfaced, including ongoing evolution? – after all, evolution should not be on/off but a gradual onward progress… it does not show over 6,ooo years of history. Inbreeding is evident in aboriginal societies, and some can end up looking "Neanderthal" but they are exceptions. Probably the few neanderthals exhumed were just that – the rare inbreds who were buried to hide them from the spirits. I have worked in New Guinea and Australia, and written a booklet on Native Movements of a certain group of Melanesians, who are known to have crossed the land-bridge that existed before 1550AD between what is now Papua new Guinea and Australia. Now remember also that Charles Darwin always said that his theories were just that, and only that: Theory. He recanted his theories just before his death. Not because of pressure from priests, but to set himself right with God. A dying man rarely lies. So, look around you… different humans, but one basic form with a few adaptions caused by gene pooling and selectivity. Tribal people tended to kill off strange babies that "threw back" to original genes, because they were scared their wives had copulated elsewhere. Some poor women were victimised for the same belief (without proof). A very short few lines that needed a book on it.

msjallen

God will not allow His Word to be distorted in any way even if man has translated from inferior manuscripts. For example, the KJV was translated from the Latin in 1611 before so many Dead Sea Scrolls were found with the original languages. Our church (Non-denominational Biblicist) believes in teaching from the original languages using hermeneutics to get the exact meaning of each word in every book of the Bible. For instance, it took my pastor five years to teach Ephesians because there are so many Christian doctrines in each verse and he taught M-F & twice on Sunday. No believer can just read the Bible and grow spiritually. It takes the spiritual gift of P-T to study from the original languages for the exact meaning. The confusion comes from man who wants to do things their way instead of God’s way.

http://zionica.com Grant

In the beginning, God breathed life and created Adam. Never once does it mention God created us from cave man, monk(ies) and etc. IF you want to take ownership of evolution of being created from the possibilities of
monk(ies), then so be it. Monkey see monkey do…God bless you…

http://zionica.com Grant

In the Book of James: ask for 'wisdom'. Ask for clarification of His Word. You are listening and seeking the 'wisdom of man. This evolution is not of God. Seek God's wisdom you will be blessed.

msjallen

You are absolutely right, Jeff, because they have not been taught the truth from the Word of God. I use to teach teens where they had no clue what the Bible taught about creation. That all changed when they understood the teaching from the Bible. Typical public school education teaching evolution as a fact instead of a theory.
I Cor 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. He (Jesus Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Jesus Christ controls history.)
Psalm 102:25-27 In the beginning You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. "Even they will perish, but You endure; and all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.

http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Which actually shows that the bible is not a source of good information. Like all living things, our bodies are made up of a combination of fundamental elements such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus. Instead of there being different flesh for different animals, we are all made up of the same elements.