“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Two Men, Same Birthday, Very Different Legacies

ingodwetrustdollarAmerican Minute from William J. Federer 

Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the exact same day, FEBRUARY 12, 1809, but their lives had completely different effects.

Lincoln is best known for freeing the slaves by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, affirming in his Gettysburg Address, 1863: “Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Darwin is best known for the theory of evolution, arguing that men are not only not “created” but they are not “equal” as some are more evolved.

In his Descent of Man, 1871, Darwin wrote: “Civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate the savage races throughout the world…The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
ingodwetrustnickle
Whereas Darwin’s theory has been used by atheists to explain away belief in God, the last act of Congress signed by Abraham Lincoln before he was shot was to place the phrase “In God We Trust” on all national coin.

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.   


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


10 Responses to “Two Men, Same Birthday, Very Different Legacies”

  1. I'm going to attempt to offer you an explanation of evolution. I know your probably going to disagree, so I'll try to go step by step.

    As you probably know, in places where Earth’s crust is ripped or shown, a sort of column of layers appears. This is called the geologic column. Obviously, the bottom layers are the oldest, the highest= the youngest. We find fossils at different heights in the column. Here is a sort of diagram I made that shows the life forms we find at each level.

    Humans
    Mammals and Birds
    Dinosaurs, early birds and mammals
    Reptiles and mammal-like reptiles
    Amphibians and Insects
    Fish and crusteceans
    Simple animals
    Algae and Protists
    Bacteria

    This order never changes. A dinosaur is never found buried at the lowest level. A trilobite is never found in the top layers. Cows are never found buried next to a Velociraptor. Why is this? It is because the geologic column shows time, a long time. These animals lived millions of years apart. We find no dinosaurs buried past the K-T boundary, where we find tons of iridium, found only in asteroids- hmm? (asteroid impact) Another interesting feature is the progression from simple to complex. Beginning in the 1850’s with the discovery of these extinct creatures, scientist had to develop a theory to explain simple to complex in the geologic column.

    Charles Darwin’s theory was Evolution. He proposed that animals suited to their environment would survive and reproduce better than those who couldn’t. As a result, they would pass their genes on more. Therefore, better genes would begin to dominate the species, driving it forward. He called this natural selection. If you waited long enough, the animals would be totally different then they were before, thus making a new species. He hypothesized that this process of creating species was responsible for all the species on the planet. Had this theory lacked evidence, it would have been thrown out long ago. It wasn’t.

    The best evidence for evolution came with the discovery of genetics. A cat and dog should share more genes in common that a cat and bullfrog, since they are thought to be closer related. They do. By determining how genetically similar two organisms are, we can tell how long ago they split. We have very little genes in common with trees, so this split dates to the beginning of life. We have a little more in common with insects, since we are both animals. We have more in common with elephants, we are both mammals. We have 97% of our genes in common with apes, we are both hominids. We are very closely related. If you match our DNA up to a chimps, the centromeres and base pairs match almost exactly. Does this suggest nothing to you?

    The nail in the coffin for human creationism came when the human genome was completely decoded just a few years ago. Geneticists discovered that human chromosome #2 has 2 centromeres (the center of a chromosome). This means that it is actually the fusion of two earlier chromosomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), but as some point in our time we obviously had 2 more (1 more pair.) This would give us 48. Scientists never find this kind of discrepancy in a single species, so any way you slice it, humans are descended from non-humans. Our ancestors could not have been human, they did not have the right number of chromosomes, they had 48. What has 48 chromosomes? Apes.

    Charles Darwin proposed that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes; that we evolved from a creature, that if it where alive today, we would probably call an ape. Human chromosome #2 shows that we descended from creatures that were not our species, and that had the exact same number of chromosomes as apes do. Throw in the fact that we are nearly genetically identical to apes. Is this all just a coincidence? Why would God plant this evidence in his creation to be misconstrued? I don’t think He would.

  2. Actually there ARE differences from the geological column order you cited. But accepting it as universally accurate, has it ever occurred to you that this order might also correspond with an order which would make sense in the scenario where the earth is being covered by a global flood, and the higher and more flexible the organism, the longer it will be able to evade being buried by flood waters, mud slides, etc?

    If you took the time to examine them in an open-minded light, you might be surprised how many creation theories fit the evidence–and often fits better than materialist/naturalist/evolutionist theories.

    Darwin's theory lacked evidence a long, long, long time ago. It has not been thrown out because if it were, those who desperately don't want to believe in an intelligent designer would be faced with a terrifying conclusion: that they might just be morally accountable to someone, and might face eternal punishment for failing to live up to that accountability.

    You cited similarities in genetics between primates and humans. So what? Is the similarity between a Honda and a Volvo proof that one evolved from the other…or that similar elements were used in their construction? Is the similarity (e.g. four wheels, 6-cylinder engine, two doors, a steering wheel, etc.) between a Chevette and an El Dorado proof that the El Dorado evolved from the Chevette?

    This illustration would also have relevance to your chromosomal argument. You assume that, if there is a God, that this chromosomal state is an attempt at deception…rather than consider the possibility that you are misinterpreting the evidence.

    You–like several generations of evolutionists before you–are taking interpretations built on presuppositions, closing your eyes to any other possibility whatsoever, and pronouncing it “fact.” It is no more fact that a hypothetical assertion I might make that Mount Rushmore looks a whole lot like somebody actually carved it to look coincidentally like several presidents, but is actually just a really cool product of millions of years of wind and rain.

    Neither creationists nor evolutionists can prove their theory. Both hold presuppositions.

    What's interesting is that most evolutionists pretend that they are totally objective and have no presuppositions; the obvious fallacy of this assertion reminds one of the emperor's new set of clothes.

    In lieu of solid, undeniable evidence either way, we must form a conclusion based on the best evidence. And the best evidence points overwhelmingly toward an intelligent designer.

    Creation works within its own framework of assumptions. Evolution is absolutely impossible within its own framework at many points. It must violate the laws of nature (that it claims rule all) in order to happen, which means it is impossible within its own framework. We know that life cannot come from lifelessness; life from lifeless material violates the laws of nature…yet life MUST spring from lifeless materials in order for evolution to be possible.

    Scientists who have even a shred of intellectual honesty are in increasing numbers admitting the impossibility and illogic of materialism/naturalism/evolution.

    As a former believer in evolution myself, I can see why.

  3. Braden, the geologic column that you describe exists nowhere in the world. In fact, in almost all locations there is strata that is out of order or even completely inverted. Cambrian layers are found at elevations well above sea level and even on mountain tops. Polystrate fossils, such as a fossilized tree that extends through multiple strata representing millions of years by current geologic reckoning, are common and evolutionists are at a loss to explain them, although they’ve tried. Vertebrates are found in layers below molluscs. Even human fossils have been found in layers believed to be 60 million years old.

    Your simplistic notions about genetics seem to come right from a ninth grade biology book, but are simply wrong. Humans have 95% of our genes in common with an earthworm and over 60% in common with a banana. So what? What is truly amazing and inexplicable by naturalistic means is the origin of DNA and RNA and the fact that all life is based on the same code. So the #2 gene in Humans is formed by two ape genes. I trust this is a phenomenon seen in many related species with genome differences of two. And this accounts for all the incredible differences betweeen humans and apes, right? Before telling us about similarities of genes between species and phyla, let’s start with where did DNA come from and how did all the information get coded in the first place? That would be the scientific approach. What you are engaging in is hopeful speculation, based on untrue beliefs and assumptions.

    You need to become a little more informed about the controversy, Braden, before arrogantly jumping in with a condescending screed that is full of errors and untruths.

  4. “has it ever occurred to you that this order might also correspond with an order which would make sense in the scenario where the earth is being covered by a global flood”

    That is obviously not the case, as if the entire Earth were flooded, organisms that could swim would obviously out live those that could not, as they would drown. The fossil record would then show random land dwelling organisms at the bottom, like say a Triceratops, and random swimming or marine organisms at the top, like a Plesiosaur. This is not the case. These two organisms are buried in the same layer, because they lived at the same time. Your flood theory would hold that a Triceratops could survive in the ocean for just as long as a marine Plesiosaur.

    “It has not been thrown out because if it were, those who desperately don't want to believe in an intelligent designer would be faced with a terrifying conclusion”

    Polls show that most people who believe in evolution also believe in God. In fact, an overwhelming majority believe that He is guiding the process. I believe that the Bible tells us why God created mankind, evolution tells us how.

    “You cited similarities in genetics between primates and humans. So what? Is the similarity between a Honda and a Volvo proof that one evolved from the other”

    Cars don't reproduce to make more cars. DNA reproduces copies of itself. Only something that can make more copies of itself can evolve.

    “You–like several generations of evolutionists before you–are taking interpretations built on presuppositions, closing your eyes to any other possibility whatsoever, and pronouncing it “fact.”

    I am not. I am simply weighing the evidence. I have yet to see any solid evidence which would suggest that humans were created exactly in their present form in the last 10,000 years.

    “Neither creationists nor evolutionists can prove their theory. “

    Your right, but they can test it. We see organisms evolving today such as bacteria evolving new genetic codes, new species, that are resistant to drugs. This is compatible with the theory of evolution. Species should not be able to form new species if they were all created in their present form and are unchanging, as creationism holds.

    “We know that life cannot come from lifelessness”

    We do not know that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if it is impossible for life to come from non-life, the theory of evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. The theory of evolution only deals with processes that occur once life is up and kicking.

    I'm not trying to attack your beliefs. It just saddens me when people don't believe in or don't understand the amazing story of life on this planet, because it is one of the greatest stories ever told.

  5. In the global flood scenario, organisms that could swim might outlive those that could not swim…unless they were suddenly and catastrophically covered by mudslides and sedimentary deposits on a phenomenal scale. The Bible says the global flood involved not only rain from the sky, but the “fountains of the deep” breaking open–something that almost certainly resulted in catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic activity and more on a fantastic scale. The geological turbulence and trauma was probably almost beyond our imagination.

    You see, you are again making an interpretation of the evidence…that can have other equally valid interepretations.

    It may be true that most people who believe in evolution also believe in God; I'd have to check the numbers to be sure. Regardless, there are at least some who believe in both. However, they do so out of ignorance, as I once did. I once believed in theistic evolution. However, that changed when I learned two basic things: that there are HUGE and insurmountable problems with the theory of evolution (that I've already mentioned here), and that there actually were scientifically viable creationist theories that fit the evidence–usually better than the evolutionist theories. And when I took a serious look at the incompatiblities between the Biblical account and what would have to be true if evolution were true, I realized that evolution and the Bible are completely incompatible, on both a technical and theological level.

    You are correct that cars do not reproduce themselves, so the analogy is not total. However, the point I was making (that similarity does not indicate direct relation) remains fully valid.

    I noticed that you claim you are not being influenced by presuppositions…just as practically every evolutionist does. The creationist can usually admit that they have presuppositions (I do), but somehow almost every evolutionist is blind to their own.

    By the way, I see not the slightest bit of evidence whatsoever that humans have NOT existed in their present form for the last 6-10,000 years, subject to minor variations, of course. But to be clear, there is not a single shred of evidence that humans have ever been any different than they are. One can interpret primate skeletons as “ancestors,” but that is again more conjecture based on presupposition than it is based on real evidence.

    And no, you don't see evolution occurring today. You see things like bacteria adapting to their environment, but this involves an emerging dominance of already existing genetic information within the organism, not new information. And such adaptations almost always involve the loss of genetic information to make way for the dominance of other genetic traits.

    I suppose we cannot utterly rule out the possibility that life can spring from lifeless elements. But has there ever been a single, solitary incident where it has even come close to happening? No. Not once. Not even close. Thinking it can is great fantasy…but not even remotely science.

    And the “evolution says nothing about the beginning of life” is a cowardly dodge that practically every evolutionist makes. It's the elephant in the room that you simply have to deal with if you are intellectually honest. Life HAD to come from somewhere. Pretending that the question isn't important or “oh, this theory doesn't deal with that” is disingenuous and deliberately evasive. Life had to come about somehow…but evolutionists with a shred of integrity realize it's virtually impossible according to the laws of nature, and since they insist there can be no supernatural intervention, they either have to do the intellectually honest thing and admit the theory of evolution falls flat on it's face right at the starting gate…or ignore it so they can keep a comfortable theory. They almost always opt for the latter.

    I, too, am saddened that many people don't believe in or don't understand the amazing story of life on this planet, and how it came to be–especially when the alternative they often cling to is totally unworkable. God's creative genius is beyond awe-inspiring. And to comprehend that a being that vast and powerful and intelligent gives a rip about what happens to me…well, that's pretty humbling.

  6. It saddens me. Braden, when people make up stories and disseminate untruths to bolster their beliefs.

    Again with bacterial resistance. There is no evidence that bacterial resistance has anything to do with bacteria acquiring new genetic information. In fact, there is a net loss of information in most cases, and in others it is an exchange of plasmids, a phenomenon that is well-known and does not involve any evolutionary progression.

    Additionally, you will note that after trillions upon trillions of replications an E. coli is still an E. coli.

    New information cannot occur spontaneously. Information can only come from intelligence. The DNA code is a massive array of complex information, even in the simplist of organisms. Please give me an example of information occuring spontaneously.

    It is disingenuous to claim that evolution does not deal with origins. Look at any biology book and you will find wild speculation about origins including the wholly discredited Miller-Ulrey experiment.

  7. “In the global flood scenario, organisms that could swim might outlive those that could not swim…unless they were suddenly and catastrophically covered by mudslides”

    Well if all the land animals were killed by flooding all at once, and all the marine animals were killed by mudslides all at once, we shouldn't see progression from simple to complex. Being simple or complex doesn't dictate one's ability to survive a flood or mudslide. Besides, then there is the issue of how some organisms survived. Are you telling me that billions of species of animals fit on a wooden boat?

    And what about organisms that could not physically survive together. In the Carboniferous period, oxygen levels were astronomically high, allowing insects to get huge. A dragonfly species became the size of an eagle. But with today's oxygen content, this species woudn't be able to get enough oxygen into its body, it would suffocate. Had humans existed in the Carboniferous, we would have passed out from the excess of oxygen. How could these two organisms exist at the same time? Maybe they didn't.

    “The Bible says the global flood involved not only rain from the sky, but the “fountains of the deep” breaking open”

    The Earth does not contain enough water to complete cover all the land masses. From the water cycle, we know that water isn't created or destroyed, its just in different forms: liquid, ice, vapor. For the Earth to be flooded, water would have to come from an outside source and then leave again once the flood was gone, and erase all evidence that the highest parts of the planet had once been flooded.

    ” noticed that you claim you are not being influenced by presuppositions…just as practically every evolutionist does.”

    Your right, I do have presuppositions. I take for granted that something that is scientifically impossible cannot happen. I do not believe that God designed the laws of physics just to violate them whenever He felt like it.

    “By the way, I see not the slightest bit of evidence whatsoever that humans have NOT existed in their present form for the last 6-10,000 years”

    As I said before, human DNA contains a fused chromosome: our ancestors had a different number of chromosomes. They could not have been humans. Call them whatever you want, but the human species came from a non-human species.

    “You see things like bacteria adapting to their environment”

    Adaptation and evolution are the same thing, they are powered by the same mechanism.

    “this involves an emerging dominance of already existing genetic information within the organism, not new information”

    I never understand this claim. Any change than a mutation makes in genetic code results in a loss of information and an addition of new information, thats what 'change' means. If your code says ABC, and a mutation changed it to ABD, you have lost the old information for say, brown fur, and gained it for white fur.

    Evolution deals the with creation of new species, which we see happening yearly when it comes to bacteria, and every decade or so when it comes to insects and other things with short life spans.

    “such adaptations almost always involve the loss of genetic information to make way for the dominance of other genetic traits.”

    In the 1970's Japanese scientists discovered a species of bacteria that had evolved to eat nylon. Has nylon existed for the entirety of this bacterial species? Of course not. Why would a bacteria have the ability to digest something that didn't even exist? A mutation occured that added new information, the abiltity to digest a substance that was created relatively recently, nylon.

    “Life HAD to come from somewhere. Pretending that the question isn't important or “oh, this theory doesn't deal with that” is disingenuous and deliberately evasive.”

    Evolution states that organisms change and adapt to their environment, and eventually become new species. This is true no matter how life was created, whether by abiogenesis, by God, or by aliens from Star Wars. It doesn't matter. The creation of life has nothing to do with evolution. That's like saying that because we don't completely understand how gravity works or how it got started, gravity doesn't exist.

    “And to comprehend that a being that vast and powerful and intelligent gives a rip about what happens to me…well, that's pretty humbling.”

    I have to agree there. There are more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of all the world. We are so insignificant, and yet, apparently, so significant, as we are the only species we know of that can create blogs and argue about where we came from.

  8. For one thing, as I and Dr. Theo pointed out, the geological column isn't nearly as consistent as you seem to think it is. And true, the state of advancement of an organism isn't going to necessarily dictate it's ability to escape rising flood waters and geological cataclysm…but organisms with the ability to move fast and and in an agile manner will in most cases–unless they are in close proximity to cataclysmic events–be able to avoid burial longer than those that are largely immobile.

    And no, I'm not telling you billions (or even millions) of species were on the ark. The Bible says Noah took two and seven of the various kinds of animals. The genetic variation possible in just a couple of dogs could eventually result in Beagles, Great Danes, collies, etc. And not every organism would have come on the boat.

    And again, you're making assumptions about various geological periods (e.g. the Carboniferous) that are based on modern-day guesses. There are no written records of the exact conditions during these periods, nor now long they lasted. It is entirely possible that these “periods” were laid down in hours or days during the cataclysm of the global flood–as the chemical composition of the atmosphere changed greatly in short periods of time due to tremendous flooding and vulcanism. True, it's likely that there was a higher oxygen content on earth prior to the flood, but the large organisms of which you speak–have you considered that Noah might have taken young juvenile specimens, and perhaps not even the large variations within a given kind?

    “The Earth does not contain enough water to complete cover all the land masses”…under existing conditions. But what if the planet was much more flat before the flood? And what if those “fountains of the deep” consisted of huge subterranean caverns filled with water? Water that burst from the ground at tremendous velocity resulting in huge earthquakes, volcanoes, and walls of water so high we can hardly contemplate them? And what if all that water that the Bible says began to recede, receded into a couple of basic regions of the globe (e.g. the Atlantic and Pacific), and the weight of that water pushed the continents up and back, forming the elevated plateaus and mountain ranges we now see? Dr. Walt Brown, a former engineering professor at the Air Force Academy has a tremendously detailed theory called the “hydroplate theory” that you should read.

    “I do not believe that God designed the laws of physics just to violate them whenever He felt like it.” I have fairly extensive computer programming skills, including web applications and some Visual Basic. Would I create a program based on a set of parameters that I could violate whenever I feel like it? I do it every week. I create an application that the average user must use according to the laws (parameters) I built into the program. They cannot make the program do anything more than I programmed into it because they do not have the knowledge, nor do they have access to the source code to change it.

    God has both the knowledge and access to the source code to change it at will. And as I occasionally modify applications to improve them or to better handle a new set of circumstances, so God occasionally performs temporary interventions in the universe. Unlike my changes, which usually affect the permanent laws and operation of the program, God's interventions usually (except for things like the Curse, at the fall of man, or the intervention of Christ and his redemption) are a temporary suspension of the default programming for him to do a “miracle.”

    You keep going back to chromosomal evidence as if it proved something, but you are again making assumptions. You assume our ancestors had different chromosomal configurations, but you don't know that. And even if they did have some minor differences in the past, you assume any differences would render them “not human.” Yet there is no evidence that we have ever been anything really different than we are now: human.

    “Adaptation and evolution are the same thing” No they are not. I adapt to the cold by putting on a coat, but I don't evolve into a different organism that has thick fur.” You see strains of bacteria adapt to new conditions because some of them contain genetic traits that are configured in a way that helps them survive those new conditions better. And those dominant like traits get passed on…but they are still bacteria, not a shellfish or a bird or an elk. Your nylon-eating bacteria did not evolve with a specific ability to eat nylon. They had genetic traits as a result of genetic variation which made the consumption of nylon possible and favorable, but they did not vary specifically in order to eat nylon…nor did they evolve into a different organism. They're still bacteria.

    I won't cover the cowardly refusal of some evolutionists to face the question of the origin of life; I said all that was needed to say, and so did Dr. Theo. It's so obvious (which is why I called it the elephant in the room) that it's pertinence and relation should speak for itself.

  9. “In the global flood scenario, organisms that could swim might outlive those that could not swim…unless they were suddenly and catastrophically covered by mudslides”

    Well if all the land animals were killed by flooding all at once, and all the marine animals were killed by mudslides all at once, we shouldn't see progression from simple to complex. Being simple or complex doesn't dictate one's ability to survive a flood or mudslide. Besides, then there is the issue of how some organisms survived. Are you telling me that billions of species of animals fit on a wooden boat?

    And what about organisms that could not physically survive together. In the Carboniferous period, oxygen levels were astronomically high, allowing insects to get huge. A dragonfly species became the size of an eagle. But with today's oxygen content, this species woudn't be able to get enough oxygen into its body, it would suffocate. Had humans existed in the Carboniferous, we would have passed out from the excess of oxygen. How could these two organisms exist at the same time? Maybe they didn't.

    “The Bible says the global flood involved not only rain from the sky, but the “fountains of the deep” breaking open”

    The Earth does not contain enough water to complete cover all the land masses. From the water cycle, we know that water isn't created or destroyed, its just in different forms: liquid, ice, vapor. For the Earth to be flooded, water would have to come from an outside source and then leave again once the flood was gone, and erase all evidence that the highest parts of the planet had once been flooded.

    ” noticed that you claim you are not being influenced by presuppositions…just as practically every evolutionist does.”

    Your right, I do have presuppositions. I take for granted that something that is scientifically impossible cannot happen. I do not believe that God designed the laws of physics just to violate them whenever He felt like it.

    “By the way, I see not the slightest bit of evidence whatsoever that humans have NOT existed in their present form for the last 6-10,000 years”

    As I said before, human DNA contains a fused chromosome: our ancestors had a different number of chromosomes. They could not have been humans. Call them whatever you want, but the human species came from a non-human species.

    “You see things like bacteria adapting to their environment”

    Adaptation and evolution are the same thing, they are powered by the same mechanism.

    “this involves an emerging dominance of already existing genetic information within the organism, not new information”

    I never understand this claim. Any change than a mutation makes in genetic code results in a loss of information and an addition of new information, thats what 'change' means. If your code says ABC, and a mutation changed it to ABD, you have lost the old information for say, brown fur, and gained it for white fur.

    Evolution deals the with creation of new species, which we see happening yearly when it comes to bacteria, and every decade or so when it comes to insects and other things with short life spans.

    “such adaptations almost always involve the loss of genetic information to make way for the dominance of other genetic traits.”

    In the 1970's Japanese scientists discovered a species of bacteria that had evolved to eat nylon. Has nylon existed for the entirety of this bacterial species? Of course not. Why would a bacteria have the ability to digest something that didn't even exist? A mutation occured that added new information, the abiltity to digest a substance that was created relatively recently, nylon.

    “Life HAD to come from somewhere. Pretending that the question isn't important or “oh, this theory doesn't deal with that” is disingenuous and deliberately evasive.”

    Evolution states that organisms change and adapt to their environment, and eventually become new species. This is true no matter how life was created, whether by abiogenesis, by God, or by aliens from Star Wars. It doesn't matter. The creation of life has nothing to do with evolution. That's like saying that because we don't completely understand how gravity works or how it got started, gravity doesn't exist.

    “And to comprehend that a being that vast and powerful and intelligent gives a rip about what happens to me…well, that's pretty humbling.”

    I have to agree there. There are more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of all the world. We are so insignificant, and yet, apparently, so significant, as we are the only species we know of that can create blogs and argue about where we came from.

  10. For one thing, as I and Dr. Theo pointed out, the geological column isn't nearly as consistent as you seem to think it is. And true, the state of advancement of an organism isn't going to necessarily dictate it's ability to escape rising flood waters and geological cataclysm…but organisms with the ability to move fast and and in an agile manner will in most cases–unless they are in close proximity to cataclysmic events–be able to avoid burial longer than those that are largely immobile.

    And no, I'm not telling you billions (or even millions) of species were on the ark. The Bible says Noah took two and seven of the various kinds of animals. The genetic variation possible in just a couple of dogs could eventually result in Beagles, Great Danes, collies, etc. And not every organism would have come on the boat.

    And again, you're making assumptions about various geological periods (e.g. the Carboniferous) that are based on modern-day guesses. There are no written records of the exact conditions during these periods, nor now long they lasted. It is entirely possible that these “periods” were laid down in hours or days during the cataclysm of the global flood–as the chemical composition of the atmosphere changed greatly in short periods of time due to tremendous flooding and vulcanism. True, it's likely that there was a higher oxygen content on earth prior to the flood, but the large organisms of which you speak–have you considered that Noah might have taken young juvenile specimens, and perhaps not even the large variations within a given kind?

    “The Earth does not contain enough water to complete cover all the land masses”…under existing conditions. But what if the planet was much more flat before the flood? And what if those “fountains of the deep” consisted of huge subterranean caverns filled with water? Water that burst from the ground at tremendous velocity resulting in huge earthquakes, volcanoes, and walls of water so high we can hardly contemplate them? And what if all that water that the Bible says began to recede, receded into a couple of basic regions of the globe (e.g. the Atlantic and Pacific), and the weight of that water pushed the continents up and back, forming the elevated plateaus and mountain ranges we now see? Dr. Walt Brown, a former engineering professor at the Air Force Academy has a tremendously detailed theory called the “hydroplate theory” that you should read.

    “I do not believe that God designed the laws of physics just to violate them whenever He felt like it.” I have fairly extensive computer programming skills, including web applications and some Visual Basic. Would I create a program based on a set of parameters that I could violate whenever I feel like it? I do it every week. I create an application that the average user must use according to the laws (parameters) I built into the program. They cannot make the program do anything more than I programmed into it because they do not have the knowledge, nor do they have access to the source code to change it.

    God has both the knowledge and access to the source code to change it at will. And as I occasionally modify applications to improve them or to better handle a new set of circumstances, so God occasionally performs temporary interventions in the universe. Unlike my changes, which usually affect the permanent laws and operation of the program, God's interventions usually (except for things like the Curse, at the fall of man, or the intervention of Christ and his redemption) are a temporary suspension of the default programming for him to do a “miracle.”

    You keep going back to chromosomal evidence as if it proved something, but you are again making assumptions. You assume our ancestors had different chromosomal configurations, but you don't know that. And even if they did have some minor differences in the past, you assume any differences would render them “not human.” Yet there is no evidence that we have ever been anything really different than we are now: human.

    “Adaptation and evolution are the same thing” No they are not. I adapt to the cold by putting on a coat, but I don't evolve into a different organism that has thick fur.” You see strains of bacteria adapt to new conditions because some of them contain genetic traits that are configured in a way that helps them survive those new conditions better. And those dominant like traits get passed on…but they are still bacteria, not a shellfish or a bird or an elk. Your nylon-eating bacteria did not evolve with a specific ability to eat nylon. They had genetic traits as a result of genetic variation which made the consumption of nylon possible and favorable, but they did not vary specifically in order to eat nylon…nor did they evolve into a different organism. They're still bacteria.

    I won't cover the cowardly refusal of some evolutionists to face the question of the origin of life; I said all that was needed to say, and so did Dr. Theo. It's so obvious (which is why I called it the elephant in the room) that it's pertinence and relation should speak for itself.