Rabid Evolutionist Tries to Harass Rick Perry

It’s funny to watch liberals make fools of themselves as they try to make fools of conservatives.

We got a chance to do that yesterday at a Rick Perry campaign stop in New Hampshire where a brave liberal woman sent her child to ask Perry questions about “science” and creation. Since we know how liberals sneer and look down their noses at anything the Bible has to say, we undoubtedly know this little exercise was engineered to make Perry look like a drooling Neanderthal in public. Yes, why would any of the more than 80% of Americans who call themselves Christians actually believe the holy book of their faith?

It’s a favorite of liberals to ask a hated conservative whether they believe in evolution, or better yet, “How old is the earth.”  They fancy themselves supremely smart in asking this, for they believe it shows that they are displaying the proper allegiance to “science” while exposing the primitive, superstitious, Bible-thumping, uneducated moron conservative as someone who can be summarily dismissed regardless of anything they say, on this topic or any other. (I’ve been through the drill many times)

Watch the video below as the woman coaches her child to ask Perry about  the age of the earth, creation and evolution.  I’m not too keen on Rick Perry’s record in several areas, but he handled this brazen and clumsy attempt to trip him up quite well.

Doesn’t she have the guts to ask Perry herself? Does she always hide behind her children when she faces a grownup? Maybe so. It’s pretty common for liberals to hide behind children and use them as human shields for their agenda.

Perry said public schools in Texas teach kids about both creation and evolution, and said that he figured the child was smart enough to figure out which one is right.   I believe he was mistaken that Texas public schools are scientifically honest and teach both creation and evolution, but he was right in his implication that most people, when presented with the evidence from both sides in an objective environment, can figure out which one is right. That is what scares evolutionists into ruthlessly prohibiting children from being told about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution, and anything at all about the theory of creation.

I thought this question from Proxy Mom was cute, too: Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science.

After Perry told her child that in Texas they present both major theories (creation and evolution) in public school, she assumes Perry “doesn’t believe in science.”

I think it’s pretty safe to assume that she is an ardent evolutionist, so I would be curious to ask her: “Ma’am, why don’t you believe in science.”

Since I’m reasonably sure she wouldn’t have the education and/or intelligence to understand my question, I would then have to explain to her that if she believes in the theory of evolution, she believes in some pretty unscientific things.

After all, if one believes in the theory of evolution and the associated philosophies that come with it (materialism, naturalism, etc), then one believes in some things that are flatly impossible according to science. Further, since those who adhere to this belief system insist that only things which can be scientifically verified can be considered, their own belief system is revealed to be a dichotomous and illogical mess.

For instance, science teaches us that matter does not come from nothing. We have never observed, either in the laboratory or in the field, matter coming spontaneously into existence from nothing. To conclude that it did, as the materialist philosophy essentially requires (“matter is all there is”), is to conclude that something scientifically impossible happened, rendering a worldview based only on “scientific evidence” unworkable from the very beginning.

Science also teaches us that matter does not spontaneously organize itself into more complex and functional forms. We have never observed this in the laboratory or in the field. Therefore to contend that incoherent matter managed to organize itself into atomically complex and functional structures such as stars and planets is unscientific, rendering materialism/naturalism/evolution scientifically impossible nearly from the start.

We also know from science that life does not spring from lifeless materials. It has never been observed in either the laboratory or the field. The work of scientists such as Louis Pasteur and others shows us scientifically that spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, is not scientifically possible. It just doesn’t happen.

We also have never observed, either in the laboratory or the field, life changing from one type to another. Yes, we have observed small changes in organisms from one generation to another (a change in color, a change in size or shape of certain anatomy, etc), but we have never observed a lizard become a bird, a fish become a lizard, or any other type of animal change from one into another. We have never observed, in the laboratory or in the field, organism gaining new and more complex genetic information that passes on to subsequent generations. Even bacteria, where generations come and go with staggering speed, remain bacteria (though genetic variation and selection from generation has resulted in antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria…bacteria always remain bacteria).

Other geological “science” upon which we have often built our faith in evolution? This, too, proves to be a house of cards. So-called dating methods for allegedly measuring the age of rocks and dead life forms are themselves founded upon several assumptions–few if any of which can be scientifically verified. That is why rocks that we know (because we observed them being formed) are less than 30 years old has been “scientifically dated” to be anywhere from 350,000 to 2.8 million years old…depending on the “scientific” method of dating used. This is also why freshly slaughtered animals have been “scientifically” dated to be hundreds and sometimes thousands of years old.

So if we believe evolution and its associated philosophies, we’re supposed to believe in several unobserved and undocumented critical events in the life of the universe that are flatly unscientific according to its own self-proclaimed criteria? We’re supposed to believe in a worldview that only accepts the scientifically verifiable, when that worldview assumes several patently unscientific things? Wow, and they say Christians have blind faith!

So I wonder: why does this woman believe in things that aren’t scientific?  Perhaps she is as much a victim of this scientific and intellectual bigotry as the child she is working hard to pass it on to.

I understand what it is to put your faith in the theory of evolution; until about 13 years ago, I did, too. But I’ve since learned (a) about a lot of critical problems with the theory of evolution and its associated doctrines, and (b) that the actual scientific evidence available leans heavily in favor of the credibility of the Genesis account of creation. When presented with the evidence that my faith in the theory of evolution was misplaced, I faced an intellectual choice: pretend I hadn’t learned what I had learned and continue pretending that evolution made sense, or admit I had been wrong. I admitted I had been wrong.

If this woman would, in the first place, even stop for a bit to consider the pros and cons of her faith in evolution, I wonder what she would do: keep pretending, or admit she had been wrong?

What would you do?

152 Responses to “Rabid Evolutionist Tries to Harass Rick Perry”

  1. Against stupidity the very gods

    Themselves contend in vain. Exalted reason,

    Resplendent daughter of the head divine,

    Wise foundress of the system of the world,

    Guide of the stars, who art thou then if thou,

    Bound to the tail of folly’s uncurbed steed,

    Must, vainly shrieking with the drunken crowd,

    Eyes open, plunge down headlong in the abyss.

    Accursed, who striveth after noble ends,

    And with deliberate wisdom forms his plans!

    To the fool-king belongs the world.

    Die Jungfrau von Orleans  

    Friedrich Schiller 1801

  2. Can you provide me a reference to indicating that grapes were grown in Greenland? The Greenland Norse have been a fascination of mine since I was a child.

  3. I don’t have any special love for the evolution theory: I use it because it works. As I said before, if you give me a more efficient theory, I would be happy to switch for it, but this more efficient theory is not going to be creationism. If you want I can give you a simple example to understand why creationism is not as powerfull as evolution to solve some of the daily issues I meet during my scientific research.

    Let’s say, I have found a gene in mouse, or drosophile: this gene play a key role in embryo development (I am a developmental biologist). When this gene is mutated, the protein its encoding is not functional thus leading to embryo death. Now I have been able, through animal mutant studies (which are easy to conduct in small animal models), to isolate the gene and have its sequence. The next questions is: how can this result be relevant in terms of human biology?

    Now, let’s examine 2 theories I could use in order to answer this question:
    -creationism (its more an hypothesis than a theory by the way): there is no relation between mouse or drosophile, and human…each of these species were created independently. Conclusion: End of the story, let’s go back to the bible and try to see if it mentions my gene somewhere…
    -evolution theory: First point:all species have a common ancestor. Hence mouse or drosophile and human have a common ancestor. Second point: if a gene is key to the survival of an organism, it is likely to be conserved accross different species, because mutations on this specific gene induce a strong loss of fitness.
    Conclusion: Since all species have a common ancestor, I have a rational to compare the gene sequence in mouse/droso to the human genome. Because this gene is conserved, I will have a high probability to identify a closely matching sequence in human. This closely matching sequence is very probably the gene equivalent in human to the one I found in mouse/droso.
    I can now move to the next step, and see how this candidate gene is expressed in deceased abnormal human foetuses. I could therefore gain a better understanding of a previously unexplained human genetic disease…

    This is a very concrete example, but I am pretty sure there are plenty more out there…When you look at the cellular and molecular level, species become suddenly so close that a common ancestor seems the only way to explain such a level of similarity.

  4. It’s not just the modern definition of science – the ancient Greeks specified that  “you may not invoke the immortal gods”  in their definition of science to prevent people from taking the easy way out and just  saying that god did it. That is why supernatural causation is forbidden. Of course, if you can PROVE the existence of god(s) there is no issue,  and you can use supernatural causation.

  5. I believe the period of inflation is the answer to why the apparent size of the universe is greater that it’s age allows.
    Einstein’s light speed limit is not violated because time-space itself was expanding.

  6. Except of course that cosmological models are mathematically consistent, and fit the observations, and have not been dis-proven by experiment, and from which predictions have been made which can act as tests of the model. That does not mean the models are correct, but it does give them much more credence than hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence.

  7. There is nothing impossible about life from lifeless materials – every element life is made from is non-life .. and will be once again when we die. Or as Sagan put it ‘we are star stuff’.

  8. Sorry to disappoint you, but again, no dice.

    Similar retroviruses between organisms could indicate a common ancestry, but it does not prove one.

    How many diseases and viruses affect different species? It’s not uncommon for diseases to spread across different species.

    Further, don’t you suppose an intelligent designer would use many of the same materials and structures common in one organism in many others? Do you suppose Microsoft uses many of the same computer code strings and functions across many of its varied products? As a programmer myself, can tell you that I use many of the same code strings, functions and modules across many applications.

    A Ford Aspire and a Ford Expedition share many similarities. They both have four wheels, those wheels are made of rubber and steel, they both have a steering wheel, seats, a windshield, and so on. If you examine many of these features in detail, you may even find that materials in the Expedition are composed of the very same materials found in the Aspire.

    Is this proof the Expedition evolved from the Aspire…or did they simply have a common intelligent designer?

    I think the answer is obvious.

  9. Just one problem with that idea: science has never observed in the field or in the laboratory, life springing from lifeless materials. Good grief, you evolutionists have such incredible difficulty separating whatever enters your head from fact.

  10. No, what you’ve noticed is people who like freedom and the American way of life call people who espouse Marxist views “Marxist.”

    Incidentally, I have read both, as well as seen their horrible effects in various countries around the world. Pretty pathetic, especially when compared with the superior American way of life. Even more pathetic that someone would want to live that way. Of course, those who promote this way of life usually fancy themselves as the beneficiaries of the largess, corruption and wealth confiscation that comes with it, so their motives are pretty clear.

  11. Since the silly hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming has nothing to do with science but is instead a political ideology with a political agenda, it makes perfect sense.

  12. I don’t think Joshua caused the sun to stand still. Joshua has no power to do that. The creator of the universe (including the earth and sun, and the natural laws that govern the universe), however, has more than enough power to do that. Were you there? How do you know it didn’t happen?

    The Jewish captivity? I had this discussion with another unbeliever recently. It doesn’t matter whether there is extra-Biblical evidence or not. There have been a number of archaeological discoveries where, until those discoveries, the only mention was in the Bible. What’s more, there are Egyptian historical references which may indeed speak of the Exodus.

    Regarding your dismay at Old Testament morality, it may be hard for someone like yourself in this morally bankrupt day and age where pedophilia is being normalized (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/08/time-to-normalize-pedophilia-firsthand-report-on-b4u-act-conference/) but God, as the creator of humanity and human sexuality, is very serious about the sanctity of marriage and the creation of human life (which is what often comes from sexual behavior). Working on Sunday? Research indicates taking a regular rest is good for us and necessary for proper maintenance of our health; God himself rested on the 7th day, so it shouldn’t be too much to ask for us to rest and set aside a day to worship our Creator. Clothing requirements were designed to teach God’s people a lesson about keeping separate from immoral peoples and behaviors; in other words, it was an illustration. The killing? This was done in war against extremely immoral peoples. Often God commanded the total annihilation of a people because they were so morally corrupt (many Canaanite cultures were so morally bankrupt that they sacrificed their children to appease their gods…and this is only the worst in a long list of immoral behaviors). These cultures were totally wiped out as a part of God’s judgement on them for their immoral behavior but also so that the people of Israel did not live near them and pick up their immoral ways. In a few cases, God spared the young virgins such as the one in Numbers where the Midianite women had deliberately seduced Israelite men into orgy and worship of false gods. The virgins, of course, had not participated in such behavior and the Israelite men were allowed to take them as wives, not sexual playthings. I should point out, too, since it is commonly misunderstood, that these events were all in the context of the Israelite conquest of Canaan which, as I said earlier, was part of God’s judgment against an extremely immoral people. Nowhere were these genocidal practices issued as a matter of standard procedure, but were particular and confined to this period of judgment.

    Of course, as I said, experience has taught me that God’s standards are difficult for people living in our current immoral age to understand, so it wouldn’t surprise me if someone who is okay with Marxist theft and oppression might have difficulty getting this. I can hope I haven’t cast pearls before a swine. I can hope.

  13. Yes, there have been a number of people here who have proven that God, because he allows free will, will never wipe out stupidity as long as this world stands.

    Thankfully a day is coming when all this will pass away and there will only be universal recognition of the truth. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21&version=NIV1984

  14. Can you provide me a reference indicating that grapes were not grown in Greenland?

  15. Can you provide me a reference indicating that grapes were not grown in Greenland?

  16. I doubt very seriously you have given creationism a serious, objective consideration, much less the same for the theory of evolution, since you seem oblivious–even after having seen it explained countless times in this comments section and article alone–to the impossibility of the theory.

    Your example, as is usually the case with evolutionists, makes some assumptions and confuses them with facts. First, you seem to assume that creationists expect to find the answer for every single conceivable question to be found in the Bible. That is not the case, and no creationist thinks it is. Second, you are assuming that certain genetic sequences across species match because of a common ancestor, when in fact it may be because both species have a common designer who used many of the same basic building blocks. For example, when Ford creates an Aspire vehicle and then moves on to create an Expedition, does Ford go back to the drawing board and look for a completely different material to use for the body, dashboard, tires, etc? Of course not. Many of the same materials are used. In fact, often auto makers use the exact same chassis or engine in several different types of vehicles. It’s simple economy to use the same basic building blocks where it makes sense.

    If you’re intellectually honest, hopefully you can see how each one of these assumptions is equally valid within its own theoretical framework.

    The question then becomes, which theory is most logical and workable and the best fit for the evidence. While the “best fit” could be subjective, the fact that the theory of evolution is impossible according to its own assumptions renders it completely invalid for serious consideration as an explanation for origins.

  17. Frankly I’m not concerned with what the ancient Greeks thought. The great age of scientific discovery was characterized by men (Galileo, Bacon, Kepler, Pasteur, et al) of science who believed in God as the creator of the universe. I’m interested in finding the truth, and pursuing the evidence where ever it goes, as were they.

    Is it “taking the easy way out” to conclude that the operating system on the computer you’re using right now was developed by intelligent designers?

    If you begin your investigation of your operating system with the assumption that the OS came into existence spontaneously without the causation of an intelligent designer, yeah, you can certainly generate a lot of, um, “activity” in trying to figure it out, and you might tell yourself that all of this “activity” proves you aren’t lazy…but does it help you in the slightest to figure out the OS and how it came to be?

    Of course not. Only when you admit that the information (and we know that information only comes from an intelligent source) contained in the OS could only have come from an intelligent designer, and you admit that the complexity of the OS’s building blocks and function indicates it could only have come from an intelligent designer…only when you admit the obvious conclusions will you become prepared to really learn about the OS and where it came from (because then you can start to look for the creator and maybe even find greater understanding in the “help files” he has provided).

    Thrashing about, insisting that you cannot even consider the possibility of an intelligent designer, may gin up a lot of “activity,” but it isn’t going to help you understand the OS…and it makes you look pretty un-intelligent.

    Why are you so afraid of following the evidence where it leads, and afraid to abandon a line of inquiry which is obviously impossible according to its own tenets? Could it be fear of the implications of being morally accountable to a being with intelligence and power vastly beyond your own?

  18. Actually the difference has been put at about 5%…but that 5% (obviously) makes all the difference. Despite their zeal to be associated with animals, even most evolutionists with a shred of intellectual integrity have to admit that there is an obvious huge difference between apes and humans. The Aspire and the Expedition? Both have four tires made of steel and rubber, both have windshields made of glass, both have seats made of cloth/leather, both have a steering wheel, both have a radio…and on down the line. Only a little difference between the two…but what a big difference!

    So you don’t think much of the power to speak a universe 28+ billion light years across full of uncountable stars and planets into existence from nothing whatsoever and establish time itself and laws of nature to govern it…or the ability to compress enough DNA information in the space of a pinhead that, if typed out, would make a stack of papers high enough to reach from here to the moon and back 250 times? That’s “lazy?” With arrogance like that, I can see why you evolutionists have such a hard time separating fact from imaginations; with that kind of arrogance, you must expect reality itself to bend to your will.

    God did indeed have something far more grandiose in mind for us. Unfortunately, in our arrogance, we traded it for an apple (or whatever the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil really was). Like you, Adam and Eve thought they were smarter than God, and they threw away not only the perfection of their own bodies and minds, but the perfect state of the creation God placed under their dominion with it.

    It seems that even after 6,000 years, as a species we haven’t learned a thing.

  19. “The Aspire and the Expedition? Both have four tires made of
    steel and rubber, both have windshields made of glass, both have seats
    made of cloth/leather, both have a steering wheel…” Yes, and their common “ancestor” the T Ford had the same characteristics. The T Ford was the first mass produced ford car, it later evolved in a variety of more complex models (Aspire, expedition and such). As an old common ancestor it is now not present anymore on the road, and can only be found in a very reduced number of places (such as museum)…you see, even your poor analogy with cars (which are not living organisms able to reproduce themselves) can be used to show common ancestry between two recent car models…How what’s true with your own analogy (common ancestor) could not be true for apes and human as well?

  20. “The Aspire and the Expedition? Both have four tires made of
    steel and rubber, both have windshields made of glass, both have seats
    made of cloth/leather, both have a steering wheel…” Yes, and their common “ancestor” the T Ford had the same characteristics. The T Ford was the first mass produced ford car, it later evolved in a variety of more complex models (Aspire, expedition and such). As an old common ancestor it is now not present anymore on the road, and can only be found in a very reduced number of places (such as museum)…you see, even your poor analogy with cars (which are not living organisms able to reproduce themselves) can be used to show common ancestry between two recent car models…How what’s true with your own analogy (common ancestor) could not be true for apes and human as well?

  21. The Model T didn’t evolve. An intelligent designer created them both. Sorry, evolution doesn’t work any better for inorganic materials than it does for organic ones.

  22. Hello again. I’ve been looking at some of the posts because I kind of like this forum in a funny kind of way. (I thought it was just harmless fun. Although having read some of Bob’s recent posts about God’s justification for wiping out “morally corrupt” societies, I’m not so sure!).

    Didn’t think it was worth chipping in again, generally, but since you’ve been quite specific here about the 2nd Law, and since we’re both physics graduates, I thought it worth having a go.

    The 2nd Law is quite specific. It says that in the absence of outside influences, the statistical likelihood of the entropy in a system decreasing is extremely small. (All the laws of thermodynamics are of course statistical.)

    Thermodynamic entropy is proportional to absolute temperature. In Statistical Mechanics terms, it represents the number of microstates of the system for a given macrostate. But in thermodynamic terms it represents the ability of energy to do work. If you have a high temperature heat source and a low temperature heat sink, energy flows from one to the other and does work on the way.

    The Sun in a high temperature heat source. The rest of the sky is a low temperature heat sink. High temperature/short wavelength EM energy (peaking as visible light) enters the Earth system and is radiated back to space as long wavelength EM energy (peaking in infra-red). This is the source of the Earth’s neg-entropy.

    Now, as a physics graduate, you know all of this, probably better than I do. (I only did a first degree in physics quite a long time ago and since then I’ve drunk quite a lot of red wine,)

    So I’m confused. You mention lots of stuff about “The addition of energy to matter only accelerates the rate of decay, it never results in increased organization” and decaying trees and information and stuff. None of this has anything to do with the laws of thermodynamics. By all means try to make a case some other way, but why do you want to make this specific statement that life on Earth violates the 2nd Law when, as a physicist, you know it not to be true?

  23. I am not talking about the mechanism of evolution yet. But common ancestry, so you do agree that T Ford was the common ancestor of all ford model? Then what can’t you agree that Apes and Human have a common ancestor?

  24. The Model T isn’t the ancestor of the Aspire or the Expedition; the T didn’t evolve spontaneously into an Aspire or Expedition. They are all different creations of the same creator.

    You know, for an intelligent and educated man (and I have no doubt that you are), you’re having an awfully hard time comprehending some pretty simple concepts. The Bible has an explanation for that: intellectual blindness that has a spiritual causation. Most evolutionists I’ve run into are fantastic proof of this facet of the spiritual realm.

  25. Jared Diamond’s book Collapse has a section on the Greenland Norse describing both the eastern and western settlements  climatic conditions, crops, livestock etc.. The climate during the warm period about 1000 AD was close to what we have now according to  paleo-climatologists and you’re fortunate to get potatoes to grow today ; they import most of their fodder from Denmark.  National Geographic has an issue on Greenland last year where the Norse settlements were described;  good pictures – the Norse barns had walls 2 meters thick made of turf. The possibility of grapes in Greenland  in the past million years or so is zero.

  26. I’ve read from several sources that there were vineyards in Greenland during the time of the Vikings, and read even more sources than that which indicate the Middle Age warming period was far warmer than today.

    It’s amazing the lengths people will go to in order to believe unfounded theories, e.g. evolution, AGW…

  27. No Bob, you are trying to twist your own analogy….

    I wasn’t discussing spontaneous evolution (this could come later) or the mechanism behind evolution but rather try to show you how the notion of common ancestry is rooted even in your car analogy: and obviously you are the one who do not want to see it.

    From what you say, it is like the T-Ford and other models were created in parallel: this is not how it happens and you know it very well. The T-Ford laid the basis for the next car models created by Ford. Why did Ford have to create more complex models? Why did they not keep the same one? The T-Ford was a very functional car… However, there was competition from other car makers, all these different car makers competited for a limited niche: the market. In order to survive, car makers had to create models that could offer improved or new functions (increase in fitness): hence the quest for more and more complex cars. Those who could not survive competitions disappeared (species extinction).

    So you see, even if we admitt a supernatural creator, the fact that at the root of every organism lie a common ancestor is still perfectly sound. Like at the origin of any item produced by a brand, there was a prototype or first model…

    I followed your analogy all the way down, and found common ancestry. Now because car are not living organisms, they obviously need creators to design the next generation. But since we have admitted common ancestry, I could now move on to show you how living, self-reproducing, organisms could spontaneously evolve into more complex forms, without the need for a creator. Would you dare follow that path?

  28. I gave you references i.e. Jared  Diamond  and  National Graphic and  your references in response  is ‘several sources’  ???

  29. Pardon the language mistakes in the last post .. it should be National Geographic and the ‘is’ after response should be an ‘are’. Actually, ignore my last post anyway as the nonsense level here has exceeded the modulus of my longanimity. I’m going to open a bottle of  Scotch and watch the smurfs.

  30. I’ve enjoyed watching the exchange, E. This is the most entertaining discussion forum I’ve seen for a long time.

  31. How clear can this be made, Julien? Cars don’t evolve. Cars don’t reproduce. They do not have “ancestors” or “ancestry.” Webster’s defines ancestry as “line of descent; lineage.” Lineage is defined as “descent in a line from a common progenitor.” Projenitor (which comes from the Latin progignere, or “to beget forth,” and beget means “to procreate as the father” or “to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth,” and we know that the Model T neither procreated nor did it outgrow anything) is defined as ” an ancestor in the direct line” or “a biologically ancestral form” and an Aspire is not in the reproductive line of the Model T. The Model T did not beget the Aspire; they have common creators.

    Incidentally, so do organisms.

    The only difference between the car/organism analogy is that (a) with cars, new models are being created by the intelligent designer over time, while (b) with organisms, the intelligent designer created several models that self-replicate after their own kind over time. And we’ve never seen one of these self-replicating models replicate a new model from itself.

    The point I was trying to make, and I thought it was pretty clear, was that while different models of cars have many of the same building blocks, one model did not evolve into another.

    In your desperation to prop up an illogical and unworkable theory that can’t even get off the ground, you are now implying that cars evolve.

    The Bible is so right about the blindness of anotherwise very intelligent person when they deliberately reject truth.

  32. I read this several years ago and do not remember precisely where. Since you’ve shown a consistent pattern of disregarding the truth even when it’s been handed to you on a silver platter, I’m not inclined to spend my time looking for a source you would almost certainly dismiss anyway. You’ve made it clear that logic and facts hold little sway over your beliefs. If you really want to know, you can look for it and I’m sure you’ll be able to find it. Otherwise, either believe it or don’t.

    Meanwhile, here are just a few references I happen to have handy re: historical natural climate change. I could provide tons more, but again, I don’t want to waste too much time on a closed mind.


















  33. “Faith” in vineyards in Greenland (when it has been cited in reputable publications, as well as evidence from countless sources that the Middle Age warming period was far warmer than today) is far less ludicrious than believing in (a) a Marxist theory that is based on “fudged” computer models and conjecture, and (b) a theory about origins which flatly contradicts itself and renders itself impossible.

    Marxist? Why are you so incredulous that Marxist goals and Marxist ideology should be called Marxist? Don’t like having your agenda exposed?

    Since you think the United States is executing American citizens without a trial, I can understand slightly better why you can believe in the nonsense above. You apparenlty loath truth, freedom, and the American way so much, you’re willing to believe any idiotic thing that comes along, as long as it is in opposition to the aforementioned truth, freedom, and American way.

    Yes, please, by all means, go away and watch the Smurfs. Apparently repeated doses of truth and reality over the course of several days have done you no good, and have been completely insufficient to break through the hardened shell of your fantasy world.

    I’m just sorry that I wasted so much time entertaining the remote hope that you might have a shred of intellectual integrity and objectivity.

  34. Impressive and significant discussion! True science, that is the dispassionate study of the physical universe in which we live, is something we all can respect. Creationists are not opposed to science. Unfortunately, the objective search for factual discovery and the promulgation of truth is largely constrained and manipulated by the political agendas of those who fund research and education. When it comes to hot topics, such as global warming or evolution, objective “Science” is only an abstraction.

    Years ago, I was fascinated by articles published by the Institute for Creation Science. Their museum near El Cajon, CA raised many significant scientific issues that challenged the credibility of the THEORY of evolution. These issues were pretty much ignored by the mainstream “scientific community” until the idea of Intelligent Design took hold. Then you had significant numbers of qualified scientists (PhDs with published peer-reviewed articles) lose their posts because their scientific positions were politically incorrect. They weren’t even espousing creationism. They were simply challenging the status quo. Those in power responded by firing them and dishonoring them.

    Watch Ben Stein’s movie, “Expelled!” He does a good job of exposing the science agenda bias. If discovering the truth about Earth history is really the goal of scientists, then why isn’t dissent allowed in the discussion of THEORIES? In my opinion, the more we learn about evolution, the more we see it’s junk science — nothing more

  35. Hi Bob. Sorry if I’ve seemed flippant in any of my posts. I really don’t like to mock anybody, and I suspect that if we were having a beer in a bar we’d probably get on just fine, but I’m afraid some of your thoughts about being surrounded by Marxists Evolutionist Liberals really are as mad as a bag of frogs. I’m sorry to have to say that. Anyway, my main reason for this particular post is simply to see how long and thin it can get.

  36. Are these posts getting ridiculously long and thin for you? They are for me. Doesn’t look as though there’s any limit to the depth of the reply hierarchy. Anyway, yes, I think it’s kind of beyond frustrating. Firmly in the realm of the surreal (Sorry Bob, if you’re reading this. No offense meant. I guess I’m probably a Marxist now? Can I be a Trotskyist instead? But without the ice-pick.) Anyway I’m definitely going to stop now, because I do feel uneasy about it all. There’s a strong temptation to mock. And I really do hate to mock people’s beliefs. Enjoy your whiskey and little blue men.

  37. I’m not surprised you’d feel that way, given your inability to realize when a theory contradicts itself and makes itself impossible that it should be abandoned, or that Marxist statements are Marxist and are incompatible with the American way of life. You seem to have, at best, a tenuous grip on the real world.

    If nothing else, you’ve at least provided an amazing living demonstration of the human capacity for self-deception. It’s truly breathtaking what a human being can do to avoid a reality they don’t want to deal with.

  38. I’m not surprised you’d feel that way, given your inability to realize when a theory contradicts itself and makes itself impossible that it should be abandoned, or that Marxist statements are Marxist and are incompatible with the American way of life. You seem to have, at best, a tenuous grip on the real world.

    If nothing else, you’ve at least provided an amazing living demonstration of the human capacity for self-deception. It’s truly breathtaking what a human being can do to avoid a reality they don’t want to deal with.

  39. So you dispute the research? On what basis?

  40. Yes, the use of “ancestor” when talking about cars was slightly abusive, because strico senso, ancestor can only be used to refer to living organisms. However, you can exchange “ancestor” for “origin” in my previous post, and everything I said still holds true. Actually your car analogy is not that bad afterall because it could help people understand 2 notions of the evolution theory: common origin, and selective pressure.  It is rooted in something most people can experience: healthy capitalism, with the market exerting a selective pressure on products, driving innovation from an original prototype/model, to more advanced and diversified ones.
    At least our discussion has been fruitful (for me).

    As for the fact that a creator created all the species in parallel, at the same time, and then let them go on earth (with slight modification within a species), the main issue I would see with this hypothesis is the following one:
    -if this was true, then you should be able to observe, within different sediment layers, the same repetition of species. For example: dinosaur fossils co-existing with human fossils in one layer, then the same again in the next layer, and so on, until dinosaur extinction.
    Or to take more common organisms you should be able to see trilobites (wich were widespread during palaezoic) co-existing with mammals (only appeared during mezozoic) in one layer, then again and again the same repetition for the next layers…

    I mean if your hypothesis was true, and given how widespread trilobites and mammals were/are, we should be able to see them co-existing in almost any sediment layers (until trilobite extinction of course)…

    Or I am reasonning in a wrong, blinded way?

  41. Once again.

    Even though two different types of cars have common parts and building blocks, this is not evidence that one car evolved from another, nor is it evidence of common ancestry. It is only proof that common parts and building blocks were used–if anything, proof of a common intelligent designer, nothing more.

    The same is true of common parts and building blocks in organisms. The commonality is not proof of common ancestry. At best, it is proof of a common intelligent designer.

    How much more plain can I possibly make it? Apparenlty it cannot be made plain enough to be accepted by a mind that is emotionally resistant to accepting evidence which disproves a comfortable worldview.

    In the global flood scenario of Genesis, you wouldn’t expect to find too many animals and humans buried together since those organisms most capable of flight to greater elevations would have sought and been able to find higher ground, thus drowning and becoming buried later. In fact, if you look at the organisms buried in the strata and how they are arranged, with few exceptions (there’s always an exception to the rule), we find organisms buried in the order we’d expect based on these things: the slower, less mobile organisms buried lowest, with those having the greatest mobility buried nearest the surface.

    Interesting, huh?

    Besides, it’s an awful big world out there with a whole lot of buried strata. Just as archaeology continues to uncover things that, until that time, were only mentioned in the Bible, who knows what may be found in the future.

    I have no doubt that no matter what is found (such as dinosaur bones with soft tissue and collagen remaining), evolutionists will never abandon their faith in their unworkable theory. After all, faith in the theory of evolution isn’t about science or facts at all, but a religious ideology based on escaping moral accountability to a supreme being.

  42. …”most capable of flight to greater elevations would have sought and been able to find higher ground”

    So if this was true, then we would expect to see lot of fast dinosaur fossils together with lots of fast mammals, like horses, elephant, deer, cats, dogs, apes, humans…so on. Since they all tried to escape to the mountains, there should be high concentration of these fossils co-existing in these areas: this is actually a prediction from your hypothesis. However, I don’t think it has ever been observerd.

    Moreover, how about the trilobites? they could live in water and add no reason to escape, why are they not co-existing with the slower mammals and dinosaurs that could not make it to the higher ground?

    I actually read answer in genesis (the website), and could not find any clear answer to these questions, but since you have such a deep understanding of both evolution theory and the creationist hypothesis, I hope you can enlight me…

  43. There may or may not have been. I think it’s hard to predict what sort of groupings you’d see, beyond the obvious ones I mentioned. There have been immense fossil beds found in several locations around the world–some mostly or entirely one species, others with mixed sets of species.

    In the global flood scenario, many aquatic animals and amphibians would have been buried in huge mud slides and rapid deposition of sedimentary layers. When the fountains of the deep opened up, they not only would have blasted tons of dirt and rock from around the cracks from which they spewed, but all this moving water would have moved tremendous amounts of dirt. That is probably why we see (a) animals buried intact in a manner that could not have happened with a slow and lengthy process and (b) massive sedimentary layers that cover hundreds or even thousands of miles–the same layer.

    I’m pretty sure AIG has something on this general or specific question. You might just need to poke around a little more. Another good resource is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).

  44. If the woman has a question she should ask it herself.  Putting words in the mouth of her child is disgusting and cowardly.

  45. There may be a god, but it is not a “personal god”- and since you mention neanderthals, how do you explain having neanderthal dna? That kind of negates the Bible story from Eden that Homo Sapiens-us- were created perfect- Oh-  Neanderthals  were god’s mistake- that is why they are extinct and we are alive- except that problem with the dna won;t go away..  Finally, 90% of all life that ever lived on Earth is extinct and that makes the case that there was no intelligent designer- otherwise the life that exists today would be the only life that ever existed.

  46. And you know there is no “personal God,” how?

    Neanderthals were very similar to modern humans, and some theories believe many of their unusual features were due to vitamin deficiencies…like one might see in cave-bound people who didn’t get much sun during an ice age.

    God doesn’t make mistakes, but we humans certainly do, starting at the Garden of Eden where the Bible tells us our human ancestors Adam and Eve traded perfection and paradise for the lie that human beings could be as gods…rather like many atheists and evolutionists would like to believe today.

    Extinction? There was this little incident, also in the book of Genesis, concerning a global flood that wiped out every breathing creature except those on the ark with Noah.

    Since you don’t seem to know much about either evolution or creationism, I would suggest you take the time to study both and consider embracing the one that is most logically consistent and non-contradictory. (Hint: it isn’t evolution).

  47. There’s no conflict between Christianity and evolution. Many Christians
    accept evolution as part of God’s plan, and many Christians are liberals
    – and, yes, they are real Christians. Probably closer to Jesus’

  48. Yes, I used to be one such Christian…until I learned that the claims of Christianity and the claims of evolution are incompatible. It also didn’t hurt (except for the fact that I hated being wrong) to learn of the logical inconsistencies of evolution theory, or of the scientific viability of many creationist theories.

  49. The prehistoric cave paintings in France depict extinct iceage mammals- cave bears, mammoths, woolly rhinos, etc. There was no global flood 4500 years ago- otherwise it would washed away those paintings and filled the caves with mud. Otzi the iceman mummy died 5300 years ago on top of a mountain and was frozen in time until discovered in 1991- no flood of Noah washed his body away, either. In North America mammoth skeltons have been found with stone clovis spear points in the ribs- unless I am mistaken, the mammoths can’t swim across the ocean from Mt Aarat. Arctic lakes show unbroken yearly  seasonal sediment layers going back 10,000 years or so- starting with the thawing of the last ice age and going up to modern times- if the Noah flood story was true, then all these cores would only be about 4500 years old. Jesus spoke of the flood as a real event- so he apparently didn’t know a global flood never happened and was just quoting the Bible.
    There is no personal god, because of Heizenbergs uncertainty principle. Human thought is generated by electrons, of which an exact number, and  finite velocity would be needed to cause a god-generated thought in the human brain, which would be contrary to this principle.
    The Garden of Eden story is all metaphor-ask a Rabbi about it, after all the Torah is THEIR book. Cognitive disonnance needs to be overcome to understand what I have said, here.

  50. Creation scientists believe the ice age came within a few hundred years of the global flood.

    We know Otzi the iceman died 5300 years ago, how? Did someone record his death in some reliable text? Or is it a guess? Perhaps a guess like some of the C14 datings that have returned ages of thousands of years…for organisms that were freshly killed.

    We know those ice cores go back 4500 years, how? Did someone record them, their thickness and frequency and other relevant data in some reliable written text? Or is it a guess, like the aforementioned C14, based on assumptions about the thickness and frequency of said layers?

    You know there is no personal God, how? Just because Heisenberg was uncertain and clueless doesn’t mean you have to be. If Heisenberg really thought about it objectively, he might have realized that information only originates with intelligent sources, and the DNA of all life is jam-packed with coherent information.

    Any rabbi who would deny the authority of the Genesis account is about as worthless as any pastor who would deny this very specific and credible account. If Genesis, which clearly purports to be a literal historical account, is not accurate, then the entire book is worthless, because the entire Bible and all Jewish and Christian theology rests upon the truth claims found in Genesis.

    I’ll agree with you about one thing, though. Cognitive dissonance does indeed need to be overcome. In fact, I’ve pointed that out in the main article and numerous times in the comments section. Believing in materialism and evolution, when its own tenets are illogical and contradictory, is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, except that the discomfort that is supposed to come with it seems lost on most evolutionists. The level of self-deception is truly amazing.

    But I wish you luck in overcoming it.