Our Websites

Are there simple life-forms? (Part 3)

Q: My Biology textbook says the first simple life-forms were single-celled ones in the Cambrian layers? What is that all about?

A: Well, let’s see—just from that sentence, I would say (1) there are no “simple life-forms”; (2) there is no such thing as a “Cambrian” layer; and (3) nearly all types of life are found in all the layers of the earth. (This would be expected from Noah’s Flood. See Seminar Part 6.) Today, is the final blog of my series. I’ll explain my third proposition: Nearly all types of life are found in all the layers of the earth.

Sorting by a Flood

All major phyla of plants and animals are found in the so-called Cambrian layer of rock. The slight amount of sorting that can be seen in the fossils is best explained by the Flood. Fish fossils are not normally found with cow fossils, because they don’t hang out together to drown and be buried together. This is covered on our Seminar Part 6.

Think about it—why do the kingdoms, phyla, and classes that first appear in the fossils still exist today? Why is there no evidence for gradual evolution?

No fossil record

Lastly, there is no “fossil record.” There are trillions of fossils, but they are not found with a date or tag on them. Someone with a preconceived idea of evolution puts his interpretation on them.

Further Study

Leave30 Responses to testAre there simple life-forms? (Part 3)

  1. Geno Castagnoli April 29, 2011 at 6:58 am #

    Kent Hovind claims:
    My Biology textbook says the first simple life-forms were single-celled ones in the Cambrian layers?

    #######
    Geno asks:
    Again, I would need to ask what textbook that is. It looks to me like we have another Hovind “fib” here. All the textbooks I can find say life existed in the Precambrian era. Either Hovind is using a R-E-A-L-L-Y old textbook or he’s making this up.

  2. HELIOS HIGGINS April 29, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    Geno, where do you see that Kent Hovind is asking the question?
    I see no reference to who is asking the question, other than in your own post…
    as to the specific textbook, you might want to do a little footwork, on your own… you do seem to act like a big person, maybe you could handle a little “homework”…

  3. Geno Castagnoli April 29, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    Helios wrote:
    Geno, where do you see that Kent Hovind is asking the question?

    #####
    Geno answers:
    I see Kent Hovind stating: “My biology textbook says….” Asking for a source reference is entirely legitimate. This is especially true considering the number of alleged statements from textbooks Hovind has presented here.

    Helios claims:
    I see no reference to who is asking the question, other than in your own post…

    ######
    Geno answers:
    Maybe you should read the first sentence of Hovind’s blog entry (above) again.

    Helios says:
    as to the specific textbook, you might want to do a little footwork, on your own… you do seem to act like a big person, maybe you could handle a little “homework”…

    #####
    Geno responds:
    It’s not my responsibility to support the claims of another. That is the responsibility of the one making the claim. I’m certain if Hovind has the textbook he can provide the reference. After all, isn’t he a PhD? Certainly a PhD knows how to provide a bibliographical reference.

    On the other hand, I have 3 or 4 biology texts (having taught biology for 5 years). None of my textbooks have the referenced assertion.

  4. Jeff Brace April 29, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    @ Geno Quote: “Asking for a source reference is entirely legitimate.” I can certainly remember my elementary, jr and high school science books making this claim. I am in my 50′s so it may be you are younger than I and something may have changed.
    If I were Kent, I would not jump through hoops to answer you because your sincerety lacks creditability. It is obvious with your rants after rants that you are here simply to rock the boat with no intention of gleaning any information that might change your life.
    To the Hovinds credit, they have graciously let you continue your direspectfulness. For a christian, your posts simply point out in grand detail just how many people are lost and that our work is never done.
    Personally, I get a kick out of you all. Same old same old same old posts. My prayer is that one day you will see the light. But that is up to God so I need not hold my breath.

  5. Erick Martinez April 29, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    Geno, correct me if I’m wrong, but when he says Cambrian layers(plural) doesn’t that include the pre-cambrian layer?

    Also, aren’t you missing the point of the blog which is to present a theory that supports the creation hypothesis?

  6. Billy Joe Grace May 2, 2011 at 6:55 am #

    if Dr. Hovind were reading an old textbook, then it would certainly give credence to the notion that “science” seldom knows what it is observing. “Science” evolves to suite itself.

  7. andrew Ryan May 2, 2011 at 7:22 am #

    Erick: “…when he says Cambrian layers(plural) doesn’t that include the pre-cambrian layer?”

    No, as the name suggests. Pre-Cambrian means BEFORE the Cambrian, ie, not part of the Cambrian.

    Jeff, there’s nothing disrespectful or ranting about Geno’s posts. He’s said nothing rude, and has cited facts to back up everything he said. You on the other hand have notably failed to back up your own claims (eg the recent Dawkins claim), and then refuse to admit it afterwards.

    “I would not jump through hoops to answer you”

    No-one is asking anyone to jump through hoops, just give a simple cite for the claims they are making.

  8. John Bebbington May 2, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    Dear CSE,

    I would very much like to get to the bottom of this matter, please.

    You wrote:

    May 2nd at 5:59 am
    John,
    You were sent an email regarding your statement.

    With respect, I have received no such email. Please would you re-send it.

    Also, I am not certain to which statement you refer so please would you give me its date and time so that I may refer to it. You mention to Duane that your objection relates to Dr Hovind’s legal matters but all I have written about that subject relates to his continuing posting of motions to the court which, to my mind, are becoming increasingly bizarre. If I am wrong in this opinion I point out that it is also shared by the court who, as a matter of routine, throw them out with stated legal argument. These motions and the court’s responses are a matter of public record.

    As to the articles posted by Dr. Hovind: We post those articles now, but they were originally written by him prior to our posting them. He does not have access to the website to post them, therefore he writes them and sends them to us – many of which were written as much as a year ago (or more). Some are more recent, as they may deal with current issues. Those we bump up and post quickly.

    I am happy to accept what you say above but, according to you last week, one of the reasons given by Kent for not responding to my very reasonable enquiry is that, inter alia, he was working on “his recent dissertation”. What dissertation? One normally only works on one’s current dissertation and not a “recent one”. Once the “current dissertation” has been finally submitted for examination that’s it – you don’t get a second chance to have another bash at it. Once submitted, one’s current dissertation becomes one’s recent dissertation requiring no further work.

    And why a dissertation rather than a thesis? Kent already claims to have a Ph.D. therefore why would he re-try for a lesser degree?

    • CSE May 3, 2011 at 10:49 am #

      We sent you the email again. The reason you would not get it would be either the provided email on this blog is incorrect, or it is going to your junk mail. Also, the dissertation Dr. Hovind is working on is related to his most recent studies toward a Doctorate in Theology (the first was a Doctorate in Education).

  9. Jeff Brace May 2, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    @ andrew My statement about Dawkins proved to be true. I showed you in black and white the quote he made. You still claim he did not say it when it is aprt of the record. I don’t give a hill of beans what he meant to say or what you thought he said. The fact is that he said it.
    My point about being disrespectful is this constant personal attacks on the character of the people who post here. It’s obvious none of you have a desire to know God. So why waste your time?

  10. Geno Castagnoli May 2, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    Jeff Brace wrote:
    @ Geno Quote: “Asking for a source reference is entirely legitimate.” I can certainly remember my elementary, jr and high school science books making this claim. I am in my 50’s so it may be you are younger than I and something may have changed.

    Geno answers:
    I’ll be 65 this month and taught high school biology for 5 years. I have 3 or 4 high school and a couple university biology textbooks sitting around right now. (Note: I use “university” because in some countries “college” means what we call High School in the US.) Not one of the books I have used contains the claims Hovind has made and I have challenged:

    1) First life in the Cambrian.
    2) There is nothing after death.

    That first life is found in the Pre-Cambrian was in the elementary and high school science books I used in the 1950′s and 60′s and it is in the books I have in 2011. Not one of them says anything at all about life after death.

    You may consider it trivial whether or not claims made by Hovind are true. I don’t.

    #####
    Jeff wrote:
    If I were Kent, I would not jump through hoops to answer you because your sincerety lacks creditability.

    Geno answers:
    First, I’m not asking anyone to “jump through hoops.” What I requested was a simple, standard bibliographical reference. If Hovind’s claims are true, it should be no problem to provide the evidence. I assert the claimed “statements from textbooks” are fabrications…. to use a term coined by CSE, they are “fibs.”

    Second: I’ve always made it clear I’m sincerely opposed to YEC; not a fan of CSE; and that “CSE” is seriously lacking in the “S.” (The final item was confirmed by CSE when they commented in this space they aim their science at a 4th grade level. Here’s a hint…. you’re not going to change the opinions of a log of professional scientists by approaching them with a 4th grade understanding of the relevant science.)

    /#####
    Jeff:
    It is obvious with your rants after rants that you are here simply to rock the boat with no intention of gleaning any information that might change your life.

    Geno:
    I’m sorry you consider a discussion of scientific facts to be “rants.” As for information, I’m always open to new information. In fact, I spend a lot of time asking for it right here.

    #####
    Jeff:
    To the Hovinds credit, they have graciously let you continue your direspectfulness.

    Geno:
    I consider myself a guest here. As such, I make every effort to avoid being disrespectful. Hopefully, the closest I’ve come is my refusal to refer to Kent Hovind as “Doctor.” IMO, doing so would lessen the (deserved) respect of such creationist PhD’s as: Dr. John Woodmorappe, Dr. Danny Faulkner, Dr. Larry Vardiman, Dr. Walt Brown, Dr. John Baumgardner, Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Russell Humphreys, Dr. Henry Morris, and many others.

    #####
    Jeff:
    For a christian, your posts simply point out in grand detail just how many people are lost and that our work is never done.

    Geno:
    You think I’m “lost.” I think YEC is a danger to the faith.

    St. Augustine, said it well in the early 5th century….. paraphrasing:
    Even pagans know something of the universe from personal experience. It’s a dangerous thing for non-believers to hear advocates of the faith speaking nonsense on those things and claiming such nonsense to be tenets of the faith. The risk isn’t so much the advocates will be ridiculed, but that the non-believer will turn from the faith at the risk of his eternal soul.

    #####
    Jeff:
    Personally, I get a kick out of you all. Same old same old same old posts.

    Geno:
    Coming from a YEC, that’s funny.

    For just one example, how many times have we seen the “6 definitions of evolution” claim. I think CSE has even admitted some of Kent Hovind’s posts are being recycled.

  11. Geno Castagnoli May 2, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Erick Martinez wrote:
    Geno, correct me if I’m wrong, but when he says Cambrian layers(plural) doesn’t that include the pre-cambrian layer?

    Geno answers:
    You’re wrong. They are seperate and distinct geological eras.

    #####
    Eric:
    Also, aren’t you missing the point of the blog which is to present a theory that supports the creation hypothesis?

    Geno responds:
    Don’t you think before one develops an argument to support his hypothesis he should at least open with a true statement? Don’t you think one who has 15 years experience teaching high school and has participated in “hundreds” of scientific debates should know the difference?

  12. Danny May 3, 2011 at 12:02 am #

    @Geno,
    I posted the info below in part 1 of this series and I never heard from you, there is some information in the pages below for you to check out on the worldwide flood.

    You mentioned the flood and since I am not a flood expert, I figured I would direct you to two pages that deal with it.
    arkencounter.com/?utm_source=aig_homepage&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=Coming2014&utm_campaign=ArkEncounter
    AND
    worldwideflood.com/

    I haven’t read all of the info on those pages but I have read some. I read as I have time. They have a lot of good info for you to ponder on in your spare time.

    Danny Bunn

  13. Danny May 3, 2011 at 12:07 am #

    QJohn
    Even though you talked the bible comment with me in part 1 of this series, you didn’t deal with the other subjects such as the one below.

    @John
    I thought of you telling me how smart Darwin was, he did more study that most scientists today. Not your exact wording but close.
    What are your thoughts on these quotes?

    Darwin said this about himself.
    “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question: and this is here impossible.”
    Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2. Also quoted in “John Lofton’s Journal”. The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
    I think you prized Darwin more than he did himself.

    ‘His theory had, in essence, preceded his knowledge—that is, he had hit upon a novel and evocative theory of evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy either himself or others that the theory was true. He could neither accept it himself nor prove it to others. He simply did not know enough concerning the several natural history fields upon which his theory would have to be based.’
    Dr. Barry Gale (Science Historian, Darwin College, UK) in his book, Evolution Without Evidence. As quoted in ‘John Lofton’s Journal’, The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

    @ John, You didn’t give me your thoughts on this post and another one which you should see again in a minute, so to speak.

    Danny Bunn

  14. Danny May 3, 2011 at 12:17 am #

    @Geno,
    I don’t think you are dumb, silly or stupid, well maybe when it comes to evolution but that can be helped, you are just in ignorance. If you really want to know the truth, whichever way it takes you then you probably will Anyway, regarding the links I sent you on the ark pages. ALL you have to do is type 3 w’s in front of the links, they are disabled on here, remember?
    I did it and they worked fine. GIve it a go.
    arkencounter.com/?utm_source=aig_homepage&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=Coming2014&utm_campaign=ArkEncounter

    AND
    worldwideflood.com

    Remember to put the three w’s in front of the links above and you will go to the pages.

    Danny Bunn

  15. Danny May 3, 2011 at 12:24 am #

    @ John,
    Sorry John, I meant Geno BUT I did want to deal with another one of yours that i thought was funny but I have to try and find it again. I can’t keep up with the pages changing so fast.

    Danny Bunn

  16. Danny May 3, 2011 at 12:30 am #

    @Geno,
    I should say, 3 w’s and a “period” before the links supplied.

    Danny Bunn

  17. Danny May 3, 2011 at 2:18 am #

    @John,
    You said in the 1st part of this series that Richard Dawkins said
    “Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots (“oh NOOOOO, of course we aren’t talking about God, this is SCIENCE”) and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn’t rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist.”

    I wanted to comment on this. I would say that Richard Dawkins knows the Constitution like he knows the evolution/creation debate and that would be rather poorly.
    I never read about a so-called separation in there based on my memory of the Constitution. Maybe you and Richard could show me where it is at. I have read the article below and many like it all from Constitutionalists, patriots, and the like.

    “The United States Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state. Everybody knows that,” says the Deceiver. “The wise founding fathers wanted to make sure that they had created a free society where no one’s religious convictions would be pushed off on anyone else. In order to do this, the Constitution was written to provide freedom for all religions to operate privately, and guarantees that no religion is allowed to influence or control the political world or the civil government.” So argues our “reasonable” foe.
    Those who have imprisoned the nations tell us that religion must be kept out of public debates, since religion belongs only in the Church, where its freedom is properly guaranteed. This dualistic doctrine of “separation of church and state” is written also into the Soviet Union’s constitution, Mexico’s, and most thoroughly secularized nations.
    The more the nations listen to this creed of keeping religion out of the nation’s schools and politics, the more society falls apart, the more anarchy reigns, the more murders and rapes and suicides take place.
    Do you think the phrase “the separation of church and state” is found in the United States Constitution? If you answered “yes,” you are 100 percent wrong! The Constitution never uses the phrase, “separation of church and state.” The Constitution’s first amendment simply says that Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion and neither shall it prohibit religion.
    You couldn’t have found “separation of church and state” in any state constitution back in 1789 either. All the states were openly Christian (except for Rhode Island), and most of them had state-financed churches.
    It was Thomas Jefferson who used this phrase in a letter written to a group of Baptist pastors in Danbury, Connecticut in 1802. The purpose of the letter was to assure those Baptist pastors that Jefferson’s somewhat unorthodox view of Christianity would not be pressed on the Church in the United States during his presidency.
    President Jefferson assured them that there is a wall of separation that supposedly protects the Church from any undue meddling by the state. The irony is that the phrase never implied that the state needed to be protected from the Church: Jefferson was guaranteeing the Church the benefit of the Wall. “
    It is at this page but there are plenty of them that say the same thing.
    albatrus.org/english/goverment/church_&_state/false_separation_church_state.htm

    Danny Bunn

  18. Danny May 3, 2011 at 3:12 am #

    @John,
    I wanted to leave with you the ending to that article, it is pretty long in case you don’ t go to the page.
    George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

    John Adams: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people … so great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens in their country and respectful members of society.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty … students’ perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.”

    Andrew Jackson: “That Book (the Bible) is the rock on which our Republic rests.”

    Benjamin Franklin: “A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know the price of the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved.”

    William Penn: “If we will not be governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.”

    Ulysses S. Grant: “Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this Book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future. ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.’”

    I think that “make believe” separation of church and state makes no sense whatsoever in the way that evolutionists, pagans, heathen or so called atheists use it after you read the quotes above and there are plenty more like them. Even though is looks as though America will experience what William Penn said above in the near future. This country was founded by Christians as was our Constitution.

    Danny Bunn

  19. andrew Ryan May 3, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    Jeff, when we compared what you claimed he said with the actual quote you ended up giving, they did not match up, as already explained to you. We went from ‘Dawkins claimed that X happened’ to “Dawkins said that it’s not impossible that at some point in the future evidence might arise that X happened”.

    Not the same thing at all.

    “It’s obvious none of you have a desire to know God.”

    Well you’re hardly a good ambassador for him, are you? If you had genuine access to some kind of truth, why would you need to lie to us?

  20. andrew Ryan May 3, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    Danny Bunn: “This country was founded by Christians as was our Constitution.”

    Certainly among the founders and creators of the Constitution there were Christians, but they certainly were not all Christians. Many were deists for a start. They had plenty of votes on whether to put God in the Constitution, and on every occasion they voted against it.

    “Do you think the phrase “the separation of church and state” is found in the United States Constitution? If you answered “yes,” you are 100 percent wrong! ”

    Non sequitur. There are plenty of phrases you won’t won’t find in the Constitution that are now established concepts in American law, completely in accordance with the intentions of The Founding Fathers. Jefferson made the meaning of “separation of church and state’ quite clear. Smarter men than either of us established this.

  21. John Lake May 3, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    CSE said:
    *Also, the dissertation Dr. Hovind is working on is related to his most recent studies toward a Doctorate in Theology (the first was a Doctorate in Education).*

    Let me correct that for you:

    the first was a Doctorate in Christian Education.

    It is illegal to misrepresent a Doctoral degree in the State of Florida: Florida Statutes > Title XLVI > Chapter 817 > Part I > § 817.566.

    JohnLake

  22. Geno Castagnoli May 3, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    Danny said:
    @Geno,
    I don’t think you are dumb, silly or stupid, well maybe when it comes to evolution but that can be helped, you are just in ignorance. If you really want to know the truth, whichever way it takes you then you probably will Anyway, regarding the links I sent you on the ark pages. ALL you have to do is type 3 w’s in front of the links, they are disabled on here, remember?
    I did it and they worked fine. GIve it a go.
    arkencounter.com/?utm_source=aig_homepage&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=Coming2014&utm_campaign=ArkEncounter

    AND
    worldwideflood.com

    ####
    Geno answers:
    I was able to make it work before you posted this. I saw nothing substantive at either of those web pages. Like I said about the “worldwideflood.com” page, if all it has is a picture of the Pacific Ocean for an explanation of where the water went, it’s far less than substantive…. as is the Ark Encounter fund raising page.

  23. John Bebbington May 3, 2011 at 1:10 pm #

    to use a term coined by CSE, they are “fibs.”

    Actually, Geno, that was me.

  24. John Bebbington May 3, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    Dear CSE,

    Thank you for the message. The email arrived at the second attempt and I have since replied.

  25. John Bebbington May 3, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Danny wrote:

    I wanted to comment on this. I would say that Richard Dawkins knows the Constitution like he knows the evolution/creation debate and that would be rather poorly.

    The reference to the American Constitution in the quote I provided was incidental.

    Although I have followed various web debates on the subject and have read Hitchens’ book on Jefferson on my shelves my knowledge of the subject is as slim as yours probably is on 18th century English politics so I have no interest in responding further on the subject except to challenge you to give me a source for the Jefferson quote.

    Just more cut & paste?

  26. Derrick Koehler May 3, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    ARE ALL YOU PEOPLE COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT???!!!
    Look,let’s stop everything and use “common sense”.Stop coming at this from your own point of view (preconceived beliefs) or what someone else has told you or what you read or whatever,just stop and look at both sides from a normal common sense point of view….is there anyone on here who can do this?

    Creation…
    It is a belief,absolutely no doubt….as much proof as people have that God exists,and there is a lot, you must at some point… believe.
    Cause darn it common sense says so.

    Evolution…
    It also is a belief,no doubt….as much proof as people claim to have,and there’s a lot, you must at some point… believe
    Cause common sense says so.

    You weren’t there when God created everything or when the big bang happened.You either believe in creation or you believe in evolution.I will argue with anyone at anytime over this and use common sense to tear you apart.

    And if you haven’t figured it out by now yes i do believe in God and yes i do believe in Jesus as my savior.To me it just makes sense,it’s what i believe and it’s my right to do so as it is also your right to believe in whatever you want.

  27. Danny May 4, 2011 at 3:04 am #

    @John,
    Here ya go!

    Jefferson’s “separation of church & state letter written to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802

    “Gentlemen:

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, of prohibiting the free excercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.”

    Danny Bunn

  28. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    Danny, Danny, Danny,

    The required Jefferson quote was: “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty … students’ perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.”

    Nowhere in your triumphant response are the words “Bible”, “cornerstone” or “liberty”.

    Or “students’” or “sacred” or “volume”.

    Or “better” or “citizens” or “husbands”.

    You really need to get some sleep before resuming your researches.

  29. John Bebbington May 4, 2011 at 11:08 am #

    Derrick Koehler wrote:

    ARE ALL YOU PEOPLE COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT???!!!
    Look,let’s stop everything and use “common sense”……

    You either believe in creation or you believe in evolution.I will argue with anyone at anytime over this and use common sense to tear you apart.

    Brave words, Derrick. Watch out for that Geno, though. He can fight real dirdy. But before we get into creationism v evolution let’s first discuss quantum theory from your common sense angle.

    You go first.

    And if you haven’t figured it out by now yes i do believe in God and yes i do believe in Jesus as my savior.To me it just makes sense,…

    Is anybody arguing about what makes sense to you?

    it’s what i believe and it’s my right to do so as it is also your right to believe in whatever you want.

    Thank you. I think most of us already knew that