Our Websites

Are there simple life-forms? (Part 1)

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, let’s look at my first proposition: There are no “simple life-forms.”

Any living organism, even a single-celled amoeba, is more complex than the space shuttle! There is a great book called Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, available from our Web site. It is all about the unbelievable complexity found in single-celled creatures. Most biology textbooks these days teach that all life-forms evolved from “simple, single-celled life-forms.”

There are several things to consider here:

  1. There are no “simple life-forms.” If it is alive—it is extremely complex.
  2. Many single-celled creatures have been observed for thousands of generations with no significant change.
  3. Single-celled creatures still exist and reproduce. Why aren’t any of them evolving?
  4. There are no examples living or fossilized of two-, three-, or four-celled creatures.

After one-celled creatures, the “simplest” animals have about one hundred cells. How did the single-celled creatures become multi-celled? Be sure to ask for specific evidence, not just theories.

I’ll continue explaining my other two propositions in subsequent blogs.

Further Study

Help! I’m Being Taught Evolution In My Biology Class

,

Leave44 Responses to testAre there simple life-forms? (Part 1)

  1. andrew Ryan April 27, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    Kent: “My Biology textbook…”

    Kent, it would be helpful if you would in future provide references for each claim you make about what this textbook or that has claimed.

    You have still yet to back up your claim that school text books claim there is no life after death.

    Secondly, in your blog: “SCIENTISTS QUOTES ABOUT EVOLUTION”, you give us a purported quote:
    “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (Sir Arthur Keith).
    You claim he said this in 1959. Given that he died in 1955, and that I can find no record of Keith saying this quote, could you tell us where and when it in fact comes from?
    If it is an error, and you can’t back up the claim, could you simply admit the mistake so that we can move on to a discussion of your latest claims. It would do much for your credibility.

    Until then, how can we trust any further claims you make about what you’ve read in any particular text book?

  2. Geno Castagnoli April 27, 2011 at 9:01 am #

    Kent Hovind claims:
    (1) there are no “simple life-forms”;
    #####
    Geno points out:
    “Simple” is a highly subjective term. A single cell organism is certainly more “simple” than a human with trillions of cells operating multiple organ systems to maintain a single sentient being.

    Kent claims:
    (2) there is no such thing as a “Cambrian” layer; and
    ######
    Geno points out:
    Professional geologists seem to disagree with you. For some reason, I seriously doubt Mr. Hovind has the expertise to make that particular determination.

    Kent claims:
    (3) nearly all types of life are found in all the layers of the earth. (This would be expected from Noah’s Flood.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    If there were such a flood, I would expect there would be a clearly identifiable flood layer (much like the iridium layer at the K-T boundary) which is found globally wherever the boundary between pre-flood, flood, and post-flood strata are exposed. The fact of the matter is no geologist has been to identify which specific layer(s) of strata resulted from this alleged flood.

    I would expect the fast creatures (like velociraptors) would be found above the oak trees and flowering plants. I would expect light weight flying creatures (like pterodactyls) would be found above those oak trees too. I guess the oak trees and flowering plants outran the dinos to the high ground. Further, floods “scramble” the bodies of victims, so I would expect at least ONE example of a dino and a human being found close to each other.

    We can also discuss other flood issues (such as where the water came from and where it went) and the survival of a 450 foot long wood boat at sea for more than a year if anyone is up to a SUBSTANTIVE discussion of them. (Note: by “substantive,” I mean something a bit more detailed than the last comments on the matter produced by a creationist when I brought up these issues…..

  3. andrew Ryan April 27, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Stephen: “The problem with this view is that life is either all or nothing”

    Nope. There’s a grey area around viruses for a start.

    “Viruses can grow only inside of cells. They can’t multiply in the environment and are to some extent dead objects there. There’s a running debate about whether viruses are alive or dead because, when you crystallize them and they behave like crystalline proteins, they’re like dead chemical objects. (Bacteria, on the other hand, are definitely living organisms.) And yet, when allowed into a cell, they can hijack the total metabolism of the cell (in minutes in a bacterium, hours in a mammalian cell) and completely reprogram that cell so that the only thing it can do effectively anymore is make more viruses.”

  4. andrew Ryan April 27, 2011 at 9:47 am #

    Jeff Brace 1: “When pressed about the big bang and the beginning of life [Dawkins] ended up saying the earth was seeded by aliens and walked out. ”

    Then when asked for proof of this claim:

    Jeff Brace 2: “Dawkins believes that the earth could have been seeded by aliens. Why don’t you admit when you are wrong? Makes things go better and gives you more credability.”

    Jeff, there is a clear difference between these two claims. There’s a clear difference between:
    1. “The earth WAS seeded by aliens” and
    2. “life could CONCEIVABLY have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet”.

    And that’s aside from the context in which the actual quote came from, which has already been pointed out to you. Dawkins didn’t give that response when ‘pressed about the big band and the beginning of life’, he was directly answering the question of whether he could conceive of “any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred”. His answer was hypothetical, and did not refer at all to how LIKELY he considered the ‘aliens scenario’.

    In short: yes Jeff, either you fibbed or you really have difficulty parsing the meaning of what people say.

  5. Stephen Holshouser April 27, 2011 at 9:09 am #

    I’ll fill in the evolutionists’ template to save them some time;

    “Kent, the modern day cells we have today are complex because they have undergone millions of years of evolution. Of course it looks too complex to just have arrived by natural processes today, but long ago, and far away, life must have emerged very, very slowly and started out very simple. All scientists know this. It is just a fact!”

    The problem with this view is that life is either all or nothing. An organism must be able to survive, maintain homeostasis, reproduce, sense its internal and external environment, and find something to eat from the very beginning, or it does not live and, therefore, certainly does not have offspring that survive to reproduce.

    Evolutionists get very touchy when you bring this up because it is no less than a death blow to atheism!

  6. augur bulgor April 27, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not an example of significant change?

  7. Mr T April 27, 2011 at 9:21 am #

    The “Walter & Eliza Hall Institute” (WEHI) on their website have some superb computer animations of the genetics within a cell, the best is called BODY CODE. (wehi dot edu dot au)

    When I watch I am immediately reminded of the psalmists words “you are fearfully and wonderfully made”.

    The irreducible complexity argument could be applied to the “least complex” cell, especially since its probabilty of inorganic origins is 1 in 10^40000.

  8. Jack Napper April 27, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    “Kent, the modern day cells we have today are complex because they have undergone millions of years of evolution. Of course it looks too complex to just have arrived by natural processes today, but long ago, and far away, life must have emerged very, very slowly and started out very simple. All scientists know this. It is just a fact!”

    Stephen-
    Thank you for your wonderful strawman. We all had such a laugh at your expense. As Geno pointed out simple is subjective. NOW if you want a good explanation of a “simple cell” check out the Youtube video “The Origin of Life Made Easy” by potholer54.

    The problem with this view is that life is either all or nothing. An organism must be able to survive, maintain homeostasis, reproduce, sense its internal and external environment, and find something to eat from the very beginning, or it does not live and, therefore, certainly does not have offspring that survive to reproduce.

    Thank you for your copy and paste argument from ignorance. My side hurts like crazy.

    Evolutionists get very touchy when you bring this up because it is no less than a death blow to atheism!

    Not an argument but a provocation.

    Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not an example of significant change?

    augur-
    Care to elaborate or did we just catch another copy and paste assertion?

  9. John Bebbington April 27, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    Jeff fibbed:

    Dawkins believes that the earth could have been seeded by aliens. Why don’t you admit when you are wrong? Makes things go better and gives you more credability.

    From:

    richarddawkins.net/articles/2394-lying-for-jesus

    Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It’s the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet.
    (p)
    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 patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe).

    Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists’ whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

    So, Jeff, are you now willing to admit that Dawkins does not believe that life on earth was seeded by aliens or do you wish to continue to bear false witness? You won’t have been the first person to have been conned by the execrable and unconscionable Ben Stein.

  10. John Bebbington April 27, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    Chase Braud wrote:

    I began skimming comments at the top, and quickly gave up after a look at just how many comments there were and how long they are! )= Sheesh! Let’s get on a new topic, obviously some people here favor Dawkins while others do not. We ALL get it. Big whoop.

    OK, Chase. What topic do you want to discuss?

  11. John Bebbington April 27, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Stephen wrote:

    Evolutionists get very touchy when you bring this up because it is no less than a death blow to atheism!

    I wish you hadn’t brought this up, Stephen. These sort of questions make me go on the defensive and tempt me towards Islam, Moronism or even Catholicism – so you should be very cautious.

    I can think of lots of questions about all sorts of things to which I don’t have the answer but my ignorance doesn’t prove that the Christian god exists otherwise Jesus not knowing when he was to return (Matthew 24:36) proves that he was not god. But can you admit that to yourself, Stephen?

  12. Jason Petersen April 27, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    “Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not an example of significant change?”

    It’s odd how so many atheists who claim to advocate science takes different stances on this. A majority of atheists that I have debated stated that any amount of change is subjective. Either way you slice it, or either stance you take, antibiotic resistance is a far cry from “goo to you” evolution.

    Any cell is complex, unless you think that machines such as cars, or Kent’s example, space shuttles are simple to build.

    Cheers.

  13. Duane April 27, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    @Peter Bilmer April 27th at 4:38 am

    “Even Kent agrees that microevolution takes place.”

    That’s not correct. Dr Hovind is well aware of adaptations and and variations within a kind. Mostly it’s called “microevolution” but he disagrees with this term which gives a free riders effect for all the other unscientific definitions and concepts of evolution.

    “Evolution theory predicts that dogs always have given birth to dogs and always will. If they didn’t it would disprove evolution.”

    No, the theory of Creation {I assume you meant evolution} would predict that. Molecule to man evolution requires many jumps from one kind of animal to another ( and finally to man ).

    It still means dogs will give births to dogs. Speciation takes time. The development of languages is a good example. No one ever notices while it’s happening, but then you look back and you can’t even read Old English anymore, and that’s just micro-evolution. How is your Indo-European lately?

    “He’s already got one Ph.D. and it will be some time before he will be able to afford to buy another one.”

    Could you bring forward any proof that Dr Hovind bought a doctorate degree? Or that he did not do any work for it?

    Or did you just constitute an unsupported assertion which is based on an emotional reaction?

    You do not want to open that can of worms. Suffice it to say, you will stay ahead if you just leave it be.

    “Futher Study

    Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines by Dr. Dennis Swift

    Even your vacations are little more than opportunities to shill your products.

    Your comment here seems to be nothing more than expressing your unsubstantiated and unreasonable rancour against Eric Hovind.

    Did you ever drink the Kool-aid.

  14. John Bebbington April 27, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    Peter:

    That’s not correct. Dr Hovind is well aware of adaptations and and variations within a kind. Mostly it’s called “microevolution” but he disagrees with this term which gives a free riders effect for all the other unscientific definitions and concepts of evolution.

    Perhaps Kent has changed his views over the years. Here are three extracts from his 1991 doctoral “thesis”:

    When I speak of evolution, I am not referring to small changes that naturally occur as animals have to make some adjustments to their environment. For instance, if we released hundreds of rabbits in an area with cold winters, only the animals with heavier fur would survive. So within a few years, the population would have a little heavier fur than the earlier populations. These small minor population shifts brought about by the environment are referred to as ‘micro-evolution.’ (sic)

    Micro-evolution would be defined as changing into a different kind of animal. There is no similarity between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Many evolutionists will use micro-evolution to try to prove that macro-evolution is true.

    Micro-evolution is small little variations between the species that have been in the genetic structure by. (sic)

    I’ve no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.

  15. Caleb Fielding April 27, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    augur bulgor said “Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not an example of significant change?”

    Is a drunk becoming resistant to alcohol a significant change?

    Is a crack head becoming resistant to all sorts of dangerous drugs a significant change?

  16. David McCrea April 27, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    augur bulgor
    @Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not an example of significant change?

    Mr. bulgor, it is an example of change. It’s very weak evidence for Darwinian evolution, if that’s what you’re implying.

    Human beings become resistant to antibiotics and other medicines. It doesn’t mean we’re evolving into another life form.

    I aplogize if I’ve misrepresented your question.

  17. Danny April 27, 2011 at 9:42 pm #

    @Geno,
    You mentioned the flood and since I am not 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.

    Danny Bunn

  18. Danny April 27, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    @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?
    ‘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.
    Dawin 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.

    Danny Bunn

  19. Joshua Powell April 27, 2011 at 9:46 pm #

    “Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not an example of significant change?”

    Nope, it sure isn’t. Even I can become resistant to certain substances, and I don’t even need to reproduce for that. Besides, what you’re referring to is the standard genetic variation that occurs every day, and is just as normal as your children having slightly different color hair or eyes than you are. Bacteria don’t become resistant. There are already some that exist with that genetic combination that makes them less affected, and application of antibiotics ensures that all remaining bacteria are antibiotic-resistant, increasing chances that their offspring will be as well.

  20. Danny April 28, 2011 at 2:35 am #

    Geno Castagnoli
    April 27th at 9:01 am
    Kent Hovind claims:
    (1) there are no “simple life-forms”;
    #####
    Geno points out:
    “Simple” is a highly subjective term. A single cell organism is certainly more “simple” than a human with trillions of cells operating multiple organ systems to maintain a single sentient being.

    Danny says,
    Yea, I guess simple is a highly subjective term especially if we are talking about mankind. But as God’s creation is being studied more and more by super smart people, it is blowing their minds what they are dealing with. In reality, there is nothing simple in this creation by God. I was reading a book a while back and I would like to share a little of it with you regarding the “simple” single cell.

    “Not long ago the single living cell was called a ‘simple cell.’ But not anymore! The bulk of the cell body was thought to be a jelly like mass of what was called ‘protoplasm’ which simply means ‘living substance.’ In 1963 Dr. George Palade of the Rockefeller Institute in New York discovered there is more to it than meets the eye. What he found was an amazing intricate system throughout the protoplasm. Now it’s called ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ (E.R. for short). This vast labyrinth of incredibly fine tubes and chains of minute bags totally permeates the entire cell body. The E.R. has been described as one of the most complicated and beautiful structures in the universe. Another long held concept of modern science has crumbled. The idea that molecules just bang around haphazardly in the jelly like protoplasm has been discarded because of the new light on the subject.” “Scientists today tell us that the single cell is more complex than a large city. As in a city, so it is in a cell. Systems are working and jobs are being done by the thousands. But unlike cities, the cell functions perfectly with no breakdowns! “The adult human may have as many as 60 trillion of these walled cities. Think of the details that are going on constantly:
    structural design
    energy generators
    invasion guards
    transport systems
    food factories
    protective barriers
    waste disposal systems
    communication links within and outside the cell city
    “The surface membrane of a cell is amazingly delicate but equally as “powerful” in its control of the cell system. It’s less than a third of a millionth of an inch think. It controls the entry and exit of everything for the cell. It behaves almost as if it had the chemical senses of taste and smell. When a desirable molecule floats by, the membrane forms a little ‘finger’ that reaches out and pulls the needed nutrient inside. Crucial chemical enzymes coat the skin of the cell, transferring information to and from other cells. The cell could not survive without these enzymes functioning precisely as they always do.” “The RNA is the messenger in the metropolis of a cell. It looks like DNA but it has a passport to leave the nucleus. With incredible speed the RNA molecule acts like a computer printer. Let’s see what happens.
    1st The master DNA and the messenger RNA intertwine in a split second.
    2nd The DNA instantly imprints a section of its code on the RNA and then separates from it.
    3rd The RNA rushes to the edge of the cell city to transfer its code to enzymes one after another, in rapid fire succession.
    4th Each enzyme, by this code, is commissioned to do a particular job somewhere in the larger organism.
    “The whole mass of cells within the body communicates by RNA. According to experts, they ‘somehow cooperate’ to act like a dog, a fish, a man, or whatever the organism is supposed to be. That ‘somehow’ is the insoluble mystery to secular scientists who choose not to begin their research on the factually solid foundation of God and His word.
    “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Rom 11:33 (KJV)
    A CURIOUS NOTE “Scientists have discovered that DNA is found in the nucleus of ALL living things, cells with the exception of red blood cells and a few certain viruses. Is it not strange that the one component which science has singled out as the ‘mysterious basis of All life’ (DNA) is NOT found in what God’s word tells us is where the very essence of life is? “The life of the flesh is in the blood…’ Leviticus 17:11.(1)

    “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!” Psa 139:17 (KJV)
    (1)Unlocking The Mysteries of Creation, Vol. 1 (except the KJV quotes)
    by Dennis R. Peterson, B.S., M.A.

    Danny Bunn

  21. andrew Ryan April 28, 2011 at 7:09 am #

    Kent, in the comments section of part 1 of this blog, Geno already refuted every point you make in your first paragraph. Given this, I can’t really trust anything you say after that.

    “…first simple life-forms were single-celled ones in the Cambrian layers”

    Can you give an exact quote from a text book on this please? I’ve been looking up the Cambrian Layer, and don’t find anyone claiming that it is where one finds the simplest life-forms. For a start, we have the ‘pre-Cambrian era’. Therefore, mentioning that trilobites were not simple creatures is a complete non sequitur, as no-one ever claimed they were.

  22. Eric Terrell April 28, 2011 at 3:27 pm #

    Geno-
    “Simple” is a highly subjective term. A space shuttle is simple compared to the processes that go through on a minute scale in the “simplest” bacteria, yet evolutionists presume to say they came about by random chance.

    Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics does not make the bacteria anything more than bacteria. We humans acquire immunities, but that does not make us anything else.

    And what’s wrong with a 450 foot long boat at sea for a year?

  23. Don Carr April 28, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    Life-forms created by the Fallen Elohim or Archons could be defined as simple. They cannot achieve the image of YHWH.

    Many aliens lack the image of YHWH and do the will of the fallen Elohim. They control this planet and invented this notion of “Evolution Theory.”

    The fallen gods toy with the population of this planet like a giant chess game; for their own amusement.

    Kent, do you still think Noah built a wooden boat?
    Do you still think the mystery schools were occultist?
    What did Christ tell his disciples in private?

    The economy is about to fail. We’re all breathing and consuming nuclear particles; some will imbed themselves and create cancers. The earth’s crust is heaving again.

    Anyone ready?

  24. Duane April 28, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

    Stephen Holshouser April 27th at 9:09 am

    I’ll fill in the evolutionists template to save them some time;

    “Kent, the modern day cells we have today are complex because they have undergone millions of years of evolution. Of course it looks too complex to just have arrived by natural processes today, but long ago, and far away, life must have emerged very, very slowly and started out very simple. All scientists know this. It is just a fact!”

    The problem with this view is that life is either all or nothing. An organism must be able to survive, maintain homeostasis, reproduce, sense its internal and external environment, and find something to eat from the very beginning, or it does not live and, therefore, certainly does not have offspring that survive to reproduce.

    Evolutionists get very touchy when you bring this up because it is no less than a death blow to atheism!

    I see what you did there. You framed it like this early, primitive life has purpose and intent. It has to “find something to eat” rather than simply absorb nutrients. It “senses” its internal and external environments (which is not necessary at that level-good old physics and chemistry is good enough). It “has offspring” rather than just reproduces. You are putting a face and personality on things than merely have to exist, metabolize and replicate. Par for the course with a religion that infantalizes its adherents.

    This is not a death blow to atheism. It has nothing to do with atheism.

  25. Stephen Holshouser April 29, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    Andrew,

    Stephen: “The problem with this view is that life is either all or nothing”

    “Nope. There’s a grey area around viruses for a start.
    Viruses can grow only inside of cells. They can’t multiply in the environment and are to some extent dead objects there. There’s a running debate about whether viruses are alive or dead because, when you crystallize them and they behave like crystalline proteins, they’re like dead chemical objects. (Bacteria, on the other hand, are definitely living organisms.) And yet, when allowed into a cell, they can hijack the total metabolism of the cell (in minutes in a bacterium, hours in a mammalian cell) and completely reprogram that cell so that the only thing it can do effectively anymore is make more viruses.”

    Yup. The virus cannot survive without fully formed and functioning cells to live in and reproduce from. See, fully formed, complex life has to be there from the very first!

  26. Geno Castagnoli April 29, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    Eric asks:
    And what’s wrong with a 450 foot long boat at sea for a year?

    #####
    Geno answers:
    It’s called “hull flexure.” Basically the hull will bend and twist in the water causing leakage. The longest modern wood ships were a little over 300 feet and needed steel reinforcment and constant pumping to keep them from sinking. I was on a 450 foot long steel ship that suffered a cracked bow when we were coming out of a storm and barely making way. If that had been a wood ship, I’d probably have been swimming.

  27. Geno Castagnoli April 29, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    Stephen comments:
    Evolutionists get very touchy when you bring this up because it is no less than a death blow to atheism!

    ######
    Geno points out:
    For about the hundredth time…. evolution does NOT equal atheism. Around 80% of those who accept evolution also believe it to be a creative process used by God. This has been established by numerous Gallup polls conducted over a period of 30 years now.

    What does it take to get the creationists here to understand that? Here, let me try a link (with apologies to Blog management):
    unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

  28. Geno Castagnoli April 29, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Danny wrote:
    You mentioned the flood and since I am not 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/

    ######
    Geno:
    I tried the first link and it didn’t work. The second link wasn’t helpful either. On the front page, they had a picture of the Pacific Ocean and a caption: “Where did the water go.”

    The problem is that in a global flood, the oceans would already be filled to the same elevation as the land and the water couldn’t run-off to a lower elevation. In short, it doesn’t work.

  29. Danny April 29, 2011 at 3:39 pm #

    John Bebbington
    April 27th at 2:50 pm
    Stephen wrote:
    Evolutionists get very touchy when you bring this up because it is no less than a death blow to atheism!
    I wish you hadn’t brought this up, Stephen. These sort of questions make me go on the defensive and tempt me towards Islam, Moronism or even Catholicism – so you should be very cautious.
    I can think of lots of questions about all sorts of things to which I don’t have the answer but my ignorance doesn’t prove that the Christian god exists otherwise Jesus not knowing when he was to return (Matthew 24:36) proves that he was not god. But can you admit that to yourself, Stephen?
    @John
    I like it when you want to talk the word of God with us, that’s where it’s at. You mentioned Jesus NOT knowing when he is coming back. Once again you did NOT even read that verse by itself in context. I love teaching on this subject. A lot of my teachings are 2 hours and they are on VHS so I have not converted them over and I can only preach on TV for 30 minutes. Anyway, the verse that you are talking about says, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matt 24:36)
    NOW looking at this verse in context, it says, “knoweth NO MAN, (emphasis mine in caps) Jesus Christ was the God Man, fully God and fully man. As man he did not know many things, the word also says that he grew in stature and wisdom with God and man. He was growing and learning as all humans do. AS God he was and is all knowing, his human nature was continually receiving from his God nature. The word of God makes it plain that Jesus got hungry, tired, walked, was tempted, etc. God does none of those things but Jesus was God too. Yes and as man he did all those things I just listed. Back to your statement. Jesus DID NOT know in his humanity but he DID KNOW in his deity. I do have a 30 minute teaching on that subject on my web site tied in with another subject but I am not remembering which one that I deal with this subject on. You could watch all of them till you come to that one OR you can wait on me until I can find it. It is on my web site under “More than Conquerors! ekkcom.net/morcph.htm

    Anyway as I said when I answered the last one that you were seeking to make the word of God have errors or confusion in it, I hoped this helped you understand a little better. If NOT then let me know and I will take it deeper for you. Christians are called to study the word of God not to just read and try to find mistakes and God will open up his word to us. Paul even said that there are things in the word hard to understand, I mean it is the word of God. I mean you would probably admit that there are things in biology hard to understand, the same Creator who made everything in the biological world made his word.

    Danny Bunn
    ,

  30. Danny April 29, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    @John,
    When I said this sentence in my last post, I meant on my web site in written form not in video form.
    “It is on my web site under “More than Conquerors! ekkcom.net/morcph.htm”
    The video one, I still must find or as I said before you can look for it too by watching all of my videos.

    Danny Bunn

  31. Eric Terrell April 29, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    Dawkins-
    Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen.
    Here Dawkins shows his atheistic bias. And creationists don’t believe it happened instantaneously, they believe it took 6 days or more!

    John-
    Jesus not knowing the time of his return does not mean that he is not God. God the Father alone knows that. God is omniscient- the Bible makes no claim that Jesus is. Perhaps that means that as a whole, the Trinity knows everything?

    John- Because Dr. Hovind’s thesis states that the processes are referred as microevolution does not mean that he agrees with it or that he uses it for any other reason than to be clear with readers as to what he is referring to.

    Don- There is so much conspiracy theory here I don’t know how to respond.

  32. John Bebbington May 2, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    Eric Terrell wrote:

    And creationists don’t believe it happened instantaneously, they believe it took 6 days or more!

    Actually, no particular item took more than 24 hours according to the YECist model. But when comparing even a week to 13 billion years the use of the word “instantaneous” is justified. Apart from which Genesis does not indicate the minimum period it took for God to create Adam.

    John-
    Jesus not knowing the time of his return does not mean that he is not God. God the Father alone knows that. God is omniscient- the Bible makes no claim that Jesus is. Perhaps that means that as a whole, the Trinity knows everything?

    This is a discussion you need to have with Danny who disagrees with you – I’m not interested.

    Because Dr. Hovind’s thesis states that the processes are referred as microevolution does not mean that he agrees with it or that he uses it for any other reason than to be clear with readers as to what he is referring to.

    Eric, please give me a Kent reference to back up your point. I have given you 3 quotes of Kent’s but you have given none. Variation and microevolution are not the same thing.

    Don- There is so much conspiracy theory here I don’t know how to respond.

    You’ll have to excuse Don. He’s Australian.

    • CSE May 2, 2011 at 8:32 am #

      John,
      Just to let you know, you are double posting :)

  33. John Bebbington May 2, 2011 at 7:45 am #

    Danny wrote:

    but he DID KNOW in his deity.

    Hi Danny, I’ve no intention of getting into any of the many Christian theologies except for one point in this instance.

    Paul always distinguished between God and Jesus Christ. Hence, despite whatever it takes you 2 hours to preach in your videos (does anybody actually watch them?), the incomprehensible Jesus of the Gospels is not that of Paul.

  34. Stephen Holshouser May 2, 2011 at 11:03 am #

    Hi Geno,

    Sorry for the delayed response from something you posted a week or so ago. I did want to address it, but haven’t found time until now.

    First, a couple quick things; regarding evolution not equaling atheism; I know that and so does everyone else, but every atheist IS an evolutionist. My comments weren’t directed towards theistic evolutionists, but only to atheists.
    I’m not sure why you are always against IDists and creationists. Are you not one? As I asked Jennifer Preston the other day, You do believe God made everything, right? Then you are a creationist that believes in intelligent design. You may believe God used evolution over millions of years to do it, but you still believe God did it.

    Geno states:
    “1) I teach my students science. I make it explicitly clear they do not have to believe a word of it but, because it is a science class, it is expected they will be able to tell me what science says and why science says it. No more. No less. Their grade will never suffer on account of their religious beliefs as long as they can do that.”

    Stephen responds:
    Excellent! I hope that is the case about you teaching only the scientific facts. I just remember you talking about a list of evidence that supports a young earth, which you stated your 9th graders saw through (which, honestly, I find hard to believe unless they were coached). By this statement, I just assumed you had discussions with your students about your belief of the Genesis account not being literal a subtle, yet certain declaration that the Bible cannot be trusted to mean what it says.

    Regarding St Augustine, who you quoted as an authoritative figure earlier; St Augustine did not believe in an old earth. One of his primary concerns was that people would get locked into an interpretation of the Bible that fit the “scientific” assumptions of whatever age it was in… exactly what you are doing with the Bible right now. Here is another quote from Augustine that you might ponder; “Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.”

    Geno states:
    “2) As far as I know, based on my 15 years in Catholic schools, there is one prayer in Catholicism directed toward the “virgin mother.” Here it is:
    “Hail Mary, full of grace. Our Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. I don’t see how you can have an objection to that if you have ever asked someone to pray for you.”

    Stephen responds:
    Of course I object. It is categorically antibiblical. At no time is anyone ever instructed to pray to anyone other than God whether they are living or dead. Sure, we ask living people to pray for us, but that is altogether different. The only person from the Bible who tried to seek help from a someone that had passed away was Saul do you remember the wickedness of that? (1 Samuel 28) You need to look at the doctrines concerning Mary that the Catholic Church has produced currently and over the years. Look up co-redemtris, co-mediatrix, and the Immaculate Conception (this isn’t refering to Jesus’ conception). In the Catholic system, Mary is no less than divine and her ongoing work is as necessary as Christ’s. Those in the Bible who others attempted to worship (Peter, Paul, Barnabas, the angel from Revelation) vehemently objected and said that they should not worship ANY except the Living God Mary would say the same if she were here today. In reality, Mary is only a sinner saved by the grace of God, and her sin had to be placed on the Lord Jesus like any other believer. You know she did not remain a virgin long after Jesus was born, right? Here are a couple of verses spoken by Jesus about his earthly mother; Matthew 12:47-50, Luke 11:27-28. Can you tell me who first decided it was a good idea to pray to Mary? Have you actually read what is on the Vatican’s website about Mary? To put it mildly, it is no less than blasphemy, which seeks to steal glory from Jesus Christ, and give it to Mary, who is unworthy of it.

    Geno states:
    “3) While I recognize the authority of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, Since I’m divorced and remarried, have practiced birth control, and have eaten meat on Friday (when it was prohibited), I’m not sure how much you can claim I “bow to the authority of Rome.”

    Stephen responds:
    Why callest thou the Pope Lord, Lord and doest not the things which he says? Do you know what it means to claim to be the Vicar of Christ? It is the Catholic teaching that the Pope is in the place of Jesus Christ on the earth. They go so far as to say that the Pope IS Jesus Christ on the earth. That is why the Catholics have taught that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. If you don’t believe it, I will produce a detailed list with all the references for you. Did you know that the term Vicar of Christ translated into the Greek language is “antichristos”? Antichrist in the scriptures comes from 2 Greek words; anti- which means “in the place of, instead of, or a substitution for and cristov- which means Christ. Anyone claiming to be the Vicar of Christ is claiming openly to be antichrist. Any system that adds on or substitutes ANY good works or rituals or other mediator as a means of salvation besides the Person of Jesus Christ and His finished work is a system of antichrist. “For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;(1 Tim 2:5) not the Pope, not a priest, not Mary only Jesus. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name (Jesus Christ) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.(Acts 2:4) Indeed, the Bible says that the “man of sin, the son of perdition, the mystery of iniquity, that Wicked would be one that exalts himself above all that is called God, “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. This is so important. Please consider this, my friend!

    Geno states:
    “I suggest if you disagree, you visit the Vatican web site and examine the Catechism. that should answer all your questions complete with relevant Biblical authority. (I’d give the link, but list policy prohibits it.)”

    Stephen responds:
    I found this on the Vatican website, “Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken.
    Do you believe this, Geno? Do you believe that man actually brought death into the creation, or had it always been there? What NEW consequence did Adam’s sin bring about? Do you believe the first man who brought sin into the world, Adam, lived 6000 years ago as the Bible states?

    I know that some of this may be unpleasant to you, but it is not meant to upset you only to help. I pray that you would honestly consider it. May the Lord bless you, SH

  35. John Bebbington May 2, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    Danny wrote:

    @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?

    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 Loftons Journal, The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

    Dawin 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.

    Still obsessing, Danny?

    What’s the point in cutting and pasting irrelevant mined quotes from creationist web-sites from books you have never read?

    We all know that Darwin was forced into publication before he was ready so what’s new?

  36. John Bebbington May 2, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    Dear CSE,

    Thanks but I know I double-posted. Sometimes I [mess] up the formatting so I repost a corrected item hoping that you will removed the first post in favour of the second. However, it seems that the second post is the one that is weeded out rather than the first.

    I share Duane’s frustration at the lack of any preview facility.

  37. John Bebbington May 2, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    Joshua Powell wrote:

    “Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is not an example of significant change?”

    Nope, it sure isn’t. Even I can become resistant to certain substances, and I don’t even need to reproduce for that. Besides, what you’re referring to is the standard genetic variation that occurs every day, and is just as normal as your children having slightly different color hair or eyes than you are. Bacteria don’t become resistant. There are already some that exist with that genetic combination that makes them less affected, and application of antibiotics ensures that all remaining bacteria are antibiotic-resistant, increasing chances that their offspring will be as well.

    Let’s assume that chemists create a bactericide that is highly effective against a certain species of virulent bacterium. The product doesn’t kill every single bacterium but is effective against most of the species. The bacteria which aren’t killed increase as a proportion of the population until such times as the product is no longer very effective.

    According to Joshua there has been no evolution of the resistant bacteria. They were originally created by God with the resistant variation already within the genome of a small proportion of the species.

    So, according to Joshua, it is not possible to design a bactericide which is totally effective because in any bacterial species there will always be a few bacteria which God designed in 4004 BC to resist the man-made chemical. It doesn’t matter how many billions of different effective bactericides we are able to invent, God will have foreseen them all and designed the species to have a few bacteria capable of resisting each of the bactericides.

    In other words, Joshua seem to think that God wants African children to die of malaria despite the best efforts of our scientists to eliminate it.

    But when it came to smallpox we managed to outwit God.

    Is that what you think, Joshua?

  38. Danny May 2, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    John Bebbington
    May 2nd at 7:45 am
    Danny wrote:
    but he DID KNOW in his deity.
    Hi Danny, I’ve no intention of getting into any of the many Christian theologies except for one point in this instance.
    Paul always distinguished between God and Jesus Christ. Hence, despite whatever it takes you 2 hours to preach in your videos (does anybody actually watch them?), the incomprehensible Jesus of the Gospels is not that of Paul.
    @John,
    You are confusing me again. You are reading a different bible than I read and are in turn reading a different Paul than I read. Paul acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God when he was told by the voice in heaven who blinded him. He received Jesus into his life a short time later, and preached Jesus continually until his death and Paul did NOT want to preach anyone but God and he knew when he met him that he was God in human flesh. He did not confer with flesh and blood, he met the Lord in Spirit and in truth.
    Paul wrote most of the epistles and he wrote Jesus was God in many of them in many different ways.
    He preaches that Jesus was the name above all names and at his name every knee will bow and Paul knew Old Testament scriptures so he knew in the O.T. that every knee will bow to Jehovah God Almighty. He preyed to Jesus and he knew you only pray to Jehovah God, he submitted to Jesus, obeyed him till his death. He lived and glorified Jesus Christ the rest of his life. I could give you plenty of scriptures to show you what I mean if you would like me to.
    And John you will bow your knee to him like every one else on this planet and in heaven. You will by choice or by force but you will. He is a prayer away from each and every one of us. Did you read my other posts to you and Geno? I never read any replies yet.

    Danny Bunn

  39. Danny May 2, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    I didn’t close the bold sorry.

    Danny Bunn

  40. Duane May 2, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    @John Bebbington May 2nd at 7:45 am

    Danny wrote:

    but he DID KNOW in his deity.

    Hi Danny, I’ve no intention of getting into any of the many Christian theologies except for one point in this instance.

    Paul always distinguished between God and Jesus Christ. Hence, despite whatever it takes you 2 hours to preach in your videos (does anybody actually watch them?), the incomprehensible Jesus of the Gospels is not that of Paul.

    John, seriously, you have to watch Danny’s video on “666″. It tells you ALL you need to know about Danny. It’s a blast. After watching it I think we can all safely ignore Mr. Bunn from now on.

    And Danny. Oh, Danny. There is SO much wrong with nearly everything you have to say I see why you have found the Hovinds. You apparently cannot tell the difference between actual science and crank literature. The New Money System by “Ph.D” Mary Stewart Relfe?? You refuse to read any actual science book on Evolution but you preach from this like it is holy writ? By the way, the UPC barcode does not have 666 hidden in it. Six is represented by a 7 bit code of 1010000 (Dark line, white line, dark line, four white lines). The opening and closing bits for the bar code are 101 and the center bits are 01010. So, you are ignoring the white lines on both the six and the bracket bits.

    And I am amazed to learn that cancer is cured all over the world, except here, and that cancer is a “vitamin deficiency disease. Let me guess, Vitamin B17. Oh, and they are poisoning our children with vaccinations and infiltrating our precious bodily fluids with fluoridation and chlorination of the water. I’ve heard Dr. Hovind spout the same nonsense. When you make it obvious that you have no ability to discern between fantasy and reality it undermines the rest of your message. Christianity becomes just part of the din. You can stop your copy/paste because we can’t take anything you consider relevant as anything other than quote-mining and nonsense. I feel even more confident in my atheism.

    Thanks for playing.

  41. John Bebbington May 3, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    Danny wrote:

    @John,
    You are confusing me again. You are reading a different bible than I read and are in turn reading a different Paul than I read. Paul acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God when he was told by the voice in heaven who blinded him.

    Yes, Danny, I think you must be reading a different bible.

    Please quote a verse in which “Paul acknowledged Jesus as Lord and God”.

  42. Geno Castagnoli May 4, 2011 at 12:12 am #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:
    Hi Geno,
    Sorry for the delayed response from something you posted a week or so ago. I did want to address it, but haven’t found time until now.

    First, a couple quick things; regarding evolution not equaling atheism; I know that and so does everyone else, but every atheist IS an evolutionist. My comments weren’t directed towards theistic evolutionists, but only to atheists.

    Geno answers:
    Perhaps it would be a good idea if you want to address a comment toward atheists you might want to use the term “atheist,” rather than “evolutionist.” Your “justification” that “every atheist IS an evolutionist” is beneath you. That’s like saying 20% of Christians are fat, so it’s OK to use the term “fattie” when I mean “Christian.”

    ######
    Stephen:
    I’m not sure why you are always against IDists and creationists. Are you not one?

    Geno:
    Yep. The thing is I know and understand the difference between science and religion…. and science has, by far, the higher standard of evidence. What creationists (and I mean specifically YEC) do is try to distort science to fit their religious objections. Science has no religious agenda. My objection to ID is it’s a political/social movement attempting to get creationism into the public school science curiculum by the back door.

    #####
    Stephen:
    As I asked Jennifer Preston the other day, You do believe God made everything, right?

    Geno:
    Right.

    #####
    Stephen:
    Then you are a creationist that believes in intelligent design.

    Geno:
    Right. But that’s a religious belief, not something that is subject to investigation using the scientific method.

    #####
    Stephen:
    You may believe God used evolution over millions of years to do it, but you still believe God did it.

    Geno:
    Right. Our disagreement is over how and when, not Who.

    It’s late and I gotta go to work in the morning……

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Are there simple life-forms? (Part 2) | Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism - April 28, 2011

    [...] Are there simple life-forms? [...]