End of Year

Hasn’t the geologic column been found in many places?

Although textbooks imply that it is found uniformly in geology, it doesn’t exist in 99% of the earth. Some will argue with that and say that it has been found in the right order in twenty-six places. But, these claims are based solely on index fossils. “Index fossils” are fossils of life-forms that evolutionists think lived only briefly in geologic time. They use them to identify the ages of layers. These fossils have been found in the supposed order in those twenty-six places, but they are in the wrong order in tens of thousands of places throughout the earth! Since there are only about twelve layers of rock in the so-called column, the statistics of just random shuffling could make them appear in any order twenty-six times out of ten thousand.

Further Study

Help! I'm Being Taught Evolution

Help! I’m Being Taught Evolution In My Earth Science Class!
A resource with practical steps for confronting evolution in the classroom.
Book or Download

,

Leave39 Responses to testHasn’t the geologic column been found in many places?

  1. Edward Falzon December 1, 2010 at 11:06 am #

    Hi Kent,

    12 layers, if applied randomly, permits 479 million combinations (12x11x10…). Let’s be extra-generous and say there are 1 million locations where we can see the geological layers, and only 26 are in the “right” order.

    So for any given location to have the right order, there’s a chance of 1 in 479mil. And for a million locations, for one of them to have the right order, that would be easier: 1 in 479.

    But for 26 locations to have identically ordered layers, the chance is (1/479)^26. That’s 1 chance in 200,000,000,000,000,000,000…with fifty more zeroes.

    If there are only 10,000 locations, you’d need to add an additional 52 zeroes.

    So no, random shuffling wouldn’t do it. Even accepting your statement that all but 26 were in the wrong order, the existence of any 26 in the same order by pure chance is statistically impossible… well, 1 chance in 2×10^122.

    Edward.

  2. John Bebbington December 1, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    “Since there are only about twelve layers of rock in the so-called column, the statistics of just random shuffling could make them appear in any order twenty-six times out of ten thousand.”

    Wrong; there is a vast number of layers but only 12 geological ages of rock. As the first layer is always pre-Cambrian this leaves 11 ages to be sorted. As anybody knows who has taught high school science in a public high school the number of permutations is 11 factorial which equates to nearly 40 miilion and not 26 out of ten thousand. Kent is wrong by a factor of about 100,000.

  3. Alex M December 1, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    First of all, claiming that there’s ‘thousands’ of places where the pattern doesn’t hold is futile. Please name at least twenty six places where the index fossils are out of order, or else your blog post was mostly a lie.

    Secondly, if the geologic column was the only evidence for the earth’s past, I would understand your skepticism. In fact, Radiometric Dating, Optical Dating, Comparative anatomy, ERV insertions, Geographic distribution of species, genetic similarity, dating of meteorites, main sequence fitting of the sun, geochemical analysis and many many more methods point to the same history of the earth. Please note that the majority of these methods have hundreds or even thousands of data points. Try to argue against that linear fit.

    Finally, there isn’t “Just 12 layers”. There’s 12 periods, each which has 2-3 epochs (that makes ~30 already). Each epoch has 1-3 ages.
    I took the liberty of wikipediaing all the ages of the geologic timescale, which you clearly haven’t bothered to check.
    Here are just some of them: Late/Tyrrhenian Stage/Eemian/Sangamonian; Middle Pleistocene, Early Pleistocene, Gelasian, Piacenzian/Blancan, Zanclean, Messinian, Tortonian, Serravallian, Langhian, Burdigalian, Aquitanian, Chattian, Rupelian, Priabonian, etc, etc etc.

    FINALLY, even your math is wrong!
    Even IF there are 10,000 places where the ‘order is wrong’, and even IF there were only 12 layers of rocks, the chances that they are ordered by random are 12! (12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1)Or nearly 500,000! Clearly your argument is lacking ANY merit.

    Hope you learned something today;
    Best,
    Alex

  4. Alex M December 1, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    OOPS My math is wrong too,
    12! isn’t 500,000, it’s 500,000,000
    Hope that puts it in perspective

  5. Duane December 2, 2010 at 3:41 am #

    Yeah, blah blah blah, geologic column, buy my book. Whatever you say. Forgive me if I take it with the same grain of salt as the rest of your complaints about science.

    @Caleb Fielding

    “Outside of the cathlic church theology has greatly benifited man kind. How many tribes were cannabilistic two hundred years ago that are now christian because of theology? How has missionaries like david livingstone, james chalmers, nate saint, greatly help the study of geography when they mapped contenents and islands so that missionaries could bring men the gospel? How many languges have writting right now becuse men felt the great need to put Gods word in a languge with no writting? how many orphens did george muller and those like him feed cloth house and teach to read and write? How come 150 years ago 97% of this country had a very high reading level (college level today) when this country loved Gods word? I could keep going about what the theologens of every denomination (except cathlic, I fully submit that they did much evil, particularly to anybody that was a believer that was not cathlic) have done but I do not have the time.

    Please explain how the soviet union, or pal pots regiem or cuba, have made the middle class have what you said they have. Considering all three shut down the theology aspect of their respective country. Heck infact they did the exact oppisite of what you claim. Could you give an example of a country that has thrown out theology and gotten better because of it?”

    [I don't recall mentioning them. But for the record, religion is about control. Rules were created to help people live amongst each other. We don't need a supernatural revelation to let us know it stinks to have your stuff taken or to be harmed, so those rules are self-evident. Not everyone cooperates, so rules must be enforced. How to enforce those rules when the authority isn't watching? "Invisible watchers are watching you, so don't do bad." Give people a ritual to enforce the belief in the invisible watchers, and then control the ritual and you control the people. We do this same thing with our children. "Better be good, Santa is watching." The only thing Communism has to do with atheism is that they realized there was no God and created a system to control its citizens in place of religion (as opposed to Islamic regimes that use religion directly or democracies that use a more enlightened system of allowing the governed to give power to the governors). Atheism is not a world view, it is a stand on a single position. It is a rejection of the God claim. Everything else is simply human nature, which isn't always pleasant. Humans want to control others, so Communism is just another form. It might be atheistic, but it is not atheism. Atheism is not a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    But, oh yes, the Catholic Church that burned heretics for centuries, set up Jews as pariahs (antisemitism didn't come from atheism or evolution) and even now condemns Africans to death by teaching them condoms are more wicked than AIDS. Glad they were around to convert the heathen savages since God couldn't be bothered revealing Himself to the birthplace of humanity. You do realize, if you had been born in the Near East you would be saying the same thing about Allah. Lucky for you that you were born in the countries with the "right" religion. I will say I much more enjoy listening to Catholic radio than regular Christian radio. They seem more concerned about the mundane aspects of living with all the rituals and teachings rather than the constant hard-sell of JESUS, JESUS JESUS (send us money) JESUS.]

    @Stephen Holshouser
    “Why do you think no one knew about hell for thousands of years? I’m sure that there have been some places where the teaching of hell has been lost, but even if so, God’s entire creation that we all have lived in has preached to us a Creator that we would do good to seek after, He has left tremendous evidence of Himself for all and given us all a conscience and desire to find out how we came into being.”

    [Judaism does not have a concept of Heaven and Hell as an abode of the dead. It took Christanity to come up with something so evil as Hell. It was largely influenced by other religions in the Greek world. He has not left tremendous evidence of Himself. Simple ignorance on how something was accomplished is not a signature of God's work.]

    “With regard to your claim of Adam and Eve not knowing right from wrong before they ate the fruit; It is clear that they knew it was wrong to eat what their Maker told them not to eat before they ate it, otherwise they would have done it before Satan tricked Eve. You are assuming that before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they didn’t know that they should obey God’s commandment. The Bible doesn’t say exactly what the fruit would do to their understanding or how much they understood before they ate it. But disobeying God always causes destruction in our lives and separation from Him.”

    [That is a Christian gloss that says the serpent was Satan. If they didn't know the difference between right and wrong, how would they know it was wrong to disobey God? And if they didn't know the difference between right and wrong, all it would take is someone speaking contrary to tempt them. Guilelessness does not recognize guile. However, God actually walked in the Garden and conversed with them. This was no vague "first cause" concept with them. This wasn't "daddy" telling them not to do something only to be ignored. If God has no more authority in person than I do when I talk to my child, then what are we worshiping and prostrating to? Put a child before the age of reason in a room with several toys and then tell him not to play with the red one or you will kill him and make the rest of his lineage suffer the torments of the damned and chances are he'll go right to the red one. I'm sorry, but that makes you a {edited so that this stands a chance of being published} for even setting up that situation. But let's be realistic. That story is one ant and aardvark away from being an Aesop story. How an adult in the 21st Century can read that and not take it for the symbolic poetry it is, is beyond me. Dragging out the "science" of a few cranks who are not taken at all seriously in their professions makes it all the more laughable. I don't even care if evolution is the correct answer or not (even though the actual real evidence points that way), I'll take the answer as forever from our reach before I buy the story about the rib, the magic garden and the talking snake.]

    “You said, “God knows exactly what it would take to convince me, and so far He has decided that He wants me to be a non-believer.”

    Well, in a sense you are right, He is letting you continue on they way you want to go, that is true. But He has also commanded you to repent and believe the gospel. That command is from God to YOU right now and as long as you live. He is able to fix your unbelief.. you can ask Him to be merciful to you and give you a heart to know Him, or if you need to, ask Him to show you how your sin looks from His point of view.. you’ll never flee to Christ if you don’t ever see your need for Him to rescue you.

    You said, “Redemption from what? I don’t feel I need redeemed for simply being human. Why are you so ashamed of being human?”

    What do you mean by “being human?” Being human is great; however, lying, thieving, hatred, blaspheming, cheating, hurting, lusting, murdering, fornicating, being unthankful, being self-centered, slandering, and the like are shameful and reproachful to any human, have you done any of these things and are you not ashamed of yourself for it? If so, herein lies a lot of your problem.”

    [If I do, or did any of those things, then that's another issue. What I don't need redemption for is an alleged event 6000 years ago by a remote ancestor who was a victim of entrapment and peer pressure. Again, you are simply spouting the company line about how I am a wretch and need His redemption. All it takes is accepting Him...and giving Him 10% of my income, and attaching all of my self worth to a set of superstitious rituals. Pass the Kool-Aid.

    God has the ability to appear to each and every one of us and reveal Himself in a manner fitting to let us know He exists and save us all the trouble of suffering that is everyday existence. Instead, he appears to want to act like the hot chick in High School and only communicate to the world through His secret club of sycophants and apologists who can't seem to get their stories straight or agree on anything. Letting us know He exists does not rob us of free will. I presume those in Heaven have free will yet no longer sin. God is performing a cosmic experiment testing who is most credulous rather than who loves Him the most. He's stacked the deck to make the story as ridiculous as possible and let his adherents appear as deluded. I've yet to hear any compelling evidence outside an appeal to emotion. Every "proof" is wrought with fallacies and leaps of logic. I don't buy circular arguments of a book that's right because it says it is. Ask yourself what life would be like if there was no God. If you are honest, you will realize it is pretty much the same as it is now, other than now you have Sundays free. It has to be, or the word Faith would not even be part of your vocabulary. Faith is your "tell". It lets the rest of us know that despite how sincere you appear, you are just hoping that it is all true. I'm sorry your grandmothers set you up with this delusion at such a vulnerable age, but I have managed to escape it and I encourage the rest of you to do so, as well. ]

    “With regard to your claim of religion keeping the world in darkness and ignorance; again I agree with you about religions doing this. However, not Bible-based Christianity which has given rise to the greatest, most advanced, freest nation to ever live. Most branches of science were started by God-fearing creationists, Science, prosperity, and freedom are NEVER advanced by atheism my friend.”

    [The United States specifically put in its Constitution separations to stem the abuse of religion on government and people. There is specifically no religious test to hold office and the government is not allowed to support religion.

    When Astronomy abandoned Astrology, when Chemistry abandoned Alchemy, when Magick was abandoned for Empiricism, that was when religion was abandoned for true science. Religion is the end of inquiry, while science is the beginning. Atheism is not the cause of advancement, it is the result. You've taken an ancient superstition handed to you by accident of Geography and kept it alive in a world that in only now beginning to unveil its secrets. We are in the last throws of the Olde ways. Good riddance to them.]]

  6. H. Bosma December 2, 2010 at 4:06 am #

    Are these numbers based on anything?
    Never ever have seen these numbers somewhere. I suspect it to be some mumbo-jumbo of the Hovind-clan to obscure the truth.

    It’s true that sometimes the order of the column seems to be upside down or otherwise distorted, but this is due to geological processes. These documented very well and do explain the findings in the field…..

  7. Pieter Jelle de Vries December 2, 2010 at 4:06 am #

    Hi Kent,

    I know this is not the right place to post it, but perhaps you can give me a short answer.

    Your material has been very helpful. I first was introduced to one of your DVD’s with several seminars. I have started to debate some atheists (‘evolutionists’) at work and its been a blessing to have your sources available. It would be great to have some sort of question/answer from the website as I have also seen in some of the articles on the website, but then down to all the material that you have.

    I don’t know whether you have any information on dendrochronology, but if you do I would like to know which seminar you spoke of this or if you have some other references that may be useful.

    For the sake of being honest with you, I have download many of your material from http://www.3bible.com/kenthovind.php. It would be great to have some sort of easy access to all of your material. I don’t have much finances and this is mainly the problem at the moment. I know your ministry needs support and I wonder to what extend I can actually use the above source. If you don’t want me to use that source any longer for the sake of copyright then please let me know. I have felt that I was able to use it, because the person whom published it said it was to be freely used, but this may have happened in a time when your material wasn’t copyrighted.

    Please continue the good work, because it is very much needed, especially here in Europe, and probably throughout all of the world!

  8. Carl M December 2, 2010 at 4:25 am #

    Although textbooks imply that it is found uniformly in geology, it doesn’t exist in 99% of the earth.

    Imply? Only to those not paying attention.

    Some will argue with that and say that it has been found in the right order in twenty-six places.

    Incorrect. The claim is that all time periods are represented. As for “the right order” see below for more detail.

    But, these claims are based solely on index fossils. “Index fossils” are fossils of life-forms that evolutionists think lived only briefly in geologic time.

    Not quite. An index fossil candidate must live within a defined time period and have a wide distribution.

    They use them to identify the ages of layers.

    No. Index fossils themselves only identify relative age

    These fossils have been found in the supposed order in those twenty-six places, but they are in the wrong order in tens of thousands of places throughout the earth!

    Wrong! I challange anybody to justify this claim.

    Since there are only about twelve layers of rock in the so-called column,

    Wrong again. There are 12 eras which are themselves divided into smaller periods and sub-periods.

    the statistics of just random shuffling could make them appear in any order twenty-six times out of ten thousand.

    Math fail! Using probability, the chance of getting 12 unique “objects” into a particular order is 1 in 479,000,000 (12!). If the process is random and needs to be repeated 26 times, the result is 1 in 4.88 x10^225 (exceeds the capacity of most pocket calculators)

    Creationism fail!. Yes, Hovind’s argument contradicts the Young Earth Creationist claim that the geologic column is a result of “hydrological sorting” in Noah’s Flood. If the column is random then there is no basis to claim any form of sorting.

  9. Truth_Seeker H December 2, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    @Carl M

    If you believe in evolution, explain this to me:
    The process of the theory is: one big bang -> planets -> -> simple cell -> photosynthesis -> complex cell -> multicellular life ->->fish -> humans

    1. Explain how female came about?
    2. Explain how we are the only living thing on earth with a consciousness?3. Explain why there are still bacteria, fish. Did some stages/plants/animals not evolve, if not why not?
    4. Explain HATE and LOVE?

  10. John Duncan December 2, 2010 at 11:23 am #

    I personally don’t have a lot of science ed. from schools, which is ao good thing. This frees me to think objectively.
    See, since most all of your positions come from flawed sources,
    or biased propaganda, your assumptions, (answers ).., will be likewise.
    Now this going to be difficult, but bear with me, the geological column is first shown to be composed of circular reasoning, at best! Then remember your statements of fossil similarities, or comparsons to most of the evidences from ‘so called’ sciencetific data are also flawed. Therefore, all of your ranting is moot.
    I know this tough to hear but you will have to go back and start the learning process all over again. “Why should I?”, you ask! Well, for instance, you would want to know who is lying to you ! Your eternal residence depends on it.
    Now, look at these facts, a very significant number of scientists, from all disciplines agree with the whole young earth as well as the
    geneis account, not to mention itelligent design to name just a few.
    Therefore you can see that in stead of spouting rhetoric you may want to hold your own views up to the light.
    Oh, if like math, if we have been around for a couple of hundred-thousand years, where are the bones? Shouldn,t there be enough to cover the earth? I mean look how many we,be bred in a couple of thousand. A plethora of other accountings have the same result.
    Where is the evidence? Should I go on?
    One last thought and I,ll rest. Why is it that when one wants to
    argue beginnings one always starts with, “How would a god not do it?” How do you know what God would do… in any situation?
    A lttle presumptuous , yes? Find out more of who God is and what He expects of you? Then you will see more clearly to judge His handywork.
    You may discover He just wants you to accept His Son for what He’s
    done for you so you will have heaven to look forward to!

  11. Edward Falzon December 2, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Hi Truth_Seeker H, perhaps I can help.

    1. Females came about the same ways as males. Early life self-replicated and over time, most divided into male & female versions. Males didn’t start first, waiting around for females to appear. Males, in fact, are simply mutated females, even in humans. This is why we have nipples and mammary glands. So females were first.

    2. We’re not the only thing with consciousness. Animals of all kinds have varying types of consciousness. Monkeys love, hate, fight, make up, imagine, plan and so on. Elephants work together to help each other and have funereal rituals for their dead. Some animals even practice basic farming! It’s quite fascinating, actually.

    3. Everything alive today evolved from something that no longer exists. But some fish came out of the sea, and some didn’t. The ones that stayed didn’t have any need to change their appendages for land, and so such changes were not beneficial to the species. This is the same for all moments when a population divides for any reason. Once they divide, different mutations will have different benefits (or harm) to different populations.

    4. Both hate and love, along with family bonding, group solidarity, rape, gang warfare, theft, mourning, infanticide, cheating on a spouse and every other “human” emotion are found throughout the animal kingdom. Also quite fascinating. :-)

    Hope that helps.

    Edward.

  12. John Bebbington December 2, 2010 at 12:09 pm #

    Truth -seeker:

    1. A better question would be “explain how males came about”. If I could answer this question then I could explain why I have nipples. How sex arose remains as much a mystery as the real name of Jack the Ripper but not knowing either means neither that sex is not a product of evolution nor that Jack the Ripper did not exist.

    2. We are not the only creatures with consciousness.

    3. Without bacteria we could not live. It is postulated that some 99% of the DNA in and on our body is bacterial as is some 90% of our cells.

    Just because some independent populations of bacteria evolved into more complex forms over time does not require all populations to have done so. Perhaps you could advise which element of evolutionary theory requires all life forms to “change” into other life forms.

    And why are there still fish? Well, there aren’t any fish anymore. Or at any rate, there aren’t any species of fish around today which swam in the seas of a hundred million years ago. Modern fish are evolved descendants of such populations.

    4. Hate and love have proved useful emotional responses enabling survival. If you wish to protect your lands from foreign hordes then, for the survival of your family/village/clan/state, you need to hate your foes sufficiently to prompt you to be prepared to risk death to keep what is yours. On the other hand, if you wish to raise a family to maturity, love of wife/children/clan/state is a useful foundation on which to do it. I fail to see any evolutionary barrier to the development of such effective tools. Perhaps you could let us have your reasons for insisting that hate and love have to be created rather than developed.

  13. Mr T December 2, 2010 at 2:49 pm #

    “These (index) fossils have been found in the supposed order in those twenty-six places.” (not the layers as has been interpreted in others replies)

    For those questioning the statistics, its far more complex than 12!.
    The sample size of index fossils at the 26 locations is not 12.

    YECs claim that the flood’s Hydrolical Sorting (of water and lava) explains layers in geology. The St Helen’s eruption provides interesting modern day evidence. In contrast, the fossil grave yards will be sorted partially by size and partially by habitat location, on top of random processes during the flood.

    I was confused by the claim that no fossil can be used as evidence of ancestry. Until it clicked, the fossils are the ones that didn’t make it on to Noah’s life boat, and our ancestral survivors didn’t fossilise upon death.

  14. Alfred Russell Wallace December 2, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    >>>If you believe in evolution, explain this to me:
    The process of the theory is: one big bang -> planets -> -> simple cell -> photosynthesis -> complex cell -> multicellular life ->->fish -> humans
    1. Explain how female came about?
    2. Explain how we are the only living thing on earth with a consciousness?
    3. Explain why there are still bacteria, fish. Did some stages/plants/animals not evolve, if not why not?
    4. Explain HATE and LOVE?

    Your first point: Evolution says nothing about the Big Bang and has nothing to do with it. Simple cells become more complex because multicellular organisms survived better than unicellular organism. Photosynthesis? the process of converting solar energy into sugars? How is this explained by theism?

    1. ( I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED THIS) The coolest example of early evolution is the how the MALE came about. (yes that’s right, females cells are the original). Large cells with a need to share information to generate new cells (ala Meiosis), required the exchange of information. A mutation in the unicellular genes produced a cell that moved extremely quickly. This cell could provide genetic information to all the larger cells. In this scenario, female cells are the larger, harder to move producers of meiosis whereas the males are the speedier exchangers of information. Females, as a sex, were here before males. A more present day example of the early males and females would be the egg and sperm involved in sexual selection.

    2. We aren’t the only living thing with a consciousness. The great apes are self-aware. Many studies validate this, when they look at themselves in a mirror, they identify the image as themselves. They have that higher understanding. Try the same experiment with a cat or dog, they can’t distinguish that it isn’t them.

    3. Okay, you need to understand that evolution is a tree, not a conveyor belt. The tree can spread in many directions and some branches no longer diverge. For example, the scorpion was one of the first land invertebrates 600 million years ago, and it still exists as a species.

    4. Both Hate and love are part of hindbrain functions of the amygdala. This has nothing to do with evolution, but the parts of recognition involved with love and hate are based in the lower parts of the brain. Interesting brain deficiency is Capgras Delusion. It exists when a person thinks their mother and father are imposters. They recognize that they look EXACTLY like their parents, but doesn’t actually believe them to be their parents. Why? Because there is a severing of connection between the recognition areas in the occipital lobe (vision), and the amygdala (emotions). So because someone doesn’t feel an emotion when seeing their mother or father, they rationalize the situation and believe them to be imposters.

  15. Don Carr December 2, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    No comment other than:

    Dr. Hovind has earned a 100% grade in exposing “evolution theory – as portayed,” as a hoax.

    I do not see the need to engage in details.

    There is something called “consciousness evolution;” however…

  16. Caleb Fielding December 2, 2010 at 5:43 pm #

    Alex M

    First of all, claiming that there’s “thousands” of places where the pattern doesn’t hold is futile. Please name at least twenty six places where the index fossils are out of order, or else your blog post was mostly a lie.

    00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    I dont know about 26 places but there were fossilized sea shells all over my yard growing up. You didnt have to dig far at all to find them (before I went fishing at my neighbors pond I had to dig for worms, sea shells kept getting in the way). So sea shells at the top layer would seem to say that the pattern doesnt hold true.

  17. Caleb Fielding December 2, 2010 at 5:52 pm #

    Duane

    You do realize, if you had been born in the Near East you would be saying the same thing about Allah. Lucky for you that you were born in the countries with the “right” religion.

    0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    Uh no. You really ought to get out more. I have a sunday school teacher of mine who full time goes to the near east and gives the gospel to people. Since in some of those countries they execute people who are not muslim, the christian community does not build mega churches, but the persecution of the church does tend to make it grow quickly. There are tens of thousands of christians in every country in the near east. if you dont know about them that shows your lack of effort.

  18. Carl M December 2, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    @ Truth Seeker

    Let’s open by saying your definition of “evolution” is incorrect. Evolution Theory deals with living systems. That is all. The history timeline you describe crosses many theories and science fields.

    1) You have misunderstood basic biology. It is the male which is unique and the male specialised role is to distribute DNA without the burden of gestation. Ever wonder why men have nipples?

    2) Did you mean to say conscience? The ability to understand ethics? Most primates and many mammals also have this ability. It’s a behavioural trait necessary for social organisms, that is, the ability to understand the behaviour of others. The process works by the brain mirroring the behaviour it observes as though it is experiencing it. If you observe pain, the pain centers of your brain light up.

    3) Evolution does not require extinction of parent populations. Evolution requires an accumulation of genetic potential (mutations) and a niche opportunity to succeed (natural selection, sexual selection, etc). If neither of these occur the population will remain unchanged.

    4) Love and hate? From a biological perspective, bonding and anti-bonding behaviours.

  19. H. Bosma December 3, 2010 at 4:56 am #

    @ Truth_Seeker H
    Your post firstly and foremost shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution.

    The theory starts with life and not the origin of the earth. It explains how the diversity of life came into being.

    Your Questions
    1. male and female are the result of sexual reproduction. From sexual reproduction with no dedicated sexes (which is still used by the majority of plants, and many “lower” animal forms), to sexual reproduction where individuals can become *either* male or female, to sexual reproduction with dedicated sexes (male and female).

    2. We are not. Chimpanzees and Dolphins have consciousness. It’s most probably a feature of a large brain capacity.

    3. Why not? Evolution does not mean organisms disappear. If an organisms is well adapted to its environment and the environment is relatively stable, then it will survive.
    This is just a question showing you do not understand ecology and evolution.

    4. What does that have to do with evolution. Emotion is a brain function and is seen in other animals too.

    Please first look into what evolutions really is, before you attack it.

  20. andrew Ryan December 3, 2010 at 6:45 am #

    Truth_seeker H:
    “The process of the theory is: one big bang”

    The Big Bang predates biology and has nothing to do with evolution.

    “Explain how female came about?”
    Why not just go to a library and get a book out on this subject?

    “Explain how we are the only living thing on earth with a consciousness?”
    a) How do you know that we ARE? b) why would this be a problem for the theory ever if we were?

    “Explain why there are still bacteria, fish. Did some stages/plants/animals not evolve, if not why not?”
    Again, what in the theory of natural selection suggests that we wouldn’t have bacteria and fish? Yes, bacteria evolve all the time. Have a look at Richard Lenski’s long running experiments.

    “Explain HATE and LOVE”
    What’s to explain? Again, what about these emotions contradicts natural selection. Humans love other humans, and are therefore more likely not to kill them and are more likely to reproduce with them. In other words, love aids the survival of the species and would therefore be favoured by natural selection.

    As I said, Truth Seeker, if you are genuinely interested in learning more about science, get yourself a decent book out of your local library. If they don’t stock any, consider investing a little cash in educating yourself.

  21. Duane December 3, 2010 at 9:20 am #

    @Caleb Fielding December 2nd at 5:52 pm
    You said:
    Duane

    You do realize, if you had been born in the Near East you would be saying the same thing about Allah. Lucky for you that you were born in the countries with the “right” religion.

    0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    Uh no. You really ought to get out more. I have a sunday school teacher of mine who full time goes to the near east and gives the gospel to people. Since in some of those countries they execute people who are not muslim, the christian community does not build mega churches, but the persecution of the church does tend to make it grow quickly. There are tens of thousands of christians in every country in the near east. if you dont know about them that shows your lack of effort.”

    How does that invalidate anything I said? A few thousand hidden Christians notwithstanding, if you were born in that part of the world chances are you would be Muslim.

  22. Alex M December 3, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    @Caleb Fielding

    “So sea shells at the top layer would seem to say that the pattern doesnt hold true.”
    ———————–

    You’re misunderstanding the pattern. The geological column is all about RELATIVE position of the layers, with respect to one another. I’ll go though the math.

    You found one geological layer. The probability of doing that is of course 1 factorial, or 1 in 1. Simple right? Ok, so now let’s say you dig even more and you find a second layer. There’s a 50/50 chance that in the Geological column, the second layer you find will be older than the first or younger than the first. If it turns out older, then our geologic column works. Continuing to dig deeper, you will likely find older and older layers as indicated by index fossils/radiodating/magnetic field dating/etc etc.

    The point is that erosion happens all the time and everywhere. Plate tectonics can move what used to be an ocean floor to make mile-high mountains (ex. everest). Expecting the top layer to be the one laid down last tuesday is ignorant of the geological processes that the earth goes through.

    hope that cleared it up.
    Best,
    Alex M

  23. Stephen Holshouser December 3, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    Duane

    You said, “The United States specifically put in its Constitution separations to stem the abuse of religion on government and people. There is specifically no religious test to hold office and the government is not allowed to support religion.”

    Separation of church and state is designed specifically to keep the government from controlling the church, not so Christian principles and morals would have no influence in the government or government officials. The founders knew that if Christian principles and morals were ever lost, we would lose our Republic… kind of like what is happening now. The further away you get from Biblically-practiced Christianity, the closer you get to communism.
    ————————–

    You said, “The only thing Communism has to do with atheism is that they realized there was no God and created a system to control its citizens in place of religion….”

    You’ve just admitted that communism is the direct and logical result of atheism. That is always what atheism leads to… and I think we all know how well that works out.
    —————————-

    You said of atheism, “Atheism is not a world view, it is a stand on a single position.”

    Yes; a stand that dictates how you view the whole world.
    ——————————

    You said of atheism, “Atheism is not a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.” and then of believers, “Faith is your “tell”. It lets the rest of us know that despite how sincere you appear, you are just hoping that it is all true.”

    Right. “The universe created itself from nothing” is completely testable, observable, demonstrable, and logical… it doesn’t require any faith or religion at all… just keep telling yourself that. The phrase “most scientists believe” is your “tell” that lets the rest of us know that despite how sincere you appear, you are just hoping that it is all true.
    ——————————-

    You said, “You do realize, if you had been born in the Near East you would be saying the same thing about Allah. Lucky for you that you were born in the countries with the “right” religion…. ..You’ve taken an ancient superstition handed to you by accident of Geography and kept it alive…”

    No, many thousands of people grow up and reject the dominant religion (or lack thereof) of their birthplace, family or country and change religions or lose religion… Your heritage doesn’t always dictate why and what you believe. But you are right about one thing, it is “lucky” for you if you were born in a country with Christianity prevailing… otherwise you would be barely scraping by with your comrads or possibly much worse for being the infidel that you are if you were somewhere else.
    ————————–

    You said, “If I do, or did any of those things[the list of sins mentioned above], then that’s another issue. What I don’t need redemption for is an alleged event 6000 years ago by a remote ancestor who was a victim of entrapment and peer pressure. Again, you are simply spouting the company line about how I am a wretch and need His redemption. All it takes is accepting Him…and giving Him 10% of my income, and attaching all of my self worth to a set of superstitious rituals… ”

    Duane, after listening to you, I am convinced that you, in fact, do believe in God… you just don’t like Him and what He is doing and would much rather be you own king. This is the unforntunate and default mindset of all of us that come into the world, and it is precisely because of Adam’s sin, whether you like it or not. You being reconciled to God does not require 10% of your income… however, He has given you 100% of what you have and the strength and abilities to obtain it… therefore, believers are charitable to their church or other good causes… not to stay in “good standing,” but as an expression of obedience and gratitude for what great love has been shown to them. We can’t minister to God Himself, so we minister to those here on earth.
    Duane, I am praying for you because I know first hand what it is like to be bound by sin, self and Satan and not even know it. If you don’t like the idea of Adam’s sin being imputed to you, you still have your own purposeful,willful, flagrant trespasses that not only harm those around you, but that also separate you from the Creator that owns you and gives you everything that you enjoy. The wages of sin is always death, but the gift of God thru the Person, life, and perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ is eternal life… I don’t want any of your money, just for you to seek the Lord while He may be found.

    May the Lord bless you

  24. Stephen Holshouser December 3, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    Edward F, John B, Alf W, Carl m, H bosma, Andrew R,

    Regarding the origin of male and female;

    Your explanations are nothing more than unproven fairy tales that you swallowed from someone else who had no idea either… and I’m gullible for believing in a literal Genesis??

    The ONLY reason anything can be male or female is because it is genetically programmed to be that… (well, except for the surgical reason, which I can’t believe I even have to mention as an exception… I guess I should say “the ONLY NATURAL reason for male and female is the genetic code…”). In the real world, not fairy tale land, cells and animals just can’t become male or female unless it is already in their gene code. Things just can’t decide to change their gene codes all of a sudden. Some animals have the ability to change sexual function, but that is only because it is already in their gene code to be able to… and this is true for every single one of its ancestors. Physically, you are ONLY what your genes say you are, and this has been true from the very first parent of any life form, period.

    The different male and female organs all have homologous parts in the opposite sex. For every sinlge part of the body you get some genetic info from your mother and some from your father. The sex of the baby, though already determined at fertilization by a Y or X chromosome, developes after the nipple line arises, and therefore, men retain nipples… it is simply a matter of embryological developement. Think about it… if God did not, from the very beginning, design men with nipples, what would the female’s side of the DNA combine with in the male? The genetic info for nipples has to be in men for it to be in the next generation of females… that’s why men have them… you see, the Lord knows what He is doing.

  25. andrew Ryan December 3, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    John Duncan: “I personally don’t have a lot of science ed. from schools, which is ao good thing. This frees me to think objectively.”

    If you say so John. Only in the way that not speaking French gives you an advantage in reviewing untranslated Proust.

    You ask where the past hundred thousand years of bones have gone. Go open up a coffin from a few HUNDRED years ago and you’ll find the bones have disintegrated. Bones are just carbon – they get buried and they become part of the soil. And no, fossils are not made of bone.

  26. Caleb Fielding December 3, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    You’re misunderstanding the pattern. The geological column is all about RELATIVE position of the layers, with respect to one another. I’ll go though the math.

    ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    I understand that. It is kinda funny to me that some of these guys are saying that all 12 layers have to be in place when everyone knows that you may only have a few of those layers. Heck you only have to have three in a mixed up order to prove it wrong. not all twelve.

    ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    You found one geological layer. The probability of doing that is of course 1 factorial, or 1 in 1. Simple right? Ok, so now let’s say you dig even more and you find a second layer. There’s a 50/50 chance that in the Geological column, the second layer you find will be older than the first or younger than the first. If it turns out older, then our geologic column works. Continuing to dig deeper, you will likely find older and older layers as indicated by index fossils/radiodating/magnetic field dating/etc etc.

    The point is that erosion happens all the time and everywhere. Plate tectonics can move what used to be an ocean floor to make mile-high mountains (ex. everest). Expecting the top layer to be the one laid down last tuesday is ignorant of the geological processes that the earth goes through.

    ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    are you suggesting that the top layer is not always newer than the layer under it?

  27. Duane December 3, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    @Stephen Holshouser December 3rd at 10:37 am

    “Duane

    You said, “The United States specifically put in its Constitution separations to stem the abuse of religion on government and people. There is specifically no religious test to hold office and the government is not allowed to support religion.”

    Separation of church and state is designed specifically to keep the government from controlling the church, not so Christian principles and morals would have no influence in the government or government officials. The founders knew that if Christian principles and morals were ever lost, we would lose our Republic, kind of like what is happening now. The further away you get from Biblically-practiced Christianity, the closer you get to communism.”

    [[The United States has rules specifically designed to prevent religious control or control of religion. It is not a one-way street. This is a secular government. Many original State charters established official religions and the Federal gov't wanted to avoid that abuse. Christian ideals rapidly become taliban-esque when actually allowed to rule with any real power. ]]

    You said, “The only thing Communism has to do with atheism is that they realized there was no God and created a system to control its citizens in place of religion”.

    You’ve just admitted that communism is the direct and logical result of atheism. That is always what atheism leads to, and I think we all know how well that works out.

    [[What I admitted to was that Religion is a method of controlling people through false claims and exaggerated promises. The Marxists realized this and just inserted themselves in place of religion to control. Regardless, even if Atheism led directly to Communism (it doesn't), it STILL doesn't make God real. And before you bring up such emotionalism as accusing us of communism (fallacy of consequence) remember you have centuries of witch burnings and inquisitions that had to do DIRECTLY with Christian Biblical teaching. Every time some idiot states that hurricanes are caused by a sinning populous, that is a continuation of that kind of thinking and shows it is secular reason that prevents you from still burning witches.]]

    You said of atheism, “Atheism is not a world view, it is a stand on a single position.”

    Yes; a stand that dictates how you view the whole world.

    [[What, that my view of the world reflects reality and not fantasy?]]

    You said of atheism, “Atheism is not a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.” and then of believers, “Faith is your “tell”. It lets the rest of us know that despite how sincere you appear, you are just hoping that it is all true.”

    Right. “The universe created itself from nothing” is completely testable, observable, demonstrable, and logical, it doesn’t require any faith or religion at all, just keep telling yourself that. The phrase “most scientists believe” is your “tell” that lets the rest of us know that despite how sincere you appear, you are just hoping that it is all true.

    [[That's right!! Welcome to your first lesson in reality. Truth is, we don't have an absolute grasp on everything. All science is provisional. if a better explanation comes along then we are willing to chuck out the old. Look at Newton and Einstein! Only religion claims to have absolute answers, when they are really just baseless assertions. At least science reflects evidence. And for the millionth time, the absolute origin is something that might forever be beyond anyone's reach. Science only explains what happened after the first instant, not what caused the instant. There are theoretical hypotheses, but no one knows for sure. It is disengenuous to keep ridiculing "something from nothing" when your belief is precisely that. Saying Goddidit, does not make it somehow different. You believe a magic man (who came from nothing) made everything from nothing. It's like Hovind's ridiculous mocking assertion that scientists believe we came from rocks when he claims it was from dirt (which is eroded rocks). There's a trite phrase about pots and kettles that comes to mind.]]

    You said, “You do realize, if you had been born in the Near East you would be saying the same thing about Allah. Lucky for you that you were born in the countries with the “right” religion.. ..You’ve taken an ancient superstition handed to you by accident of Geography and kept it alive”

    No, many thousands of people grow up and reject the dominant religion (or lack thereof) of their birthplace, family or country and change religions or lose religion, Your heritage doesn’t always dictate why and what you believe. But you are right about one thing, it is “lucky” for you if you were born in a country with Christianity prevailing, otherwise you would be barely scraping by with your comrads or possibly much worse for being the infidel that you are if you were somewhere else.

    [[There are a billion muslims. If you were born in that region, chances are you would have been one. Pointing out a small exception does not invalidate what I said. You live in a culture that says your religion is true. Others live in cultures that say theirs is true. You are just another.]]

    You said, “If I do, or did any of those things[the list of sins mentioned above], then that’s another issue. What I don’t need redemption for is an alleged event 6000 years ago by a remote ancestor who was a victim of entrapment and peer pressure. Again, you are simply spouting the company line about how I am a wretch and need His redemption. All it takes is accepting Him, and giving Him 10% of my income, and attaching all of my self worth to a set of superstitious rituals”

    Duane, after listening to you, I am convinced that you, in fact, do believe in God, you just don’t like Him and what He is doing and would much rather be you own king. This is the unforntunate and default mindset of all of us that come into the world, and it is precisely because of Adam’s sin, whether you like it or not. You being reconciled to God does not require 10% of your income, however, He has given you 100% of what you have and the strength and abilities to obtain it, therefore, believers are charitable to their church or other good causes, not to stay in “good standing,” but as an expression of obedience and gratitude for what great love has been shown to them. We can’t minister to God Himself, so we minister to those here on earth.
    Duane, I am praying for you because I know first hand what it is like to be bound by sin, self and Satan and not even know it. If you don’t like the idea of Adam’s sin being imputed to you, you still have your own purposeful,willful, flagrant trespasses that not only harm those around you, but that also separate you from the Creator that owns you and gives you everything that you enjoy. The wages of sin is always death, but the gift of God thru the Person, life, and perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ is eternal life, I don’t want any of your money, just for you to seek the Lord while He may be found.

    May the Lord bless you
    [[More projecting. Again, Adam was not real. It is an ancient JustSo story. Women were not created from the rib of a man. You might as well be preaching to me about Santa Claus or the Great Pumpkin. You pray for me, I'll think for you.]]

  28. Chase Braud December 4, 2010 at 12:08 am #

    Those of you saying that the layers are in order with there ages, have already made a huge mistake. Due to the fact that you are only accepting the possibility that the ages are old, when it is very likely that the Earth is actually young and you are either ignorant as a product of what you were taught or as a product of your own self-denial. Also, if all you are going to do here is argue against every post using your BELIEFS that the Creationists do not follow, then you are not making any progress. As a Christian I believe Jesus is the Messiah, but do you think I could convinvce a logical follower of Judaism this and convert that person by simply saying that this is my belief so it must be true? Please, if you choose Evolution as your religion, then go to an Evolution blog to discuss evidence with your beliefs, not a Creation site. It seems that these kind of people simply thrive off of argument and debate, the sad fact is they are wasting there lives and only failing to hurt the faith of those who visit this blog because we recognize the “science” they use to defend their beliefs as also being nothing but another part of the BELIEF they defend! In short, you can’t defend your religion and beliefs with your religion and beliefs, it just doesn’t work that way. If ever you guys are in court, tell the judge and jury you MUST be innocent because you believe your friend, who believes you are innocent. Honestly, I don’t know if the judge could ever get the laughter to quite down.

  29. Chase Braud December 4, 2010 at 12:16 am #

    By the way, tithing isn’t mandatory (Not in my church at least) and it is not supossed to be. We tithe because we love God and His word and His sacrifice he gave to us. In other words, we give a little but if our money/time to the church we attend because we want our church to have the finances it needs to continue its work. Unforutnately, I admit there are many churches whose soul purpose these days seems to be to preach whatever works to get people in their churches chairs and paying THEM a bunch of money, which in turn goes to fancy screens, elaborate buildings, and the such; while all the while that money could have been used to help those in poverty and to spread his TRUE word.

  30. Chase Braud December 4, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    On the subject of Islam and which religion is true (Since I am on a role any way.) ( ; It is obvious that the Quran is nothing more than a mere mockery of the Bible, in which it closely resembles the Bible on many EXCEPT the IMPORTANT ones. For example, the Bible teaches to love your enemies and to remain humble to them, only hating their sin; while the Quran teaches to kill the infidels (Infidels meaning non-islamic). On a note about Mohammed, author of the Quran, I can say this. He was born in the 5th century, longer after the Bible and ascention of Jesus Christ. Before he began his Islam he first went to the Jews and claimed to be the Messiah, the Jews basically said to get the heck outta here dude. Then, he went to the Christians and claimed to be Jesus in the returning for the second coming, and of course, he was DENIED. At one point in his life he was experiencing “convulsions” and at first thought he was being posessed by Satan and his demons, until Mohammed’s wife convinced him it was actually God. From that point, Mohammed wrote the Quran which when read is obviously the Bible, merely re-written with all the important things in it changed to Satanic and violent ways instead of peaceful and loving. For example, the account of creation reads to be the same for the most part in the Quran. The two major changes is the replacement of Jesus with Mohammed’s own self and God with Allah (who was orginally and falsely worshiped as a pagan god of the moon). In fact, more followers of Islam are accepting Jesus Christ and the truth than ever before, as foretolf in the Bible. And all the Evolutionists in the world can’t explain how everything that has happened to Israel and everything that Israel has done could have possibly worked out just how it said in the Bible unless it was the will of God. Honestly, even if the Bible hadn’t foretold us this we would see it as an act of God! Just consider the odds for a moment! 100 muslims to 1 Jew and the Jews won, even without the tanks and modern technology the muslims had and recieved from Russia (also foretold in the Bible). In fact, the only weopons the Jews had were the very few weapons they got from the very few British soldiers they had to fight and kill before the muslims in order to take their land, the weopns they managed to just put together themselves (makeshift spears and knives and such I would guess), and the guns they took off the bodies of the dead muslims they killed. Not only did they win the fight, but took more land as well! And pretty much the same thing happened a couple more times and will probably happen again!

  31. Mark James December 5, 2010 at 4:09 am #

    Hi Edward, John and Alex,

    This is off topic, I know, but you’ve quoted some big numbers and big numbers interest me.

    The probability that even one protein formed by chance absolutely dwarfs the numbers you have quoted. Take haemoglobin as an example. Using the 20 amino acids required for life, there is only one specific sequence of 574 amino acids that is haemoglobin. The probability of this happening by chance is approximately 1 in 10^650. And this assumes that all 20 amino acids are already available, that all are available as left handed isomers only, (which adds a 1 in 2 chance to every amino acid) and that all the bonds between the amino acids are peptide bonds (which adds a 1 in 2 chance to every bond)!

    To put this in perspective, the most recent estimates suggest that there is a maximum of 10^80 atoms in the entire universe! And remember, we are talking about the probability of just one protein forming by chance when there are more than 100,000 functional proteins observed. Then there is the information in the cell that codes for these proteins and the machines that read the code and manufacture them, etc, etc.

    And time doesn’t make this any easier. If you assume that the universe is 20 billion years old, this all has to have been produced by chance in just 10^17 seconds.

    The evidence for design is overwhelming.

  32. Ryan Vinter December 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    I think people are asking the wrong question regarding to the layers of the “geologic column”. The real question is not realy WHEN they formed it is HOW they formed, if one layer sat there for “100 million years” or whatever, should they show signs of erosion form wind , water etc? why are they so tidy? why is there no dirt and dust on them?

    I think the layers formed with the help of moving water, science that we can do today and replicate the layers. “100 million years” is not testable and should not qualify as real science. You have to understand that any amount of time is faith based. I tend to lean toward young earth creation as it is a better testable science.

  33. Truth_Seeker H December 6, 2010 at 6:35 am #

    Thanks for the different theories please explain this one:

    Mutation, why in 6000 documented years of the Human race did no one ever had a monkey tail or any part for that matter?
    By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation, even if synergistic epistasis/truncation selection occurs to sufficiently mitigate the deterioration problem, you still need beneficial mutation fixation to outpace harmful mutation fixation in the eventual survivors. This is unfathomable considering that 40 conceptions are needed just to get an offspring without one of these incremental deteriorating steps. You simply cannot evolve new organs and features when negative hits are outpacing positive ones with such force.
    If the deleterious mutation rate is indeed as high as 3 per individual, not only would it thwart the evolutionary scenario of chimp/man common ancestry, it would clearly argue for a recent creation of man. To illustrate this, let’s start with a simple model where we will assume heterozygosity throughout the generations (this essentially means no inbreeding), using the rate of 3 harmful mutations per individual. Each generation, offspring will inherit on average 3 harmful mutations from the parents (half of 3 from the mother, half of 3 from the father), plus 3 new mutations during the reproduction process. The number of mutations in each offspring after x generations is U * x, where U is the mutation rate. Using the standard population genetics assumption of 25 years per generation, there are 240 generations in 6000 years. So, 3 * 240 = 720 mutations per individual after 6000 years. This isn’t too severe considering the size of the active genome, where we have an estimated 80,000 genes, averaging about 1500 base pairs per gene. So 720 mutations spread over the genome amounts to about one mutation per 111 genes. However, if we use the evolutionist’s estimated time since the split between ape and man of 6 million years, we get 720,000 bad mutations, or about 9 mutations per gene! We would more resemble a snail than a human!

  34. Chase Braud December 6, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    Mark James huh? That’s an interesting name. Well, I must say sir I do most certainly like your math! Keep it up.

  35. Duane December 7, 2010 at 8:55 am #

    @Mark James December 5th at 4:09 am

    “This is off topic, I know, but you’ve quoted some big numbers and big numbers interest me.

    The probability that even one protein formed by chance absolutely dwarfs the numbers you have quoted. Take haemoglobin as an example. Using the 20 amino acids required for life, there is only one specific sequence of 574 amino acids that is haemoglobin. The probability of this happening by chance is approximately 1 in 10^650. And this assumes that all 20 amino acids are already available, that all are available as left handed isomers only, (which adds a 1 in 2 chance to every amino acid) and that all the bonds between the amino acids are peptide bonds (which adds a 1 in 2 chance to every bond)!

    To put this in perspective, the most recent estimates suggest that there is a maximum of 10^80 atoms in the entire universe! And remember, we are talking about the probability of just one protein forming by chance when there are more than 100,000 functional proteins observed. Then there is the information in the cell that codes for these proteins and the machines that read the code and manufacture them, etc, etc.

    And time doesn’t make this any easier. If you assume that the universe is 20 billion years old, this all has to have been produced by chance in just 10^17 seconds.

    The evidence for design is overwhelming.”

    [[Nonsense. I've seen the source for that info and it is misguided. Hemoglobin is only found in multicellular organisms, so it is a recent molecule. No one alleges that it arose by chance, nor does it resemble what must have been the earliest lifeforms. The earliest lifeforms were simple unicells and complex molecules such as hemoglobin develop incrementally in multicellular organisms through natural selection. Plus, those numbers presume that hemoglobin is the aim without considering that such complex forms such as that arrive incrementally, and earlier versions might have been useful for other purposes. ]]

    @Chase Braud December 4th at 12:16 am

    “By the way, tithing isn’t mandatory (Not in my church at least) and it is not supossed to be. We tithe because we love God and His word and His sacrifice he gave to us.”

    [[OK, try this. Put your tithes in a separate account and see how long before it gets noticed you aren't paying. "Brother Chase, we noticed you aren't tithing. Is there a problem?" I can't tell you how long because I don't know the size of your church or how impersonal they are.]]

    “Please, if you choose Evolution as your religion, then go to an Evolution blog to discuss evidence with your beliefs, not a Creation site. It seems that these kind of people simply thrive off of argument and debate, the sad fact is they are wasting there lives and only failing to hurt the faith of those who visit this blog because we recognize the “science” they use to defend their beliefs as also being nothing but another part of the BELIEF they defend! ”

    I don’t go to Christian sites and tell Christians they are deluded. What is happening on this site is different. Hovind is purporting to teach science, but what he is teaching is his own deluded mishmash of bad science and ancient mythology. He is making an effort to get this nonsense tought in schools alongside or in place of actual science. Hovind is a talented orator, but he is not a scientist. He doesn’t care if what he teaches is accurate. One of the themes I have been putting forth is that Christianity/religion teaches followers from a young age to trust that it is true without any proof and to trust those that purport to be Christians. Look at the emphasis on Faith and the constant assertion of Truth, Truth and more Truth. If they can get you to believe in miracles and magic and the supernatural without question, then you are primed to believe anything and pay anything. Do you think Hovind vets any of the information he puts forth? No, if the source appears to be Christian then he accepts what they say at face value, not that he has the qualifications to know good science from bad. He used to teach about the New World Order, FEMA, the Tri-Lateral commission and the Council on Foreign Relations and how they were planning on taking over the world in the upcoming year 2000. Oops, missed that one.

    Take what it is Hovind is teaching. We’re not talking some vague First Cause here. He literally believes a 6 day creation, that the world is only 6000 years old, that all animals were vegetarian (including predators), that it didn’t rain for the first 2000 years (approx), that the atmosphere supported oceans of water (which would have had us under enormous pressure and heat) and more oceans beneath the crust (which again, would have been boiling), that dinosaurs still live today and were in the Bible, that some were fire-breathing dragons, and more nonsense.

    We understand much about the way reality works. There are also things we don’t understand. That there are unexplained things is not a commercial for religion. We live in a natural world. What is more likely? Outside of the ultimate origin (of which we may never actually know), is it more likely that everything we know formed through the natural processes we witness everyday and that we have evidence of always happening, or the magical folkloric ravings of a pre-scientific culture passed down orally for hundreds of years? There’s nothing special about the Hebrew culture. Nothing more special than Greek, or Chinese or Aztec or any other ancient culture. They all have their mystical pasts from days before the world was understood. ]]

  36. Duane December 7, 2010 at 9:17 am #

    “John Duncan December 2nd at 11:23 am

    I personally don’t have a lot of science ed. from schools, which is ao good thing. This frees me to think objectively.
    See, since most all of your positions come from flawed sources,
    or biased propaganda, your assumptions, (answers ).., will be likewise.”

    This amuses me. Lack of science education does not free you to think objectively, it means you don’t have the basic understandings necessary to evaluate facts. Oh, and “Biased Propaganda”. Is bias anything like taking a 2500 year old book of folklore, proclaiming it to be true (without testing or any proof whatsoever) because it says it’s true, then deciding to discard all evidence that disagrees with said book as error? Oh, and believe this or you’ll go to Hell, so join our group and get saved. Does that sound anything like propaganda?

  37. Mark James December 8, 2010 at 4:31 am #

    Hi Duane,

    Surely you realise that natural selection does not make anything new, it only selects what is already there(?) The incremental changes you allude to can only be the result of random processes, which by definition assumes chance.

    Far from there being ‘no-one who alleges’ this, everyone who believes in (and understands) the theory of evolution has to insist that it is true! The alternative is to tacitly admit that there is a designer.

  38. Mark James December 8, 2010 at 5:21 am #

    Hi Duane (again),

    Haemoglobin was the example I used but it could easily have been any one of the approx. 100,000 functional proteins observed in nature, some of which have specific sequences of up to 2000 amino acids!

    You and I are not that different – I used to believe in evolution and would vehemently reject any evidence that called it into question. But I have found the evidence for design in the cell absolutely compelling. As hard as it was to do, I had to swallow my pride and admit that I was wrong. I pray that you will one day be able to put aside your preconceived ideas and examine the evidence with an open mind. You’ll be amazed at what you find.

  39. Duane December 8, 2010 at 6:56 am #

    @Truth_Seeker H December 6th at 6:35 am

    “Thanks for the different theories please explain this one:

    **Snip cut and paste from creationist website**”

    If you don’t understand the question. how would you understand the answer?