Our Websites

Questions Science Can’t Answer

For fun the other day I twittered this question: How many questions will Science never answer?

I’ll start:
Why am I here?
Your turn.

I loved the responses from Christians and the attempts to answer them by non-Christians.  Here were some great questions.  Feel free to add to the list.

  1. Why am I here?
  2. What happens when you die?
  3. What is the purpose of my life?
  4. What determines “Good” and “Evil”?
  5. Where did love come from?
  6. Why does mankind abuse and kill its own?
  7. Where did the first teeny-weeny molecule of matter come from?
  8. Does a physical world exist beyond my mind?
  9. Why are there male and female?
  10. Why does it take both sexes to create a new life?
  11. What is life?
  12. Where did laws come from?
  13. How did Time, Space and Matter come into existence?
  14. How did something come from nothing?

As I read some of the attempts to answer these questions, it became apparent that many unbelievers will say anything to avoid professing God!  Now, it is your turn to add to this list or attempt to answer some of these questions according to science.

Further Study

Absolute Truth by Eric Hovind

,

Leave67 Responses to testQuestions Science Can’t Answer

  1. John Bebbington June 10, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    Pablo wrote:

    John, are you those elements are being created or discovered?

    The elements are being created. You don’t get heat from discovering things – although you might get a little light.

    There is no problem if certain whatever is newly created, everything is already in place.

    Gibberish. Please explicate.

    Every information has a source.

    What information? There is no information in the middle of the sun of which I am aware.

    God is that source. Without God where does information come from?

    Why is the genome of an onion 5 times larger than that of a human?

    Here’s another question:
    If there is no God, how do you tell right from wrong?
    Is it the individual? Society? Other?

    Define right and wrong.

  2. Jack Napper June 10, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    Jack, last time you be mentioned that I fell in a well, you challenged me to produce evidence about evolutionary Hoaxes with names and stuff. I rose to that challenge giving you links to not one, not report, but three non Christian websites. It is foolish for you to beat that drum again.

    Perhaps you could refresh my memory as to either the links or to which blog entry you plopped them into as I don’t visit the site EVERYDAY. I’m willing to bet it’s the same old well water Creationists have be splashing about for some time.

    Here’s another question:
    If there is no God, how do you tell right from wrong?
    Is it the individual? Society? Other?

    D. All of the above to some degree.
    The old moral law/moral law giver nonsense is getting old.

  3. Jennifer Preston June 10, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    Pablo Cruz wrote:
    “Science is knowledge derived from observance, experimentation, testing, repeatable, etc.. Hypothesis has to do with a proposal of an idea, assumption, whatever.. Until the hypothesis can be proven to be a scientific fact, it remains a hypothesis, not science. These hypothesis are derived from a presuppositional assumption. ”

    Science is natures crime scene investigators. While we don’t have exact observation we work on evidence. Sre you saying no killer could ever be prosecuted unless someone actually witnessed the crime? By your standards, there should be no such thing as forensic science.

  4. Curtis Mohommed June 10, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    From Curtis Mohommed
    To atheists
    let us accept the big bang and that we do not know it’s origin.
    Let us accept infinite multiverses
    Now, if we humans were not designed by a powerful eternal being, and evolved without intelligence I.e. Evolution is not intelligent, then can you conceive of the very very numerous steps required for us to function?
    Some had to be chronological, such as carbon had to be formed first, water had to bind from hydrogen and oxygen in exactly H2O, not H3O, or O3H. Consider the permutations.

    You really believe we are here accidentally?
    Even with mutiverses, Probability proves you are wrong.
    It does not prove God did it, but it proves design, not accident or randomness

  5. Stephen Holshouser June 10, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    John B,

    I wrote:
    Out of your “great many examples of primitive organisms without rudimentary nervous systems which have evolved cells, please list ONE, specifically. I am afraid that what you consider to be the most simple, rudimentary senses are, indeed, vastly complex.

    You answered:
    “I don’t disagree, but magic isn’t involved.”

    To which I respond:
    You don’t disagree that you don’t have one such example, or that even the simplest senses are highly complex? In this instance, is your definition of “magic” God creating organisms fully formed in a relatively short amount of time?
    ######################################

    I asked you:
    Are you asserting that the many different parts of the sensory systems gradually evolved with no apparent use until one day it all finally came together to be of use to the creature?

    You answered:
    “Absolutely not. Your misunderstanding is in assuming that a simpler precursor to a modern structure can be of no use to the structure’s precursor. Just because my brain is more developed than that of a bee doesn’t mean that a bee’s brain isn’t perfectly adequate for the use to which it is put. Just because a 1920’s car engine wasn’t as complex or efficient as that of a modern car does not mean it was useless.”

    To which I respond:
    Which species of bee? But seriously now, the problem with your argument is that even with your examples of simpler things, you are still using fully formed things that have all their parts functioning according to their intended use. For example; your car’s brake system would be of no value unless every component was there from the very first. There would be no benefit to having brake pads with everything else, no benefit to having brake fluid without everything else, no benefit to having a brake pedal without everything else, etc, etc. And there would be no need for brakes at all without the car itself, and no need or use for a car without the brakes. The concept is EXACTLY the same for living organisms. You can name any essential system in any living organism and apply the same logic. Life is all or nothing, John. It’s unimaginably complex, and must be complete from the first moment. You’ll be a creationist if you ponder it with an open mind. With your theory, there must be a time when there are various parts of a system that doesn’t work, and a living thing that, for some reason, contains useless parts to unworking systems. Not only could this not reproduce, it couldn’t even survive itself! It’s elementary, my dear Bebbington. And since you bring it up, consider the bee, itself, with its method of communicating to its fellow bees where food sources are, and you can only conclude that evolution is nonsense, and there of necessity must be a Creator. Also, I submit to you that your vehicle with all its designs and features had its own designer, who crafted it with forethought and planning for the intended purpose of it functioning in this world with your benefit in mind… is that too obvious to have to point out? I thought so, too.

    ######################################

    I pointed out:
    keep in mind that the organism must have a highly complex system to respond to the stimulus, otherwise the ability to detect an incoming stimulus would be USELESS (just another one of the endless chicken/egg problems for evolution)

    You answered:
    “Why useless? My car reacts to all sorts of stimuli using very simple mechanisms indeed.”

    To which I respond:
    Exactly!! What good would your impact sensors be if you did not have a mechanism to deploy your airbag? You see, neither one would have any reason to exist without the other. They would be USELESS. If you disagree, which do you think evolved first; the airbag, the airbag deployment mechanism, or the impact sensors? It’s the same with living organisms.

    ############################

    Regarding the leaning chimney; The nitty-gritty of why it happens (though interesting) is really just a distraction from the topic at hand. However, if I had to make a completely, non-google assisted guess, I would say the reason is because SO2 from the atmosphere reacting with the CaC03 more on the side of the prevailing winds becomes CaSO4 which occuppies more space, and thus expands those joints, which makes the north side taller, causing a southerly lean of the stack. (just kidding, I googled it)

    As you think about all this, Youtube “Creation sings the Father’s song by Stuart Townend.” You might enjoy it, and I think he is from your area.

  6. Jennifer Preston June 10, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    Danny wrote:

    “In no. 2, I quoted from you told us that when our electrical impulses in our brains cease we are dead, hence cease to exist. I find that amusing too. What about when science determined years back when our heart stopped we were dead?”

    Well, the electrical impulses in our brain essentially control everything going on in our body. So I think you can safely say that when the electrical impulses in our brain stop, that our heart will have stopped too. Funnily, just because you’re heart stops doesn’t mean the electrical impulses in your brain have stopped. You can restart a heart, which pumps blood to your brain to keep the electrical impulses in your brain going, but after the heart has been stopped for a while then the brain will start to switch off these electrical impulses. This is why doctors usually stop trying to resuscitate someone after about 30 minutes.

    But as soon as the electrical impulses in your brain stop, then you can safely say that everything else in your body has shut down.

  7. Randy Miller June 11, 2011 at 12:02 pm #

    This is a response to the following statement posted by Duane Hamish on June 9th.
    I quote,
    “What if Yahweh really exists and it turns out the whole Jesus thing is simply a cult that got big? You actually think a human being is God. Old Testament Yahweh would flail you alive for such blasphemy. The first commandment is you shouldn’t have gods before Him. Christianity breaks the first freaking commandment!”

    My response,
    You do not understand the WORD of God my friend.
    Christianity does not break the first commandment.
    Jesus Christ (Messiah) was prophesied in the Old Testament.
    Creator God pledged to save mankind (those who would receive salvation) through Messiah (born of the nation of Israel).
    Father God is the WORD, and by his WORD the universe was formed.
    The scriptures tell us that, “the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us.”
    Jesus is the WORD.
    Christianity fulfills the Old Testament.
    It does not contradict it.
    That you do not understand it Duane does not make it untrue,
    For the WORD of God is foolishness to those who are perishing.

    For a person who has been “born again” or awakened to try to describe the “process” to a person who has not been awakened would be like a person trying to describe the flavor of an orange to a person who has never tasted an orange.
    It cannot be done.
    One cannot understand the flavor of an orange – unless they taste for themselves.

    Duane,
    Please take a moment and consider your course …

    Sincerely,
    Randy

  8. Carl M June 11, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    Ariel June 9th at 8:52 pm

    I have a big question about the whole big bang theory, evolutionists say that everything came from nothing an that the WHOLE universe started from the explosion of “nothing. . .how can nothing explode?

    Right here is where the problem starts. The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. The Big Bang is studied by cosmologists, not biologists.

    The Big Bang was not an explosion. Rather, it was an expansion like a balloon or a cake in the oven.

    Matter and energy are the same thing. The matter of the universe condensed out of the first energy. Where did that energy come from? Cosmologists don’t know.

  9. Danny June 11, 2011 at 11:47 pm #

    Duane Hamish
    June 9th at 3:02 am

    Considering most of you in here believe CATHOLICS are going to Hell, how do you know YOU are right? What if Yahweh really exists and it turns out the whole Jesus thing is simply a cult that got big? You actually think a human being is God. Old Testament Yahweh would flail you alive for such blasphemy. The first commandment is you shouldn’t have gods before Him. Christianity breaks the first freaking commandment! Calling Jesus “God is not a loophole. That was decided by committee a couple hundred years after his death. What if God is actually Allah? What if God is Hindu? Why would God be impressed if I faked believing in Him for reward in Heaven or to avoid punishment in Hell? This is why Pascal’s Wager is worthless as an argument. And it’s still an admission that you really don’t know and are going by wishful thinking.
    Danny says,
    Even though Duane was talking to Pablo here but I would like to make a few comments on his last paragraph since I minister to R. Catholics and I study the nature of God and his name. R .Catholics are going to hell because they reject the biblical way of salvation. Mary is really “God to the R Catholics, she is really higher that God, she is the MOTHER of God even though in reality, God does NOT have a mother. He is from everlasting, that is without time, he created time for us. Anyway, you mentioned Yahweh, he is really nothing more than a “rain god that Kittel gave us. Kittel was anti-semitic, he sought to replace the true Hebrew text with his fake one, to make a long story short so I can save space here. God’s name is Yehovah in the Hebrew and Jehovah in the English.
    Think about these names in the word of God for different Hebrew people. Jehoash, Jehozabad, Jehohanan, Jehoiakim, Jehoiarib, Jehonadab, Jehonathan, Jehoseph, Jehozadak, Jehoram , Jehoshaphat. Hoped I spelled them correctly. Anyway, I wanted you to see something interesting here, the parents were naming their children with a part of God’s name, Jehovah. I could probably do 10 or so more but for space this is enough to prove my point. From Hebrew scholars that I have talked with, Yahweh is not even a Hebrew word. I don’t want to get into that at this time.
    Speaking of you getting “upset that Christians would actually call Jesus God, I would like to make a few comments there. I am working on a book and some of it is on my Page. I don’t like playing Hebrew since a lot of people get in a mess playing with a language they are not really well studied in. Anyway, the words shows me the same thing that I am about to show you with the Hebrew. God is Elohim in the Hebrew. Elohim is a plural word, keep that thought in mind. Next in certain verses God talks saying things like “let us or “who will go for us and it is usually followed by a singular form in the very next verse. I will show you one example. In Gen. 1:26,27 it says, “26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    In the very first chapter of the first book of the bible, God is showing us that his nature is plural yet singular. This gets deeper as the books come forth, by the time you are in the New Testament you see the 3 in 1 God many times over. You can check my book out, it goes a whole lot deeper than I am doing here. It is called “More than Conquerors I am not finished with the book though. I put thoughts in it at different times. There are many triunities in this world, even space is triune as we are and many other things yet we are one, space is one, etc.
    If God was Hindu, he would say so in his word and he didn’t so he isn’t. You can’t “fake believing with God, he is all knowing. He knows your thoughts before you think them. He is an incredible God. He lives outside of time, he entered time when he became a man in the Lord Jesus Christ. God decided his nature without a committee. His word came first, the committee came later. God has already described his nature in his word, he didn’t need a committee to help him.

    p>Danny Bunn

  10. Kim Sury June 12, 2011 at 12:12 am #

    I just wanted to thank Eric and Kent Hovind. I had been brain washed for 40 years untill I viewed the creation series. I was unbrain washed in about 30 min after listening to Dr. Hovind on NRB. Dr. Hovind made so much sence and everything just fit together. I am so happy that his son Eric has picked up the gaval and is carrying on God’s work to open the eyes of unbelievers. Just wanted to let you all know that your sister in Christ Yeshua loves you, and keep on keeping on ok. You guys really help with moral out here and give us so many good answers to give to the unbelievers in the world. I took a biology class at community college and tried to bring the teacher over but was unsucessfull; however, he did try to bring me over with the one piece of evidence they think they have. I still like my biology teacher but sure wish God would open his eyes. One of the scriptures that I like to use to bring the unbelievers over is the existance of the Jewish nation of Israel Almost two thousand years ago the prophet Ezekiel speaking on behalf of God spoke these words in Ezekiel 34:13: “And I will bring them out from the people and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. (Holy Bible King James Version). We need to remember the promises that the God of Abraham, Isaac , and Jacob made to the Jewish people “ I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more, neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more as before time. (Holy Bible King James Version 2 Samuel 7:10).
    I wittnessed to students at the smoke hut on campus and noticed that some of the students seemed to really think about what I learned from the creation series. When I told them about how Dr. Hovind explained that the moon is moving away from the earth at a certian rate and if you run those numbers backward that the moon would be two inchest away from the earth, or that I learned on the creation seriies that the top of the Grand Canyon is higher than were the river oringinates and that Walt Brown a physisit has a theory that there is more evidence that the basin overflowed and cut that canyon in a very short amount of time. One student actually came up with the moon bounced of the earth , smile while trying to hold on to her beilief. I tried to bring a few of the biologist over but they even stated ” you know those phsysist, they are just like that” , when I quoted the evidence and tried to tell them that even a phsysist agrees with creation science. I still love them , but was able to see God’s word coming true in them that they are willingly ignorant and refuse to look at the evidence that opposes their theory. Maybe God will show them before it is to late and they dont have any more chances to believe. Thank you Eric for continuing the work you Dad began and I pray that the two of you are up there teaching and preaching once again. Love you all ,
    In Yeshua’s love
    Kim

  11. Danny June 11, 2011 at 11:59 pm #

    I forgot to tell you that the word “one” in the Hebrew is Echad or Yachid. Maybe not spelled correctly but God is an Echad in the word of God. That is a united one and Yachid is an absolute one. God is never referred as a Yachid, that I know of. Just a little more food for thought.
    Since I am an English speaking person I like to stick with English, it teaches the same thing the Hebrew does to the English speaking people. I have shown you just a little that the God of the bible is both plural and singular in Hebrew and in English.
    You will also read in the word that a husband and wife are one flesh. They are a “united” one flesh. God is a “united” one God.

    Danny Bunn

  12. Kim Sury June 12, 2011 at 12:16 am #

    In reguards to the above comment I just posted, when I went to wittness to the biologist at community college , I felt like I had been thrown in the lions den but came out unscathed. Hopefully there was at least a seed planted in their hearts. Thank you guys so much.

  13. Danny June 12, 2011 at 3:40 am #

    Jennifer PrestonJune 7th at 3:17 pm

    Danny wrote:
    “They use the words, “could have happen, probably did happen, maybe, we think, it is possible that this happened, etc.
    Do I need to go through what a scientific theory is AGAIN? I’m not going to. I’ve gone through it enough times on this sight. But a scientific theory has to be able to be proved wrong. You can have all the evidence and observation in the world confirming a particular theory, so that the theory can be taken as true, but you always have to be able to falsify a theory. For example, for evolution, you could find a fossilised bunny in the cambrian era. As far as I’m aware, no fossilised bunnies or guinea pigs have ever been found. But just because you find something that goes against your theory does not mean that the whole thing is wrong. It may just need some tweeking. I don’t believe in evolution. I accept the evidence and conclude that it is currently our best explanation for all the facts and observations.
    But this idea of falsifying theories is exactly what pushes God and Intelligent Designer out of the science classroom. You can’t falsify God, i.e. you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.
    NOW Danny says,
    I know that John doesn’t like me quote mining but he is a scientist and I am not one. So sorry John but here we go again.
    “Given that evolution isn’t a negative argument, is it falsifiable? I think that it initially was. Darwin made all sorts of predictions, but many of them have been falsified. In order to “save evolution, however, evolutionists simply started adding caveats to “explain around the falsifying data. As a result, we now have an evolutionary theory that is so plastic it can be molded around any kind of data. This makes it not falsifiable, and thus not scientific.
    To give you an example of the flexibility of evolutionary theory, lets start with something Darwin said:
    If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.1
    Of course, there is a common example of just such a situation. Indeed, I fight this common example every spring. It is the backyard dandelion. There are many species of dandelion, and most of them reproduce sexually. However, the common backyard dandelion does not. It’s only mode of reproduction is asexual.2
    Do you see the problem with this? The common dandelion plant produces flowers, and those flowers produce nectar. Insects love to eat that nectar. Now if the common dandelion reproduced sexually, this would benefit the dandelion. The insects would get pollen on them, and when they went to the next flower, they would transfer that pollen to the next plant, and that would allow the two plants to sexually reproduce. However, the common backyard dandelion doesn’t sexually reproduce, the nectar it produces gives it no benefit. The nectar benefits the insects only. Thus, here is a plant that produces nectar, and that nectar benefits only other organisms. This, of course, is exactly what Darwin says would “annihilate his theory.
    To read the whole article go to Proslogion at blog.drwile.com/?p=1628

    Danny also wrote:
    “which is easier to believe, an all powerful God who is not subject or held to the laws he created, in other words, lives outside of them. OR did nothing create everything which is not subject to the laws it didn’t create since nothing can’t create laws and everything else or can it? The evolutionist will tell us that it can and it did. They MUST believe in THEIR faith to do away with God, they have no choice.

    Okay, I accept evolution by natural selection. I accept the Big Bang theory (well the expansion of space-time). I’m an evolutionist. But I believe Jesus died and rose again to save my sins, which means I believe whatever happened, God did it. So according to Stephen I am both a creationist (albeit not a biblical creationist, but in the sense that I believe God made science happen) and an evolutionist at the same time, It’s just I recognise that my belief in God is just that, A belief without evidence. Just because I accept evolution doesn’t mean I have to reject God, does it?

    NOW Danny says,
    So you are saying that you pick and choose what you want to believe in the word of God? You say that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour which means as your Lord, you obey him and live in him for him to be your Saviour, you submit to him. Also keep in mind that Jesus is called the Word of God in the bible. Jesus believed Genesis since he quoted from it. The book of Genesis DOES NOT allow for millions and billions of years. It does NOT ALLOW death before Adam sinned. There are other things you must reject, deny in the word of God if evolution is true. You basically have two world views and both are religious, creation and evolution and they are at odds with each other.

    So here is my challenge to the creationists, the one’s that think it’s a valid scientific theory anyway. (I did ask this a couple of blogs back and no one answered me). It’s all very well trying to prove and give possible ways of disproving God by trying to prove the Earth is young. Even if the evidence pointed to the Earth being young, it still wouldn’t be concrete evidence for an Intelligent Designer or God, God/Intelligent Designer would still be faith/belief based. How would you disprove God/Intelligent Designer? A repeatable experiment would be helpful.
    NOW Danny says,
    As I said before, God lives outside of his laws, he is above them and not subject to them. But if you see this world freeze then you have falsified God, he said that it would burn up in the last days not freeze (You have shown that what he said is not true) If you see tomorrow doesn’t come then you have falsified God, (he said there would be day and night until he comes again) if you see the laws that he set in motion so we could study his world then you have falsified God or at least his word and his word and him are tied together. Anything that disagrees with his word, that makes him a liar has falsified him from what I see. If these don’t work with you then what can I say. I would go so far to say if you see a person who can live without blood in his body has falsified God and his word. He said that the life of the flesh is in the blood. There are many more that I could do this way but I am not sure if this will satisfy you.

    Like I said, Intelligent Design should NOT be taught in a science classroom. Religious classroom, Yes, Science Classroom, No. Unless someone can successfully rise to my challenge.
    Danny closes with:
    I always find it funny when evolutionists bring up evolution is scientific and creation is religion. They are both religious and both have science mixed in but evolution has very little. Evolution is UNintelligent design and you BELIEVE that it should be taught in the classrooms??? If creation or intelligent shouldn’t be taught in the classroom THEN Unintelligent design most definitely should not be taught in the classroom. I would appreciate it if you would rise up to my statements at other times, “How can there be laws of any sort if there is no lawgiver? HOW can you even claim a law of any sort without a lawgiver? If evolution is true and can change tomorrow then there is absolutely no reason to study things out. Keep in mind, there can be no death before Adam sinned so do you really believe the bible or are you a Christian who does NOT believe the bible?.

    Danny Bunn

  14. Danny June 12, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    Another quote from the quote miner but still truth is truth.

    “Dr. Pierre Grasse, one of the world’s leading biologists, has shaken the supporters of evolution. According to Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of America’s leading evolutionists, Dr. Grasse’s “knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic” (p. 116). Two of Dr. Grasse’s observations should be enlightening in our study of evolution. “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (pp. 116-117). And who is this radical who makes such unorthodox statements? Is he a conservative theologian? He is one the world’s greatest living biologists scientist with encyclopedic knowledge. I have one more statement I must read from Pierre Grasse. “Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case” (p. 117). That last observation needs repeating. Many biochemists and biologists believe the fundamental concepts of evolution have been demonstrated. Dr. Grasse affirms: that “is not the case.” Dr. Pierre Grasse, one of the world’s leading biologists, has shaken the supporters of evolution. According to Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of America’s leading evolutionists, Dr. Grasse’s “knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic” (p. 116). Two of Dr. Grasse’s observations should be enlightening in our study of evolution. “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (pp. 116-117). And who is this radical who makes such unorthodox statements? Is he a conservative theologian? He is one the world’s greatest living biologists scientist with encyclopedic knowledge. I have one more statement I must read from Pierre Grasse. “Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case” (p. 117). That last observation needs repeating. Many biochemists and biologists believe the fundamental concepts of evolution have been demonstrated. Dr. Grasse affirms: that “is not the case.”
    The above quote came from the same article that I posted earlier.
    For the article, go to Proslogion at blog.drwile.com/?p=1628

    Danny Bunn

  15. Danny June 12, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    No I was wrong on the location. It is gospelhour.net/2136.html Forgive me and don’t think I am a liar either :)

    Danny Bunn

  16. Corne Hees June 13, 2011 at 2:28 am #

    Hi Guys,

    I have another question:

    Why is there only proof written language started about 5500 years back?