Sarah Palin and dinosaurs

It seems Matt Damon and I have the same concerns about the republican Vice President candidate Sarah Palin.

So does Sarah Palin think dinosaurs roamed the earth 4000 years ago?

Alaska is not normally associated with dinosaurs as its temperature was previously thought to have been too cold for them to survive.

But there have been dinosaur fossils found in Alaska belonging to dinosaurs like this Edmontosaurus:


Surely Sarah Palin must have an opinion on whether they existed?

I think we should be told.

Because judging on her creationist ideas, whether she wants Charles Darwin’s books banned and her lack of environmental concern even dinosaurs become a current issue.

add to to Blinkslist:add to furl:Digg it:add to ma.gnolia:Stumble It!:add to simpy:seed the vine:::Sarah Palin and dinosaurs:post to facebook:Add to Technorati Favorites


133 Responses to Sarah Palin and dinosaurs

  1. batguano101 says:

    Does Diebold ring a bell?

    No? Ok, how about Sally/Fredie and crashing investment banks?

    Still nothing?

    $500 Billion Debt connect?


    Ok, gossip it is then. Carry on.

  2. northbritain says:


    I happen to think that a pro-creationist VP candidate that’s only a chicken bone away from being President of the United States should concern everyone on this planet.

    I have already blogged about crashing investment banks.

    Interesting username. I take it you are a fan of bats.

    What did you think of the story of the primitive bat fossil that provides evidence for how bats evolved?

    Like Matt Damon I want to know exactly what Sarah Palin’s views are on dinosaurs, fossils and evolution.

    The American people should have the right to know exactly what they are voting for, particularly as this woman has a fair chance of becoming President.

  3. flöschen says:

    It’s great to follow this election and thanks a lot for the post. Although I cannot vote in the USA, I’ll be affected by the results one way or another… 😉 Maybe therefore I share the concerns.

  4. batguano101 says:


    Nifty! I had not idea you are blogging on your religious practices of evolution.

    That does change things.

    Trying to appeal to your evolution religious convictions to draw attention to actual serious issues is difficult.

    But I certainly respect your right to focus on them as your central view of the world around you.

    Carry on with your missionary zeal then.

  5. northbritain says:

    Batguano 101,
    Your contention of evolution as a religious practice is absurd. Its a scientific theory, and one that holds up to rigourous scientific scrutiny and is underpinned by DNA evidence.

    Could it be your pro-creationist mask is slipping?

    Do you believe the world is flat too?

  6. batguano101 says:


    Do not be so modest.

    It takes tremendous faith to embrace evolution as a religion.

    You need not be ashamed of that, but to call evolution science, that is uncalled for.

    Science takes in all the facts, is not a religion, and does not attempt to propagate any faith.

    It requires chilling faith to denounce God for Evolution, so that is admirable in the sheer tenacity of it, rather than the wisdom, but there is no need to pretend evolution is science in the process.

    Try not to be ashamed of such a huge step of faith.

    I do not embrace your religion, but do not fault you in your sincerity of belief or worship.

  7. Lynn says:

    This is funny!! First, it might be prudent to check REAL sources before falling prey to the Internet Rumor Mill about Palin’s comment of 4,000 year old dinosaurs. (Stoopid travels fast across the WWW, eh?) Second, it might also be prudent to look at the wisdom and facts of those worthy of respecting, rather than some Hollywood movie-star! Matt Damon?? Seriously….WHO CARES WHAT MATT DAMON SAYS BUT MATT DAMON AND HIS MOMMA?!

  8. northbritain says:

    I don’t find it funny.

    Sarah Palin has yet to clarify what extent her pro-creationism goes. Or if she believes dinosaurs were around 4000 years ago.

    Her call of teaching both in schools does smack of the pro-creationist argument. Its termed to be inclusive but its agenda is to put a discredited notion against a valid scentific theory and give equal weight to both.

    If thats what America has come to why not go the whole hog and teach the earth is flat as a scientific theory too! The denial of science would lead everyone back to the stone age. Is that what you want for America?

    I guess Matt Damon used the 4000 year old dinosaur example to highlight the fact that creationists believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

    He’s certainly reached more people that my modest blog could ever do.

    I salute him. I don’t care for celebrities either but he has just went up in my estimation.

  9. northbritain says:

    Evolution not a science? Your argument is ludicrous!

    Too many counter examples too choose from. Try these:

    Winner: Evolution in action. Genome sequencing and painstaking field observations shed light on the intricacies of how evolution works.

    Science awards 2005.

    Evolution in action

    Finches, monkeyflowers, sockeye salmon and bacteria are changing before our eyes

    Hold on. Sockeye Salmon as evidence for evolution?

    No wonder Sarah Palin wants to destroy Bristol Bay and its world renowned salmon fisheries!

    Its a pro-creationist conspiracy!!!

  10. batguano101 says:


    Don’t do it.

    The Muslims rioted and killed one another when they thought their religion was insulted
    by cartoons.

    I tell you in truth, going postal over your religion will not help you.

    Besides, what have you to look forward to- at least the Muslims who rioted over cartoons thought they were getting some virgins in paradise out of the deal.

    For a man who worships evolution- you have to consider rioting for it offers you nothing.

    No one is insulting your beliefs.

    Remain calm, consider your rewards, or lack there of.

  11. fifthdecade says:

    Evolution isn’t a religion or a belief, it’s a proven fact. I’m with you on this one northbritain. Religious fundamentalists – from any religion – are dangerous, full stop. Sad and dangerous I feel particularly sorry for these creationists: their ideas are based on poor translations by semi-literate medieval people of transcripts first written down many years, if not generations, after the events they are supposed to describe.

    As for liar Palin, she’s just lusting after power.

  12. katarokkar says:

    seriously. As a dinosaur lover, I cannot see this woman become president. It’ll bring the apocalypse.

  13. frankyvanherreweghe says:

    yeah, a stand up comedian as VP in the US!! I hope her gang will win, so we can laugh with creationists and their ‘thougths’ for a full tenure.

  14. dsgawrsh says:

    If Matt Damon did something useful instead of just pretending to be someone he’s not and getting millions for it (he does realize Obama will be taking 50% of that?) he might try reading and he would discover that even young earth people don’t believe dinosaurs roamed 4,000 years ago. There’s more proof for a young earth than some evolution theory that has yet to have any proof found and yet children are indoctrinated with it and never shown any other ideas – sounds like Marxism to me.

  15. northbritain says:

    The age of the Earth wasn’t proven by the Theory of Evolution.

    That was proven by the work of James Hutton, the father of modern geology, whilst looking at the rock formations of Arthur’s Seat in Edinburgh.

    Incidentally, Hutton also proposed Natural Selection. His books were read by Charles Darwin on the Beagle and led to Charles Darwin’s famous theory.

    Darwin’s theory merely backs up Hutton’s age of the Earth. Today radiometric dating confirms the age of the earth as about 4.5 billion years old.

    I’d much rather children were given a scientific grounding than flawed creationist theories.

  16. cac says:

    I think it is required of anyone who is to be our President that they have some foundation in the mainstream of Science…not just where/when we’re from but where we’re going.
    Does she understand the importance of evolution as it relates to the planet? Not if she is a strict Creationist. Stem cell research support for cure of hundreds of diseases depends on the ability of our leaders to comprehend a little bit about science. I don’t think she has the range to grasp these issues. They are important and complex. tough is not enough.

  17. biblethumper says:

    As a deeply religious person, who is also a republican, I feel embarassed by the fringe creationists and fundamentalist christians that dont reflect the mainstream views of our party. I wish more of us had the balls to stand up and point out to our fellow red-staters just how idiotic they sound.

    Evolution is science, get over it. Creationism is a religious theory, get past it. Muslims, buddhists, catholics and animists have a right to exist, learn and procreate and most importantly (if legal) vote.

    Get out of the 1950’s batguano, you’re making us all look like stupid rednecks.

  18. azyuwish says:

    Evolutionary Science is not a religion. A religion is a system of beliefs which include an object of worship. The word religion actually means “to bind again” “to link back”. In other words going to the Source.

    , With the possible exception of certain lines of Buddhism, Hinayana for example,
    In my view religions of all stripes require belief in the Supernatural, in the invisible. I am not saying that the supernatural does not exist at some level, but religions go further than that and create stories and myths about anthropomorphic gods who are purported to do all sorts of supernatural deeds. Rather like superheroes and the people are expected to believe these preposterous stories based on faith. Stories that defy logic or reason such as the story of Noah’s Ark. Or Adam and Eve. Certainly there is evidence that the Earth experienced a vast flood and many cultures contain this story in their narratives. However that does not mean that there was an actual human being who built a boat large enough to contain two of each species of animals existing on the planet. This is physically impossible.

    I don’t want a Vice President and possible President who is that gullible, that literal in their interpretation of the bible. Catholics are extreme Christians, I know, I was one, yet the official Catholic position is that Science and Religion can co-exist. That Evolution is a fact of Science and has been directed by Divine guidance. If she were a religious person with that conviction, I could accept that without issue. However her beliefs defy reason and logic and those are qualities that I find imperative for a leader in the White House.

  19. batguano101 says:

    fifthdecade- ok you are an evolution evangelist preaching your religion, but it is not fact, just a theory turned religion.

    you are the most violent version of fundamentalist- the evolution worshipers demand everyone worship your religion, and it is not a fact, not even a theory when you preach it as religion.

    But shoot, that is ok, you can get on the street corner and preach it or the college campus and preach it, but when you are through, God is Still God and you are not. 🙂

  20. jb says:

    personally, I could care less about her religious or evolutionary beliefs…. as long as she can do the job. Does this mean I’ll vote for her? Does it mean I won’t vote for her? Not saying as it is irrelevant who I vote for.

    All I ask is that my politicians keep their church out of my state,,, and I’ll do my best to keep my state out of their church.


  21. DumbPeople says:

    Well – that’s interesting. Everybody can find out how Sarah Palin thought Dinosaurs were only 4000 years old on the internet. Except they couldn’t be bothered with the CNN report where they interviewed the asshat that put that fake quote out there.

    God I love Dumbocrates.

  22. northbritain says:

    The quote may be fake but Sarah Palin has yet to make her opinions on dinosaurs known either way.

    You would have thought that with all this negative publicity Matt Damon has brought to Palin’s campaign she would have been quick to make her views known, if actually different.

    Since Sarah Palin advocates teaching creationism in schools – which advocates the Earth is around 6000 years old – that makes Matt Damon’s 4000 year old dinosaur question completely relevant.

  23. DumbPeople says:


    She doesn’t “advocate” teaching creationism in school – just that it discussion around it shouldn’t be shut down for the mere fact that it makes some people uncomfortable – namely everyone that wants to keep religion out of school. You are showing how woefully misinformed you really.

    I doubt she’ll make any kind of statement about how old dinosaurs really are because it gives to much weight to a PROVEN false rumor. It would lower the level even more than that jack ass Obama. Obama has been harping on her being a mayor and ignoring that she is sitting gov. of Alaska. Wonder why that is.

    People can believe in God and evolution at the same time. Just because ever Democrat on the internet wants to paint her as a fringe right wing extremist doesn’t necessarily make it true.

    Personally I’m agnostic. I believe that “Intelligent Design” is a bunch of shit. Creationism is a matter of faith. But maybe that is something an educated well informed Science professor would point out to his students.

    As far as Matt Damon goes…. he’s an actor. I don’t see how he can be so condescending to a person actually serving in public life. She makes real decisions that have an effect on 100,000’s of peoples lives already. He makes movies. Maybe he should stick to that or at least become better edumacated before he opens his mouth again to make himself look like an ass.

  24. northbritain says:

    She does advocate teaching creationism in schools.

    Here’s a direct quote from Sarah Palin in a 2006 gubnatorial debate she said on teaching creationism and evolution:

    “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

    As I said in my answer to Lynn, the policy of teaching both is a back door creationist argument that seeks to put a discredited notion (creationism) alongside a valid scentific theory (evolution) and give both equal weight.

    I’m glad you have faith in your science teachers. In the UK some Science teachers were asked if they taught evolution and they said no because it may offend different faiths. This was on national TV. I know its an emotive subject but surely we all want kids that understand science and how the world works. Putting creationism in the mix I feel would only make their job harder.

    As for Matt Damon he has spent this weekend in Haiti helping victims of Hurricane Icke. He’s got as much right to free speech in America as anyone else. I don’t think he looks like an ass at all.

  25. Say_What says:

    Hmmmm…..wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor? B Movies to boot! Sonny Bono was a TV side kick before getting into politics. Sean Hannity was a college drop out, construction worker….Rush Limbaugh…another drop out who was fired from more than a few jobs. Ohhh….but I guess the distinction is that Hannity and Limbaugh have never been condescending to anyone in public office….oh wait.

    Palin is advocating that creationism be taught in public schools. That’s why the religious right is so giddy right now. McCain is a hard guy for them to get behind. Yes he seems to have recently found his religious bearings…apologizing for calling them religious ‘nut jobs’ in the past. But Palin talks the talk and walks the walk. Pro life, banning books, Iraq war is a ‘task from God.’ They know that Palin is a heart beat away from obliterating that pesky seperation between CHURCH and state.

    I love the lie masters…errr…spin masters. Karl Rove, “Palin is absolutely qualified to lead this nation. She was a two term mayor for the second largest city in Alaska.” That city is not the second largest and had only 9,000 people living in it. But when Rove was asked months earlier about Tim Kaine (Govenor of Virginia) who was on Obama’s short list for VP, he said, “He was mayor of the small city Richmond which had a population of only 200,000 people! That’s the same population as Chula Vista California.” I guess to the astute political operative Karl Rove 200,000 < 9,000. Must be that ‘fuzzy math’ W talked about so much.

    I feel very comfortable thinking about a bible thumper who went to 4 low rung colleges to complete her education, governing our least populated state with a very undiversified economy, and a person with no foreign policy experience leading our nation when McCain’s health fails. Very comforting.

  26. Glenn says:

    Demoting creationism with the catch phrase ‘flat earth’ is just plain wrong. I hope you have devoted more time to the biology of evolution than you have to geological and/or astronomical scientific history.

    Recent scholarship (e.g. Klaus Anselm Vogel (1995), Jeffrey Burton Russell (1997), Reinhard Krüger (1998), also Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman) shows that with extraordinary few exceptions, no educated person in the history of western civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was ‘flat’ and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.

    Flat earth was a near universal belief until the classical Greeks began to discuss the earth’s shape about the 4th century BC. In fact, about the only writings from antiquity which describe the earth as either a circle or a ball are found in the Hebrew scriptures. Scientific extrapolation without a doubt, but true nonetheless.

    If you want a good replacement, use the Catholic persecution of Galileo Galilei for calling into question geocentrism (sun/planets revolving around earth). The church lacked faith in their scriptures (placing earth at/near the center of the universe) and their insecurities came were expressed through oppressive measures. Had the church simply let the natural universe describe itself through these and other scientific discovery, areas of astronomical science such as redshift quantization would have put their minds back at ease.

  27. northbritain says:

    I am quite aware that the flat earth theory was doubted in history.

    I even remember watching an episode of QI that said the exact same thing.

    What I was getting at, is that ‘Flat Earth theory’ has no scientific basis. Exactly like creationism.

    The reason I felt the Flat Earth theory was apt is that most people are aware that that theory is now ridiculous.

    You’re right. The persecution of Galileo would have been a good example, but I felt ‘flat earth’ had more public resonance than geocentrism.

    Thanks for your input.

  28. pamela says:

    So does anyone know what kind of creationism Sarah Palin believes in? There are several different kinds. I know it is one of the Christian Beliefs. My mother believes in the Creation Theory. She does not believe that our world is older than maybe 7000 years…she does not believe in Dinosaurs. She believes that Satan put the dinasaur bones here on earth to confuse us….If Sarah Palin believes anything close to this she is a dangerous person to have in power.

  29. northbritain says:

    I don’t know and I doubt Sarah Palin will clarify the matter.

    Sarah is associated with two churches; the Wassila Assembly of God and currently the Wassila Bible Church.

    According to one of Sarah Palin’s friends quoted from the New York Times:

    “The churches that Sarah has attended all believe in a literal translation of the Bible”

    The Wassila Bible Church recently made headlines when guest speaker David Brickner suggested that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgement against Jews.

  30. Glenn says:

    The thing about science is this – even before a theory is formed, the initial process starts with a philosophical assumption. These assumptions are just that… a completely unfounded presupposition, usually about ‘beginnings’. Add to this that fact that each scientist (not to mention their financial supporters) strongly desires to substantiate their theory and we should be suspect from the start. Theories (based on these assumptions) can take decades of challenge to either lend support or to discredit.

    The main difference I see between creationist and naturalism camps is this – creationist have fewer numbers and a great deal more variance in their assumptions, theories, and processes. As a result, there is a very small minority of creation scientists doing good science. I’m not endorsing this site but most of what is found on AiG (Answers in Genesis) passes as real science in my opinion. A good naturalist site, in that it is rather comprehensive but sometimes brief, would be Talk Origins.

    The two most interesting developments of late in my opinion are (creationist) Humphrey’s white hole cosmological model which flies in the face of past creationist theories and the petition to abandon the big-bang theory signed by thousands of secular scientists. It’s not too common to find this type of challenge within one’s own camp.

  31. Tom says:

    Dear Batguano:

    What most concerns me about Governor Palin is not dinosaurs, but the fact she accepts creation science as a valid scientific theory. As I presume you are aware, a fundamental hypothesis of Creation Science is that the earth is 6,000 years old. Fur hundred years and more of scientific investigation, i.e. the science of Geology -indicates this hypothesis is false, and that the earth is billions of years old. Governor Palin’s inability to accept four hundred years of data suggests she lacks critical thinking skills. People who are cvinced they know whaat God wants them to do despite all evidence to the contrary are dangerous. Think Osama Bin Laden and all his nutcase fundamentalist islamic jihadist followers. Christian jihadist fundamentalists are equally a threat, especially to the rest of us who are not so arrogant as to claim to know God’s Will. It appears, Batguano, you claim to know God’s will. That scares me.

  32. northbritain says:

    UPDATE on Sarah Palin’s creationist beliefs.

    Philip Munger in his Progressive Alaska recounts a meeting between Sarah Palin and himself in 1997:-

    As the ceremony concluded, I bumped into her in a hall away from other people. I congratulated her on her victory, and took her aside to ask about her faith.

    Among other things, she declared that she was a young earth creationist, accepting both that the world was about 6,000-plus years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

    I asked how she felt about the second coming and the end times. She responded that she fully believed that the signs of Jesus returning soon “during MY lifetime,” were obvious. “I can see that, maybe you can’t – but it guides me every day.”


    So it seems back then Sarah Palin was a Young Earth creationist. Munger says that after switching churches Palin was not ‘necessarily’ a Young Earth creationist but added ‘The Lord is coming soon’.

  33. DumbPeople says:

    Hey northbritian,

    Thanks for the selective quoting from the article. Here’s another one:

    “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.” – Sarah Palin

    Doesn’t sound like advocating to me.

  34. Joe says:

    This is a dig about her religion (and possibly her accent), and not a direct reflection on any comments she herself has made. It is like saying, a Christian somewhere said this, she is a Christian therefore she must believe this. There are SAT questions specifically meant to point out the flaw in such logic. Apparently you guys failed your SAT? A majority of American’s including Obama are Christians. Yet nobody is asking this question of him? Why assume Obama believes as you do? To my knowledge every speech he as given has been filled with flowery rhetoric rather than substantive material. You’re making a lot of assumptions about your candidate’s values and beliefs without any evidence to back it up. Obama has not been in office very long, and for most of that time he has been too busy running for the office of President to show up for votes much less to push through legislation. He has yet to build up a solid voting record that could be used of evidence of what he stands for. McCain on the other hand has been in office so long he might actually remember dinosaurs (with this crowd I feel the need to point out that was a joke). There is no denying where McCain stands on issues, and as far as republicans go he is probably the most liberal one of them all. Regardless of which Candidate wins, the liberals in this country win. Lets face it, the difference between the candidates have never been narrower than in this election. Perhaps that is why so many people are focusing on made up issues like this one, that have no basis in reality, instead of focusing on the facts.

  35. DumbPeople says:

    From the quote above does it sound like Gov. Palin is advocating? Or is it saying that the debate should not be blindly thrown out? If it was to come in a science class this is where a true “teacher” would note that creationism does not meet the any criteria in the scientific method. But that point is moot because she is not “advocating”.

    Definition of advocate:

    # recommend: push for something; “The travel agent recommended strongly that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day”
    # a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea
    # a lawyer who pleads cases in court
    # preach: speak, plead, or argue in favor of; “The doctor advocated a smoking ban in the entire house”

  36. Glenn says:

    Tom, one question/test of the age of the earth comes down to the half-life decay of various elements. This science is placing dates within a narrower range and with greater cross-consistency more so each decade. C-14 is the only dissenter, showing all organic fossils under 60k years old. This is why carbon dating is not used by naturalist when the assumption is that the fossil material is, say, in the case of dinosaurs, 70 million years old. This does not negate the fact that all dinosaur fossils tested read positive for carbon when they shouldn’t.

    With the blind assumption of gradualism (the past reflects the present) and in order for those numbers to make sense, we must plug in an age for earth of about 4.1 billion years. However, if you start with the blind assumption that – in the nuclear volatile process of earth’s beginnings, element decay was accelerated to the extent that half-life decay reached the approximate age of 4.1 billion years before settling down to what we see today, then the earth could be only as old as known history.

    By the way, that type of nuclear volatility is a part of both creationists and big-bang camps. The only reason I see to exclude creation science from classrooms is to protect against forced proselytizing by those teachers who might overstep their boundaries. But on the hand, doesn’t this go on with naturalism as well?

  37. JoJo says:

    As people pointed out, the Palin quote about dinsoaurs is false. Since the quote is false, now people are claiming that her creationist views are the problem. First, I’d like to point out that she has never tried to force those views to be taught in school, but she believes that if a student brings it up that a discussion on the theory should be alloowed. Second, and more importantly, the living authority on dinosaurs is Robert Bakker, a Pentacostal minister who believes in Theistic evolution (that’s creationism for all you laymen). You might not recognize his name, but he’s the guy with the cowboy hat and beard on TV always talking about dinosaurs.

  38. Tom says:


    So you are telling me the the science of Geology is possibly bogus, and the science of Astronomy is possibly bogus, and that you feel there is a chance earth and the universe may actually be only 6,000 years old as specified in the Bible? If so, might I inquire if you feel the bible should also be used as guidance in other areas well beyond Geology and Astronomy, as, say, a Guide from God on his will and what God wants you to do? Tom

  39. Glenn says:

    Tom, science is only bogus if you disregard the well established rules of the scientific process. Good and bad science goes on in both camps.

    As to the bible… if an individual believes the religious aspects of the bible or any other religious text/teaching, it should be their right to exercise that belief in the private sector as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

    The scientific debate in the classroom between creationism (technically ID) and Neo-Darwinian evolution requires the topic of creator vs. random variation/processes to come up. It does not require a persuasion on the part of the teacher or a decision of faith on the part of the student. To say that teaching creation science forces a student to believe in a god is no different than to say evolution forces a student to believe in the non-existence of a god.

    This is why I universally endorse introducing ID into the classroom with the necessary restrictions to prevent proselytizing – either for or against the existence of a god.

  40. northbritain says:

    The teaching of Evolution does not necessarily preclude the existence of God.

    The Church of England today for example made a public apology to Charles Darwin.

    See my post on Religion and evolution

    The teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design does however preclude the existence of God.

    You are comparing apples with oranges, I’m afraid.

  41. Glenn says:

    northbritain, I can’t say if this is a descent comparable but keep in mind that creationism does not preclude various forms of evolution such as natural selection and adaptation, even extremely rapid forms of adaptation (microevolution if you will). The only aspect ID rejects is (rapid enough) random mutation leading to both improved fitness based on an increase in functional DNA ‘information’ (also termed macroevolution).

    Regardless, when contrasting any two things there will be aspects which have no comparables. I believe since both camps examine the exact same evidence and attempt to come to conclusions as to the hows and whys, the volume which they hold in common will always exceed that which has little-to-no comparable qualities.

  42. Largenton says:

    Whilst browsing a forum I found this debate and I thought I would consider this. Firstly, I see the creationists and IDers are pushing for their pet beliefs to be considered in the science classroom. Now this would be fine, if their beliefs actually subscribed to science.

    Let us see what science actually is. Science, according to Popper is falsifible, in other words, it makes predictions which could be proven wrong. For example, I propose that the ball would drop to the ground using the theory of gravity. I can say how fast it will be, how long it would take to drop from my hand to the ground, etc. I have many predictions surrounding this and they can be proven wrong or right. After these tests, I am fairly certain that gravity remains a valid scientific theory because I have been unable to prove it wrong using experimental data.

    Unfortunately, this does not occur for Creationism. Creationism requires God and we cannot prove or disprove the existence of such a being. Therefore, on this evidence alone, it should be thrown from the classroom.

    This also applies to Intelligent Design, which was described in the Dover Trial as being creationism via another name. Again, this requires this “designer” who, like God, is unprovable. Whilst Behe has tried to provide “Irreducible Complexity”, this has failed as was recognised in the Dover Trial where he was forced to admit he botched his research. Furthermore, Muller dealt with this concept in 1918 and came up with the Mullerian Two-step, a description of this can be found in the url link below:

    Now let us discuss other key concepts. The problem with what IDers and Creationists propose actually attacks the heart of the American Constitution. I would like to point you towards the Establishment Clause which prohibits the advancement of religion in public schools, or more specifically:

    “The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”

    Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

    This means that Creationism and ID is a form of religious activity which is being pushed into a sector it has been explicitly forbidden in. This was upheld by Justice Jones in the Dover Trials (2005) where the School Board of Dover was taken to court for promoting ID in the science classroom. In short, IDers and Creationists should be ashamed of theirselves by promoting such an agenda.

    Now I shall move onto Glenn’s point about microevolution and macroevolution. Glenn, please do not make up your own definitions of microevolution and macroevolution. Shall I walk you through the basics?

    Evolution is simply change. Biological Evolution is the “change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”
    Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

    Bearing this in mind, let us move onto your claims. You claim that microevolution is merely adaptation and natural selection. I’m sorry, but adaptation IS natural selection with mutation, i.e. Evolution according to the definition given by the text books. Now claim that macroevolution is simply an increase in functional DNA ‘information’. Clearly you do not know what you are discussing and you’re repeating the “no new data fallacy” which nylonase and Lenski’s citrate digesting e-coli have disproven with their ability to produce new DNA.

    If you feel that this is unfair and that you also refer to speciation, please, don’t try. Not until you read 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution by Dr Theobald. Its simple to find, has loads of references and is easy reading.

    Evolution has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt. It would not be a scientific theory otherwise because it would fail the definition.

    Finally I would request information on your apparent proof how radiometric dating is incorrect for the age of the earth. Especially as there are other dating methods which calibrate these such as varves, dendrochronology, etc.

    Glenn, please, stop advocating something that is a lie. Above is the proof, I doubt you will listen but hopefully it will help inform others not as well-read on the situation.

    Anyone that wishes to discuss things with me, try the Richard Dawkins site, the Debunking Creationism board is my usual haunt.


  43. Bruce says:

    You seem to have as many brain cells as Matt Damon. That’s not something you should aspire to…

    Read it and weep asshole;

  44. Sav says:

    “Pro life, banning books, Iraq war is a ‘task from God.’ “-

    I hate to tell “Say What” this, but Palin never banned any books nor said the war is a “task from God.” The irony of someone who is at best uninformed and at worst lying, calling someone else a liar is rich indeed.

  45. Glenn says:

    Largenton, I respect your opinion on these matters but to claim an absolute good science – bad science victory over creationism would be a disservice to the many secular scientists who are challenged by creationist arguments and studies. Any unbiased individual with a high school education or higher can see the legitimacy of the efforts and data of both long-age and young-earth science. My position is not that I want there to be a god and therefore view YEC arguments favorably. Those arguments have merit on their own. If there was a third party putting as much energy into an independent paradigm which followed the scientific process I would respect it as well. The problem comes when our philosophical assumptions trump our ability to interpret data through the lens of another’s conflicting assumptions.

    I’m pretty sure the two of us could go on for many days about radiometric dating, varves, evolution, and the like but we would most likely be echoing those professionals in the field so employed in these studies. You referenced Talk Origins and I agree that is a fine site. Have you been to Answers in Genesis and read some of the cross debates between scientists on those two sites? If not, I suggest you do and see for yourself the level of challenge and respect that is often afforded in these debates. Challenge and respect based on the other’s education, experience, and valuable willingness to see the other’s perspective for the sake of quality debate.

    Best wishes.

  46. Why do stupid people reproduce? says:

    This is one of the most ridiculous blogs I have read in a long time. Unfortunately for me, and other readers, it lost value as it went on. You start with a comment by Matt Damon, who is not really known for his intelligence. I believe the most absurd part is when, even after the rumor was denounced (please see ) you still say that she needs to tell us her views on dinosaurs? DINOSAURS?!?! You have got to be kidding me. With all the more pressing matters out there, my last concern is why the potential VP thinks about dinosaurs. Give me a break. How about the economy? Troops dying overseas? Shouldn’t these things be a little higher on the importance ladder? Think about this logically for a second. Even if Sarah Palin believes that we should teach creationism in schools, she wouldn’t have any real power of enforcing that, even as president. But I guess you are right. A Christian that believes in something not scientific, that is a unique and scary thought. Why don’t you denounce her because of her belief in a God? After all, she cannot prove that there is one, correct? I could see if your argument for her not getting elected had something to do with her credentials. After all, she is just slightly more inexperienced than Obama. But criticizing her for her religion is just as absurd as criticizing Barack because he has a Muslim relative. Get a grip people.

  47. Glenn says:

    I have to concur with the above to a large extent.

    Personally, I would be a hundred times more interested in Palin’s views on the Congress granting money issuing rights to the Federal Reserve Bank, the North American Union movement, strengthening habeas corpus, and preserving the original intent of the US constitution then her views on the age of dinosaurs or the earth.

    On the other hand, who knows just how much one’s world-view affects one’s perspective on these specific issues?

  48. Largenton says:

    Glenn, please, do not try and obscure the subject. You could try and have a debate on with the matter but you will lose. Simply because I have been trained and have graduated as an archaeologist. These methodologies are familiar to me and I can argue far more eloquently on the matter than an uninformed layman.

    Now onto good science vs bad science. Rather than simply saying secular scientists are baffled by creationist questions, please be honest. Creationism attacks Evolution with strawmen and lies to be honest, along with a good old fashioned quote mining. Trying to even dare compare Talk Origins which relies upon people who do not start with the assumption the Bible is true and provide more than 3 references for an article is laughable. I’ve seen AiG site, its a common indoctrination site for Creationists. Talk Origins afford it no respect because quite simply, creationism is not a science by definition.

    Oh and by the way, I am not making a philosophical assumption, other than observational reality works. This is in accordance with modern society. Last time I checked, science brought you everything you are currently using, including this computer.

  49. DumbPeople says:

    [sarcasm]SHE’S A WITCH!!!!! BURN HER!!!!! BURN HER!!!!!!![/sarcasm]

    This is basically what Democrats sound like right now. Bow down to the Religion of Liberalism. Ignore facts, go with your feelings.

  50. brock says:

    As a Canadian following the election it amazes me that Obama doesn’t have 100% of the American people’s support. Obama is the greatest orator this generation has ever seen, on the same plane as Kennedy and Lincoln. The concern I have about gov. Palin has more to do with her alleged attempt to ban/censor books. We live in an enlightened age, and as the potential V.P. of the most powerful nation in the world the idea of censorship of ideas is barbaric. The issue of Creationism vs. Evolution is secondary to the prospect of further tarnishing America’s already soiled image on the global stage.

  51. Glenn says:

    Largenton, you would ‘win’ a debate with me due to what appears to be a personal mission on your part – as I am not that passionate about this issue. Any reader, which seems to be your target here, would naturally have to decide these matters for themselves in the end.

    Also, none of what we discussed so far falls under archeology. Does a degree in archeology magically branch over into geology, biology, and the political science? LOL

  52. Glenn says:

    brock, the banning of books takes place in just about every government of the world. Canada included 🙂

    It does not necessarily need to be a bad thing of course… would you want your crazy neighbor leaning how to better torch your house, if so inclined, with improved incendiary devices normally reserved for the military? What about your children being introduced to subjects which may end up disturbing them due to their immaturity and under developed mental processes?

    Did you know that Canada was the only western government in the world that banned Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie? You want a mission?

    No need to look south my friend.

  53. Glenn says:

    Oh, and both Kennedy and Lincoln sought to ban the Federal Reserve Bank’s ‘right’ to issue money and charge the taxpayer for both the money issued as well as the interest payments on it.

    Lincoln succeeded shortly before being assassinated.

    Kennedy was in the process of overturning the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 when he was assassinated.

    Obama? I agree he has a good script writer and charismatic delivery. If Obama ever seeks to undo the largest white collar crime that history will record, I would be happy to put him in the same category as Lincoln and Kennedy.

  54. JoJo says:

    To add to Glenn’s discussion about the banning of books, I can go a step further. The USA is one of the few countries to not have an official list of banned books, movies, etc. Sure, it’s illegal to own child porn and a few other such things, but there is no official list. However, Canada does have a list and their Border Service Agency enforces it:

    BTW, the few times in recent years there have been bans on books or movies in the US, it’s always been regional (usually no larger than county level) and a majority of the time it has been reversed. The few examples that I can think of that the banning of books has not be reversed are usually in public school libraries (this is usually where the banning occurs, not really the downtown library) and involve the PC left and not the religious right, such as Mark Twain’s Huck Finn.

  55. brad says:

    Matt hits the nail right on the head.
    The repugs try to push Palins experience, by trying to diminish Obama’s,
    but that doesnt answer the experience question, and for some reason the DEMS havent been able to stroke this point properly.

    It IS extremely scary that someone like her could be a heartbeat (or less) away from POTUS, and we dont know much about this gal.
    When we try to find out, we are called SEXIST.

    Im with Matt 100%
    Its very important to me as well if she believes Dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago.
    Or if she is a snake handler, speaks in tongues etc…

    I don’t mind if someones religion is different, i am an agnostic anyway, freedom of religion is important, but i want to know WHAT she believes.
    I can make up my own mind if she is a KOOK or not.

    I dont care if Canada wants books banned they should NOT be banned here.
    We have LOST ENOUGH of our freedoms.


  56. brock says:

    My point was that a person, in the running for such a position of power should be progressive thinking and not influenced by their own religious and moral views. What’s best for the United States is at the heart of this discussion. Not what our children are exposed to (which is an issue of parenting and not politics) and in response to a person building bombs to “torch” my (or anyone’s) home, there are books available with instructions to do just that. Let’s face it with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and with Korea producing nuclear weapons the world is in crisis and like it or not, the world examines the U.S.A.’s leaders closely. The American media is global and the views and opinions of the president and vice president are front page news world wide, and have the ability to influence an astronomical number of people. I’m not sure it’s the time to have woman running for V.P. with long expired ideals

  57. brock says:

    While I can’t respond the Canadian banning of books, I’ve seen the link provided by JOJO and the material on it was of an almost exclusive XXX nature. I didn’t realize that Canada had banned Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, which I’ve read. My point was not a jab at Americans or at the U.S. as a whole. I don’t claim Canada is a perfect nation and I certainly don’t believe our gov’t is infallable, but we have the luxury of not being under a microscope at all times.

  58. Sav says:

    “I can make up my own mind if she is a KOOK or not.”

    So, some bottom-feeder who links back to a 9/11 conspiracy site wants to know if Sarah Palin is a kook.

    You can’t make this stuff up folks.

  59. Mairona West says:

    I want to know too — does she believe in dinosaurs? Did she try to get books banned? What is the Bush doctrine?! Scary stuff, indeed.

  60. Yea it is clear she has a lot of extreme beliefs…

    I mean appararently she thinks gays can be converted???

    Does no one consider the McCain/Palin ticket one step away from facism???

    On another note…did anyone know Chuck Norris “developed” jeans???

  61. Glenn says:

    brock, one of my closest friends is employed in Hollywood doing fires and explosions and trust me, certain information regarding materials commonly available to the public which can be used for incendiary purposes is strictly controlled by our government and most likely others. My friend does periodic checks on both the internet and book publications as a hobby. I think he takes pride in having inside information and he even refuses to share some of it with me… punk.

    As to Palin and her book banning accusations. Do you ever ask yourself, what is the truth of the matter and am I being worked up for no good reason? If so, by who and do I really want to be their pawn? If so, what need is being met in me and is it a healthy need?

    This site is as unbiased as they come.

    [quote] – We can say for certain that no book was ever banned. Nor is there any record that Palin initiated a formal process to censor any books… “I’m not trying to suppress anyone’s views,” Emmons [the librarian] told the Frontiersman [newspaper]. “But I told her [Palin] clearly, I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves. “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy,” Emmons said. “She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.”

    Palin told the Frontiersman that she had no particular books or other material in mind when she posed the questions to Emmons. In a written statement to the newspaper, Palin “said she was only trying to get acquainted with her staff” and that the question was “rhetorical.”

    Stuart [Frontiersman writer] told PolitiFact that in a conversation with Emmons after his article ran, she listed three titles. He said he could recall only two, and initially said they were I Told My Parents I’m Gay and I Asked My Sister. We looked for these titles; they don’t appear to exist.

    “Mary Ellen [same librarian] told me that Palin asked her directly to remove these books from the shelves,” Stuart said. “She refused.” – [end quote]

  62. Unbelievable says:

    I can’t believe all the wining and caring on, Your worried about what? Your daily routines won’t change, keep looking into the past and you will surely stumble in the future, what lies ahead?
    Math changes, science changes, people change, but some things just don’t change, that is the key to your future, don’t miss it by worrying about yesterday. Taxes will go up no matter who is in office, Wars and rumors of wars will continue, earthquakes, tornadoes, death, will continue, Did we happen by chance or were we created? If we came about by chance then this is as good as it gets, if we were created then what? Is there more? And we are concerned with dinosaurs! Give me a break, thats why we are so in debt as a country as a people, we worry about things we can’t control, about who will be in office, who might die, who might succeed. We will probably die before anything real exciting happen, watch Iran and Israel in the next 6-month, something exciting is surely ready to happen. Will she or someone nuke the world, if the nukes don’t get us, our finances will, we are going down because this is as good as it gets, we are looking at and living in paradise. Stop your wining and get your life in order, its almost over.

  63. Largenton says:

    Glenn, last time I checked, I have what is called science on my side. I have spent the last three years studying radiometric dating and other fields which archaeology is involved in. Some of this include biology as I spent time doing Bioarchaeology with my department. So whilst you can argue about hearts and minds, I would rather not subscribe to an argument ad popularum and simply provide information which would refute your points.

    Last time I checked, your Constitution directly states you can not teach creationism in science classes. That’s a personal note from myself when I checked up on secularism when I decided to independent research. Please don’t twist my words to involve that because I was merely referring to the scientific techniques used to validate Evolution. Radiometric dating is covered in archaeology. So is human evolution. So is biology to a degree, if we consider preservation and skeletal remains. So Archaeology is involved with these aspects, in fact, I could boast, because it is examining the past, it covers nearly every subject. However, what I have covered is the parts which I have strong foundations on, Archaeological Science.

  64. Glenn says:

    Largenton, Josh Greenberger has written an excellent book (free online) which you may already be familiar with… “Evolution: A Science Breakdown – A Disproof Of The Theory Of Evolution – And Beyond”

    He states up front that presenting an alternative to Darwinian evolution could (and due to frequent bias, usually does in my opinion) only serve to cloud the issues which challenge evolutionary theory today. The only brief mention of “God” I could find in the book could just as easily be assigned to any intelligent being that might have set about establishing life on our planet.

    [quote] – The problem with Darwinian evolution is not that it’s incompatible with faith in God. The problem is that it’s incompatible with science. And we’re not yet even talking about complexities and design. We’re talking about how random genetic changes could have produced a vast majority of healthy life forms with such a relatively negligible number of deformed ones (even if we agree for the sake of argument it is possible to produce complex healthy ones at all). Ironically, the only way you can even entertain the notion that evolution was even possible is if you bring God into the equation. God certainly could have laid down a blueprint in the genetic code (not unlike that of a fetus, which “evolves” from one cell) that gives single-celled organisms the ability to evolve into various species. And this would explain why the fossil records show relatively few diseased and deformed life forms. Now, I realize you can’t bring God into a science classroom; you can’t scientifically explain God. But shouldn’t you be able to scientifically explain evolution? And if after over one hundred years you still can’t, isn’t it time to reconsider? Simply because it’s accepted for a long period of time doesn’t turn a theory into a fact. In a science classroom they should teach science, not one person’s religion or another person’s cult. – [end quote]

    I read it a few years ago and found it quite provocative and enlightening. If you get around to reading it, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

    Best wishes.


  65. mac0625donald says:

    Any body who says evolution is fact doesn’t understand the word “theory”.Evoulution has not been proven.You cant test it. You cant observe it; and it has never been replicated in a lab.As to the age of the earth. there is plenty of evidence out there to point to a young earth.Radiometric dating is one of the worst examples to use as Proof of an Earth billions of years old. Scientist have used this dating method to test the age of rocks of known age such as lava flows in Hawaii and the lava dome on Mt. St. Helens and it doesnt work. So when you test rocks that you dont know how old they are it is supposed to work. Non sequitur

  66. Angela says:

    How often do you think a lawyer turn preacher politician lies?

    Regardless if you are Democrat or Republican, if you are American you should watch this to better make an informed decision:

  67. tcguys says:

    Didn’t you guys hear? Dinosaurs are a hoax planted by scientists to make us believe in evolution. Check it out:

  68. Largenton says:

    Well fuck me stupid Glenn, you provide an example which is the most stupid piece of crap I’ve seen in a long time. Firstly, does the guy understand the concept of Evolution AT ALL? You do not have a 2 legged cow, that’s as absurd as the half an eye argument. Nevermind natural selection, the concepts proposed in that March 2008 thing are not even wrong!

    And I’m sorry to hurt your feelings, but if that is the best you can do then I don’t even need to get out ERV arguments, nevermind the actual fossil record. Does the person even understand fossilisation and preservation or is he just letting huge idiotic pieces of shit drop from his mouth?

    Now let us go onto the definitions. Do the people saying “it’s just a theory” conceive of what scientific theory means? It means something which has not been disproven and is beyond reasonable doubt. Can I inquire why there are no rabbits in the Cambrian? How come vestigal features appear? The presence of ERVs in the same location for humans and chimps? And a long list of matching features which goes on and on and on……..

    And mac0625donald, please have you heard of calibration? Or scientific experiments? Furthermore, could you provide scientific references from scientifici journals to back up the shit you produced?

  69. Glenn says:

    Largenton, I provided you with that link simply because I thought the material was something you might not yet be familiar with. I never said it was ‘my best.’ It was an act of thoughtful giving on my part though I know you perceived it otherwise.

    Now for my education and profession. I am a licensed MFT with twenty years experience making top dollar in my field. I only take cash clients and am as busy as I care to be with a waiting list to boot. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you are rather fresh out of college and much is still theoretical in your approach to your desired profession?

    Either way, you show classic signs of narcissism based on the fear of facing pain and loss stemming from religious mistreatment in your past. The fact that I have not taken the side/role of your perceived enemy and yet you have projected this position onto me smacks of the type of transference which plagues the emotionally injured. Extreme narcissism, although anonymity may bolster it and not necessarily represent you in all of your face-to-face relationships, nonetheless degrades every relationship the narcissist has. Perhaps I’m all wet (though my success would argue otherwise) and none of the above applies to you but if you ever reach a point in your life where transferring all of life’s problems onto those of religious faith and fighting the good fight of self-distraction isn’t working anymore, just be sure and get plenty of references before seeing a therapist. There’s ten to waste your time for every one that gets results.

    Best wishes,


  70. Largenton says:

    Sorry, forgive me if I am too amused by the over-analysis. Glenn, I don’t expect pieces of shit to entertain me. If you want to actually provide a case, provide real science. Not someone who has lied and provided basic canards of real science and fails to provide a reference. You gave me something which is a joke.

    Also, if you want to know why I happen to have a grudge against creationism, it is simple, because they are telling professionals they are wrong and how to do their job. Do I tell you that?

    Please, rather than support such fucktards at least present some intelligence. Did you read the article? Can you understand what it actually states? Do you know how much it mangles the concept of Evolution? Its just the same canards that I’ve seen over and over again. I might not be familiar with the author, but I’m familiar with the probability argument, the half an eye argument.

    Do not EVER accuse me of attacking faith, I attack lies and the propogantion of lies and yes that is inherent in creationism. I find it an arrogant assumption [creationism] as well as one that is made up of “doublethink” concepts, lies and strawmen. Furthermore, I’ve seen a lot of creationists lose court cases or be exposed as criminals, like Hovind and Adun Oktar. I do respect Christians as my Grandmother is a devote Anglican, nevermind my aunt. Don’t make false accusations as this is merely distracting from the main issue, the man who made that article is a liar.

  71. Glenn says:

    Seems Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Greenberger have at least one thing in common? Capitalization mine (for emphasis).

    Richard Dawkins on “The Improbability of God”

    [quote] – Of all the trillions of TRILLIONS of ways of putting together the parts of a body, only an INFINITESIMAL MINORITY would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many different ways of being alive – at least ten million different ways if we count the number of distinct species alive today – but, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead! We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated – too statistically improbable – to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes – mistakes really – in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. MOST OF THESE CHANGES ARE DELETERIOUS AND LEAD TO DEATH. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. – [end quote]

    Josh Greenberger on “A Disproof of the Theory of Evolution” (the link I provided previously)

    [quote] – A random process, as depicted by Darwinian evolution and accepted by many scientists, even if one claims it can produce the most complex forms of life, should have produced at least millions of dysfunctional organisms for every functional one. And with more complex organisms (like a “Royal Flush” as opposed to a number 3 on a die), an even greater number of dysfunctional “mistakes” should have been produced (as there are so many more possibilities of “mistakes” in a 52-card deck than a 6-sided die). THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOUDLD HAVE BEEN BURSTING WITH BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF COMPLETELY DISFUNCTIONAL-LOOKING ORGANISMS at various stages of development for the evolution of every life form. And for each higher life form — human, monkey, chimpanzee, etc. — there should have been millions of even more “mistakes.” Instead, what the fossil record shows is an overwhelming number of well-formed, functional-looking organisms, with an occasional aberration. Let alone we haven’t found the plethora of “gradually improved” or intermediate species (sometimes referred to as “missing links”) that we should have, we haven’t even found the vast number of “mistakes” known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be produced by every random process. – [end quote]

  72. James says:

    I’m a non religious independent, and I’ve been studying evolutions vs creationism for the last seven years out of interest. I also found out that radio metric dating has taken on fath and it’s been proven to be junk science. Some won’t admit it however.
    For instance, K-Ar ‘dating’ (a radio metric dating method) was used to date 5 historical lava flows from Mt. Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although 1 lava flow happened in 1949, 3 in 1954, and 1 in 1975 the carbon dates ranged from 270,000 years old to 3.5 million years old.
    From the evolutionist argument ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The evolutional scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years ago in rocks of known historical age. This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle below the earths crust. This is consistent with the young earth world teaching. The argon has too little time to escape. If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates of a known age, then why should we trust this method for rocks of an unknown age? We can’t
    For me it doesn’t matter if the world is 6,000 years old, or billions, but obviously for the evolutionist it does matter. If the world is really only thousands of years old then this information would destroy the complete foundation for the evolution theory.

  73. Largenton says:

    Glenn, I can’t believe that you do not have the ability to understand this. Its quite simple, just because Richard Dawkins has made a point, it is not the same lying point as your favourite pet creationist. I discussed this with a Evolutionary Biologist and he said [u]”it isn’t even wrong”.[/u] The misunderstanding of basic principles is staggering.

    Firstly, let us concentrate on taphonomy, the science of decay. IF something is going to die soon then it will do so quickly, an example of this is the fatal form of spinal bifida. A genetic problem, this disease can kill children shortly before birth. The same goes with the concepts of miscarriage, so we have a large majority of these fatal mutations causing death at an early age. As an osteoarchaeologist can tell you, child remains are the most likely remains to decompose and be lost in the archaeological record (due to the fragility of the remains), in fact, considering the number of remains we actually have world wide for people, we only have a small sample. This of course, is only including human remains which have been treated in some manner and put into places which help preserve them and prevent animals from eating the remains and breaking the bones.

    So there we have within the historical record examples of how these animals would not be seen all the time. Let us cover the palaeontological record.

    Gathering these examples, let us think about fossilisation. Again, it is obvious that your creotard author has never investigated how fossilisation works. Fossilisation is a rare process, a quick browse of wiki reveals that. Fortey, when discussing fossilisation with Bill Bryson in the book “A Short History of Nearly Everything” describes it as being a process which is incredibly rare and that 99.9% of all living things are lost due to them being in the wrong conditions to fossilise. Even with the wealth of fossils we have now, most of the life that was on this planet has disappeared, think of the coal and oil reserves for example.

    Onward to some examples of animals with conditions which give them problems. For now, I will discount the extremely rare genetic mutations such as your creotard author’s example of two-legged cows. Unless farmers actually took it as a sign of displeasure from the Gods and put the calf somewhere which preserved it (I’m sure I can find some examples in the archaeological record in fact I recall one from Danebury I think), the chances of these occurring are rare. What we really need are a few examples of dinosaur eggs which failed to hatch (a quick google search reveals quite a few specimens) and this interesting case of schmorl’s nodes.

    Schmorl’s nodes is a genetic/trauma pathology commonly found in humans due to the poor design of our spine (which was originally a quadraped’s spine). It is caused by herniation of the spinal discs and is thought to have a genetic element to it, as well as a traumatic element. The article describes how old age brought this congenital element into play. So here is a clear example of your creotard talking out of his arse.

    Now let us look at some books. I quickly found Kenneth Miller’s book: Only a Theory Evolution: and the Battle for America’s Soul. Here is a review of it by Dr Fred Bortz:

    Furthermore, he actually answers Josh Greenham’s points by providing him with a list of books which overwhelmingly crush his creotard arguments.

    So in all, Josh Greenham has been refuted. By my own 5 minute research and the research of a scientist.

  74. Largenton says:

    Now onwards to James. James, I hold significant doubts about your lack of bias when you use the word “evolutionist”. I’m sorry, its not a word. It is a made up term used by creationists to cast a veil of dogma on a splendid scientific theory. Your reading by the looks of things seems heavily biased towards creationism, especially fact you know little about calibration of radiometric dates as well as the confirmation on how they work.

    Here is a post by a mathematician on a forum I frequent. In this he explains Radiometric dating very simply. Even if K/Ar dating is wrong (which it isn’t as refinements of the technique have shown it to be correct, see Lewin, Human Evolution, An Illustrated Introduction), you have to get past at least 20 other elemental isotopes too. From this I highly doubt your lack of bias in this matter.

  75. Largenton says:

    OK, I apologise but I just checked and found out the person who stated “it isn’t even wrong” is not an evolutionary biologist. My mistake and I apologise for the wrong attribution. However, I stand by the comment and the rest of the post.

  76. James says:

    I wish evolution was true. I really do. I’d rather evolution be true than the creation theory. However after researching both sides I think that we’ve just been brainwashed by scientists who have been misled themselves in the public schools and colleges. I also beleive many athiests go into certain scientific feilds with an agenda. Even many thiestic and christian scientists that believe in theistic evolution have been offended and totally against the young earth theory, I think, because it hurts their ego to even suggest that they might be wrong, which is sad. We should be open to whatever the truth may be, and now that science is evolving, people are finding out that macro evolution is just not true. Many scientists and teachers are afraid though of losing their jobs if they challenge something like the old earth theory and Darwinism.
    As for radio metric dating, no matter how old a fossil is, it’s always going to say something is millions or billions of years old even when it’s not. So scientists just go on faith in this kind of dating method.
    Carbon dating also has many problems. Paleontologists say that they can’t use carbon dating if something is millions of years old (when they are guessing that something is millions of years old) because of course they’ll only get thousands of years out of it.
    Carbon dating usually only works when an obect hasn’t been contaminated by water or severe weathering. Here’s some more evidence.
    The Antartic Journal reported in 1971 that a Freshly killed seal was dated at 1,000 years. An other seal that had knowingly been dead for only 30 years was dated at 4,600 years old. Science Magazine 1984: “living snails” dated at 27,000 years old.
    The Volosovitch Mammoth: The skin was dated at 29,000 years old but the Bones dated at 44,000 years old (same animal). I could go on with many more examples. I Also found many examples that expose the geologic column as a hoax, but I just urge people to really look at both sides. For me, looking at both sides, I believe a powerful intelligent force created this world about 6,000 thousand years ago. History only goes back this far. Even the Toltec Indians (The oldest Indian Tribe in Mexico) documented the same beliefs just a few thousand years ago. All ancient cultures of all religions had no problem believing this before. However it’s mostly athiests that don’t want to acknowledge that this may be true.

  77. Glenn says:

    James, you must know by now that the theory of Darwinian evolution itself evolves as needed for survival. Remember, the student is not greater than his master.

    For example – if you ask for transitionary fossils such as those that take us from single-celled organisms to complex, multicellular invertebrates, you get a Simpson claiming that some episodes of evolution (geologically speaking) proceed very rapidly. This, despite the heart of the theory being gradual change over vast spans of time (phyletic gradualism). Or maybe you prefer Eldredge’s claim that these transitions would not readily fossilize due to being soft-bodied. This, despite a plethora of fossils from both soft-bodied invertebrates and microscopic, single-celled, soft-bodied bacteria and algae.

    And so the Cambrian era became the Cambrian ‘explosion,’ phyletic gradualism gave way to periods of ‘punctuated equilibrium,’ and soft-bodies fossilize before and after, just not in between.

    These are not revisions based on new evidence in my opinion – they are contradictory revolutions to hold onto the theory (and associated dogma) itself – in spite of sustained evidence against it. If you took away the heart of most creatures they would die a summary death – Darwinian evolution just goes on with or without its heart still beating. Like the vampire… it’s a near insurmountable task to kill that which is already dead but still animated, quick to adapt, and deft at its unique form of ‘survival.’

    My advice is to eat lots of garlic and beware of tall, pale-faced strangers. 😉

  78. Glenn says:

    Largenton, I’m curious of your use of the term ‘creotard(s).’

    Isaac Newton (1642-1727) invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion, anticipated the law of energy conservation, developed the particle theory of light propagation, and invented the reflecting telescope. He firmly believed in Jesus Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God’s word, and wrote many books on these topics.

    Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was one of the greatest physicists of all time, developed foundational concepts in electricity and magnetism, invented the electrical generator, and made many contributions to the field of chemistry. Four sermons or exhortations preached by Michael Faraday were recorded in a small volume entitled, “Selected Exhortations Delivered to Various Churches of Christ by the Late Michael Faraday, Wm. Buchanan, John M. Baxter, and Alex Moir.” A couple of snippets include, “”The law of God required perfect obedience, which man could not render, and it was in the room and stead of guilty man that Christ fulfilled it.” Faraday also exhorted, “And therefore, brethren, we ought to value the privilege of knowing God’s truth far beyond anything we can have in this world. The more we see the perfection of God’s law fulfilled in Christ, the more we ought to thank God for His unspeakable gift.”

    William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) is considered one of the all-time great physicists. He established thermodynamics on a formal scientific basis, providing a precise statement of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin was a strong Christian, opposing both Lyellian uniformitarianism and Darwinian evolution. In 1903, shortly before his death, he made the unequivocal statement that, “With regard to the origin of life, science…positively affirms creative power.”

    Joseph Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed a comprehensive theoretical and mathematical framework for electromagnetic field theory. Einstein called Maxwell’s contributions “the most profound and most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton.” Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution and wrote that God’s command to man to subdue the earth, found in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible, provided the personal motivation to him for pursuing his scientific work.

    Albert Einstein (1879-1955), formulator of the theory of relativity, which is one of the single greatest intellectual accomplishments in the history of man. Einstein was Jewish and thus did not follow in the Christian tradition of Newton or Faraday. He did not believe in a personal God, such as is revealed even in the Jewish Bible. Yet, he was overwhelmed by the order and organization of the universe and believed this demonstrated that there was a Creator.

    I find it intriguing that the five greatest physicists in history – Newton, Faraday, Thompson, Maxwell, and Einstein – were each outspoken in their belief that the universe was placed here by a Creator. Furthermore, four of the five were staunch Christians with firm convictions that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.

    Now, in your professional opinion, which would you add to your list of “creotards.”

  79. Largenton says:

    OK, going from the bottom up. Glenn, please don’t make logical fallacies. Did you read my whole argument and then decide on nitpicking on a single unimportant point. In the thread I referred to Josh Greenwood as a creotard. He is. After looking at the points he raised, it reveals a person who has no understanding of science, a fraud. Therefore the name creotard is applicable.

    Furthermore, let us examine your argument. Firstly you claim that because these people believed in creationism that I shouldn’t use the term. Argument from authority Glenn. That is a logical fallacy. Firstly, Newton is excused, as there was no competing information that challenged the Biblical accounts seriously. Now we can go onto Einstein. Did I state that people that are deists would be creotards. I have no problems with theistic evolutionists, in fact I support those like Ken Miller as they have accepted that the Bible is merely a book written by humans and can be flawed (which is the case). I object to those that believe blindly without evidence and reject the evidence they have. Certainly, we should ask whether Maxwell, Kelvin and Faraday would have been so staunch if they were aware of these things. Certainly Einstein had shown his ability to be a true scientist by being flexible and accepting the Big Bang theory when Lemaitre produced the clear cut mathematics and the overwhelming evidence.

    So no, I wouldn’t call them creotards. They do not deserve this title. People in this day and age however……..

    Next onto your points to James. I find it amusing you state Evolution evolves. Certainly this is true, like any scientific body of knowledge it evolves as more evidence is presented. It ensures accuracy and prevents things being blindly followed, such as the Bible. Two of the physcists you mentioned, Newton and Einstein are related in this aspect as Newton’s ideas were replaced by Einstein’s as new information was added. I see this as very sensible, don’t you?

    Onto your counter argument, I’m confused, how does this contradict things? The Cambrian “explosion” is a misnomer really as creationists think live suddenly sprang into existence, ignoring the PreCambrian. You’ve picked out arguments and not really provided any information on how they contradict the actual evidence which I’ve provided you. Sounds more like you are picking long words rather than any real falsifible evidence.

    Now indeed, there are different interpretations of Evolution, just like in any scientific field there are different interpretations. This does not mean the actual thing is incorrect, just that there are certain parts still being worked on. That’s science, we don’t claim to know everything.

    So basically, don’t speak a load of woo about things you don’t understand. Do some real reading from scientists.

  80. Largenton says:

    Onto James. I’m so glad you’ve admitted your bias. When you compare scientists, just take a good look at the creotards like Hovind and Ham before you start claiming scientists are brainwashing people. Last time I checked, scientists make things that work, such as computers and life saving drugs.

    Now onto the macroevolution. I request you check up on 29+ Evidences for Macrevolution and please inform me why these ideas are wrong. Please don’t ignore this as it would be evident you are ignoring evidence which contradiccts your world view like the Radiometric link.

    Onward to the seal example. It is well-known that marine organisms do not reflect accurate C14 dating as the conditions in the oceans match the CO2 intake rather than any actual date. Therefore C14 should be avoided in this case.

    May I inquire whether you’ve got this “Expelled” notion from the Bein Stein film of the same name? Give me examples and if you dare give me any of the film examples I will call you a biased YEC.

    Do you care to give some references to the bullshit you’re referring to James? I couldn’t find anything on the Volosovitch Mammoth and as for the land snails…..

    Next you criticise C14 because its half life does not fit for the Palaeontologists use. So what? There are other techniques and it works until 40 000 years ago rendering the fantasy you have as complete rubbish. Go read some real science.

  81. Glenn says:

    Largenton, I have no interest in responding point by point to all of your writings and I do not expect you to respond to all of mine. Feel free to pick and chose at will… you’re a free agent after all. However, you asked the rhetorical question if Mr. Greenberger “understood the conception of evolution AT ALL?”

    I showed you were he very much agreed (understood) with Richard Dawkins on deleterious ratios with mutations. Mr. Greenberger simply asked for physical evidence in the fossil record where Mr. Dawkins does not seem to require it.

    I pointed out your use of the term ‘creotard’ because this type of name-calling is a distraction at best and an underhanded attempt at intimidation at worst. I know you’re trying to be a model ‘New Atheist’ like Richard Dawkins but you will find Mr. Dawkins limited to preaching to the choir until he shows the respect due his fellow man. I have read many books on evolution prior to Dawkins becoming the main spokesman and I can testify that Dawkins approach is a guttural turn-off to a reader who believes in mutual respect despite a difference of opinion. I don’t know how many people you get through to with this style but I suspect you do what you do for yourself more than another.

    Mr. Greenberger rightly states in his book… “… it is not necessary to disprove every aspect of evolution in order to disprove the theory. To show that a space vehicle will never land on the moon, for example, it is not necessary to prove that every component of the craft will malfunction. Simply proving that at least one vital component essential in reaching its destination will malfunction — a booster rocket, the guidance system, the lunar module which descends upon the moon — renders the mission’s goal unattainable. The same is true with evolution. Disproving only one crucial aspect of it should be enough to do away with the entire theory.”

    I gave you my opinion of what has already doomed evolutionary theory… no transitional forms between single-celled and multicellular invertebrates. Neo-Neo-Darwinian theory predicted these fossils to exist and they do not. Maybe you can provide information that I have yet to find elsewhere?

  82. James says:

    Largenton. It is obvious that you are very offended when people question macro evolution. Someone like you can not be reasoned with even when your’e theory is proven wrong. I shall say good day to you sir.

  83. batguano101 says:


    These folk are not offended when people question macro evolution as science.

    It is a religion to them.

    They worship evolution as a religion.

    Which says there is no God, so they are gods.

    The discussion is not about a scientific theory, it is about a religion of evolution.

  84. Largenton says:

    batguano, I get offended when people with no knowledge of evolution claim to be more experienced than top scientists. Do you tell the surgeon how to do his job? James I’m sorry but I get offended by those that make empty claims with no references and also continue make claims about other things without discussing previous links.

    I also recommend batguano that you stop trying to paint a scientific theory akin to creationism. Last time I checked it isn’t. I don’t have any shrines dedicated to it, I don’t religiously follow it nor claim there is nothing wrong with it because last time I checked it has no influence on our behaviour. I find it an interesting subject and I object to people bringing up misconceptions due to a belief in the Bible (I refuse to state God as there is a difference IMO).

  85. Largenton says:

    Onwards to Glenn. Firstly, let us look at the words deletrious mutation. Sure, Mr Greenham may be able to use the word, deletrious mutation and may have read the Dawkins article, but when he follows on he clearly does not understand it by mentioning 2 legged cows. What Mr Greenham has used was a variation of the half an eye argument which has been soundly refuted since Darwin. The pile of horseshit that he put forward was incredibly easy to refute as it made so many canards that it made it incredibly unintelligent. Nor has he seemed to have done any research or listened to Dr Fred Botz as he would have removed his comments. Finally, can I inquire what Mr Greenham’s professional career is?

    On the physical evidence part, Dawkins is aware of evidence, he is also aware of the absence of evidence due to processes that I described. Mr Greenham is not aware and has made no effort to get aware and has failed to read Ken Miller’s book refuting the canards he made.

    Onto the use of the word “creotard”. I feel it is justifiable. If someone goes to a surgeon and tells him how to do his job when he has no training in the field, the surgeon is justified to call him an idiot. What is even more evident is that people like Mr Greenham apply a rigorous but flawed critique to evolution but never consider applying similar criticisms to their own ideas. The Bible, for example, is incredibly flawed document as there is a lack of evidence supporting its worldview. A quick look at some events makes it laughable. For more information I recommend viewing Thunderfoot’s series on creationism called “Why do people laugh at Creationists?” Its on Youtube and is well researched.

    By the way, I see you are raising yet more assumptions about my own opinions. I am not an atheist. I find it extemely offensive you consider anyone who defends evolution as being one. My favourite Evolutionary Biologist is Ken Miller, who is a Roman Catholic and has defended Evolution against creationists and Intelligent Designists in books and legally at the Dover Trial. I am actually an agnostic, however, I do believe Creationism both OEC and YEC to be a big crock of shit. I’m sorry if you find me extremely blunt but considering you have failed to show ANY respect to science and do not understand the issues involved I feel that it is extremely impolite to discuss things according to your personal ignorance.

    I would appreciate if you actually gave some examples of why evolution is doomed as I can provide many references which actually go against this proposal. This includes documented lab and natural examples of new traits, speciation, the fossil record and natural selection. None of which have been disproven yet. Unfortunately I have only seen empty rhetoric, not anything that can be considered to be a decent argument. Providing a Josh Greenham article is like providing a piece of shit, it means nothing.

    Oh and providing a legal expert’s opinion of Stephen Jay Gould is insulting. How does this in anyway disprove evolution? Or do you like to provide as many irrelevant points in one article as possible?

  86. Largenton says:

    On and I forgot to mention one thing. Glenn, are you even aware of endosymbiotic theory? Lyn Margulis is accreditted for the hard work and there is plenty of evidence for it.

    Do you want me to cite papers and possibly give an example of a single celled organism in your body which can form into a multi-cellular one? Its called an osteoclast. They destroy old bone. Osteoclasts have to merge together in order to form a vacuum which removes a piece of bone from the bone surface. Now if you want to argue, fine, but go and do some research before making yourself look a fool.

  87. Glenn says:

    In the absence of transitionary invertebrate fossils, we instead attempt to validate this critical component of Neo-Darwinian evolution by looking at cells only known to vertebrates (osteoclasts)? I’m not sure if I can swallow that medicine as it stands.

    Even better…. another theory (endosymbiotic)? According to Lynn Margulis, “Life did not take over the globe by combat [natural selection], but by networking (i.e., by cooperation)” and “Darwin’s notion of evolution driven by natural selection is incomplete.” Whose side is she on exactly?

    I believe Mr. Johnson (last link I provided) had it right by stating, “Remember that saving Darwinism in the teeth of the Cambrian evidence requires not just assuming a few missing ancestors, easily linked to their descendants or not, but assuming a vast quantity of vanished transitional forms between the hypothetical single-celled ancestors and the vastly different multicellular invertebrates. If you are a Darwinist you know the necessary ancestors and transitionals had to exist, regardless of the lack of fossil evidence. If you doubt that their absence is an artifact of the fossil record, you are not a Darwinist.”

    I am too evidence-driven to be a Darwinist at this stage of discovery.

  88. Just A Theory says:


    Transitionary invertebrate fossils are rare simply because invertebrates do not readily fossilise. Coupled with the fact that fossilisation is a rare process itself, it is remarkable that we have the specimens that we actually do (see this page on Ediacaran fauna:

    Because of those two truisms, scientists wishing to study the evolutionary history of invertebrates must do so via indirect methods such as studying osteoclasts of vertebrates. This type of indirect research is unremarkable in science and is akin to the calculations performed by scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider as they probe for properties of fundamental particles – they cannot directly observe the particles so must design experiments to verify their existence via indirect methods.

    I notice that you do not condemn such physicists as Heisenbergists which indicates that your use of the term Darwinist is more motivated by personal antipathy towards evolution than in any objection to the manner in which evolution is actually researched. You are more than welcome to disbelieve the evidence but please be honest about your reasons for doing so.

    With regards to Lynn Margulis’ statement about Darwin’s notions of evolution driven by natural selection being incomplete, she is stating nothng more than the fact that the theory of evolution has advanced and changed since Darwin’s day. Natural selection is known to be only one of the mechanisms by which evolution operates; neutral mutation and genetic drift are also very important. Margulis also seeks to add social cooperation via reference to her endosymbiotic theory – time will tell if she has discovered another element to evolution or has just elucidated a small facet of a previously known mechanism. Either way, her statement that Darwin’s notions were incomplete is factually correct.

    The link that I provided above described Ediacaran fauna which predate the Cambrian ‘explosion’. Such fauna were invertebrates and thus not expected to fossilise in large numbers but, from the examples discovered thus far, it appears that the Cambrian ‘explosion’ had a very long fuse indeed.

    Based on the above, I contend that your claim of being too evidence-driven to be a Darwinist is factually incorrect and that it is far more likely that you have exposed yourself to the fabrications of those who have a vested political or financial interest in evolutionary theory being dragged down.

  89. batguano101 says:


    One fellow above compared Christians, and this must include Jews as well, to Bin Ladin, a threat.

    You claim Christians a threat to the Constitution, although the Colonies and founders were Christians, and the Constitution it’s self is very Biblical top to bottom (all the founding documents had foundations in Scripture and preachers of the period expounded on them widely).

    You do throw out some terminology that sounds good to anyone who has never studied biology or medicine but is at odds with standard references.

    Here is an example: Osteoclasts

    “Do you want me to cite papers and possibly give an example of a single celled organism in your body which can form into a multi-cellular one?”

    That is really trying to intimidate begging the question-

    An osteocyte is not an orgnanism in the body but a cell that develops from a monocyte precursor.

    An osteocyte does not form into a multicellular anything,
    it is the equviliant of a macrophage only with specialized function developing multiple nuclei, which help it attach.

    The merge/vacum/surface spin, is not exactly right- It actually forms a cavity in the bone, not the surface, then secrete acid, to remove bone, all in keeping with a very specialized form of phagocytosis with some nifty biochemistry to remodel.

    This is not the one up man ship I detect in your remarks, and I refer you to the standard biology under grad texts, and the fun to read Guyton’s Human Physiology (the first year med student’s friend).

    Check this out.

    You are mistaken on your science, it follows you may be mistaken in other matters.

    The very reason I did not approach this from a science basis is the evangelical, and extreme fervor those who literally worship evolution as a religion bring to the table.

    Plus it is no fun to talk facts when someone does not have an overlapping fund of knowledge.

    Yes. Evolution is now treated as a religion. The extremist remarks of “threat from Christians” denotes it.

    BTW- I do sometimes tell the Surgeon something during the case across the table.

    Evolution is your religion, which is to renounce God.
    No sweat, that is your choice, but you are very radical antichristian, antichrist, and the denomination of evolution is not a cover for antichrist hate talk.

  90. Glenn says:

    Just A Theory, thank you for your respectful input on this matter.

    First, I didn’t realize that the term ‘Darwinist’ was a four-letter word now. I’ve heard it used widely in many circles for twenty-plus years, equally by proponents of evolution as those against it. I guess times change and so must we. I have dropped dozens of words and phrases from my vocabulary since childhood due to newly developed/expressed sensitivities so I will investigate adding ‘Darwinist’ to the list.

    Ediacaran fauna were complex, multicellular organisms so I don’t understand how they bridge the gap I am looking for. The article you liked me to even includes a reference to the apparent lack of transitionary fossils by referencing the time frame we would expect to find them in the evolutionary, geologic time scale.

    “Other estimates (e.g. see Conway Morris 1998, Ayala et al. 1998, Knoll & Carroll 1999) are lower, but still require the existence of some animal diversity as early as 750 Ma ago, implying that for the first 150 Ma or more they left no fossil record. (Inexplicably, Ayala et al. claim that their results are “consistent with paleontological estimates.”) The general rarity of soft-part preservation may explain this in part, but one would still expect to find some trace fossils – tracks and burrows – of any animals large enough to disturb sea-floor sediments. “Thus, if they really were present, we can be fairly sure that any pre-Cambrian animals would have been tiny, only a few millimetres long…. What later triggered their initial emergence as the Ediacaran faunas, and subsequently the even more spectacular Cambrian explosion, remains a significant topic for debate” (Conway Morris 1998, p. 144).”

    As to the shortage/rarity claims within the fossil record. The end of the article from that same link you provided details a rather abundant supply of fossils currently categorized as Ediacaran fauna. We both know invertebrates theorized to follow the Ediacaran era are abundant. Single-celled? Cyanobacteria alone, one of many known Precambrian single-celled organisms, have an extensive fossil record.

    If you were asked to come to this site by Largenton and assist, I am still open to evidence which might fill this critical ‘hole’ in evolutionary theory.

  91. mik says:

    I live in the UK, am white anglo-saxon, have no affliliation with any religion and have never been to the mid-east or israel. I have been to the USA many, many times and these Palin developments scare me more than the Republicans getting yet another term under Bush, sorry McCain.

    Sarah Palin is a dangerous individual and will be president.

    She is dangerous as the doctrine that she lives by, as with all evangelical christians is that the second coming of their saviour is at hand.

    Evangelical christians in conjunction with orthodox jews have tried and continue to try to find ways to rebuild Solomon’s Temple. The most recent efforts have been to try to determine that the temple was not in fact located on the temple mount, which is of course where the Golden Mosque is located (kind of hard to have that demolished!!!)and is in fact actually located in the Jewish area of the mount. They will stop at nothing to ensure that they can bring on the Apocalypse.

    Without the Temple being physically rebuilt, they cannot continue with the fallacies contained within the scriptures that they live by and to bring on their Tribulation and Rapture. In the hands of an avowed YOC as president, humans are screwed. The fundamental christian doctrines and principals that these zealots live by is no less dangerous than those espoused by any religious lunatics, but they shroud it in myticism and liberally use the word ‘love’.

    Love is a word often used in the Q’oran yet a huge multitude of Americans and other western nationals believe that the Q’oran preaches hatred against all others except the Muslim devotee. Love and tolerance of others is a theme throughout the Muslim book but it has been effectively demonised by the christian right and although Wahabiism may preach bigotry and hatred, this is a doctrine that has been developed in Saudi and has no relevence to pure Muslim teachings as it is for State control.

    Fundamentally there is no difference between Wahhabiism and christian evangelism. The world figurehead for evangelism will be Palin. The smiling hockey-mom. With her finger on the trigger helping to usher in her saviour and therefore honouring the doctrine that she lives by.

    I cannot argue about the dinosaur science as I have no science. All I can state is my belief that there is more danger from a smiling psycho in a skirt with a nation’s mandate, carrying a coded briefcase in her hand than there is from a screaming psycho with a beard in a long white shirt, carrying an AK47 in his hand. You will trust her because she is you. Due to her faith, this zealot will kill us all.

    Sorry about the ramble and perhaps somewhat off topic, but this danger is just so close now. If Amerika does what I fear, these truly are the end-times.

    Amerika, SOS: vote Obama

    Peace out.


  92. batguano101 says:


    The issue here is the use of Evolution the religion to vilify political candidates for being Christians.

    I am an independent, so my view is not partisan, but the process at work here:

    1. Social engineering at it’s highest form, manipulating or attempting to manipulate core values of the nation.

    2. Selectively attacking Christianity and the Judeo/Christian value system upon which the nation was founded.

    3. False Flag use of the evolution as a religion.

    Simply stated- the attack of any candidate for being a Christian or holding Christian values and beliefs is a direct attack on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, inappropriate, and the worst kind of propaganda, not for the opposing candidate but for those who wish the constraints moral, ethical and legal balance restrict their own activities and agendas.

    Those here who preach removal or vilification of Christianity are acting as dupes for altering the form of government the United States of America was founded on and has been the envy of the world under.

    It would be wise to consider this, or at the very least simply consider this venue of attack of either party unseemly and inappropriate.

  93. Largenton says:

    OK let us examine things. Firstly Glenn, please don’t disrespect scientists by using theory in its common everyday sense. The word theory in the scientific sense is far different, you wouldn’t question the theory of gravity would you?

    Now about your comments. It is clear that you’ve shifted the goal posts. You requested evidence for the transition between mono-celled organisms and multi-celled organisms, which I provided another scientific theory which Lynn Margulis has won several prizes for as she is more or less been proven correct. Richard Dawkins along with other scientists have applauded her efforts, although they have different views on what drives Evolution. Last time I checked Lynn Margulis was an advocate of evolution, she believes that it is symbosis, not competition that drives it. Please do not quote mine her.

    Now onto the osteoclast evidence. I believe that you and batguano have both made a fatal mistake by only looking at these cells due to their function. What I am most concerned about is the cells being able to join up, That would be a clear event that demonstrates the abilities of single celled organisms attaching to work together as multi-celled organisms. Any objections about what they are part of or that they don’t form true multi-celled organisms is a load of crap. The identification of the mitochrondria in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes reveals this, especially due to the DNA evidence within mitochrondria.

    I also refer to this paper

    Kirk, D. L., 2005, “A twelve-step program for evolving multicellularity and a division of labor,” BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology 27: 299-310.

    Now Glenn, onto an important issue. Have you read any of the links I’ve given you? Have you read 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution? I’ve given you evidence and you’ve ignored it. Now please give me the evidence for your pet ideas.

    And please don’t claim I asked Just a Theory to come onto this site, I didn’t. I may have provided a link to a site which he was on, but he came on here out of curiousity.

    Oh Batguano, do you mind explaining how Evolution is a religion? It doesn’t propose any way of living, nor does it try and inflict any social control. To me it seems like people enjoy adding ad hom after ad hom about a scientific theory whilst ignoring information I provide.

    Despite you stating Evolution as a religion, last time I checked it was a scientific theory. Therefore it should be the theory that is discussed in science, unless another theory fits the demands of science, i.e. provides a method of falsification, it should not be included. As I have presented earlier with the Dover Trial, Creationism is not one and violates your Constitution. You are a secular country according to your Constitution, please don’t harp Judeo-Christian values. Especially as not all Christians are creationists.

  94. Glenn says:

    batguano101, I will go a step further.

    The new monarchies of the industrial revolution (now banking families) have found a way around free-market, social-democratic restrictions through Social Darwinism (i.e. eugenics). Nothing new to societies throughout all of human history… just a twist of variation. I find it interesting (and a little suspicious) that it was Darwin’s half-cousin that re-bounded the social implications of Darwin’s theory into the public arena. See “Malthus doctrine.”

    After WW2, eugenics fell from grace in light of the common man’s disgust of Hitler and his atrocities throughout Europe.

    The fact is that if you pour enough money into a repeated dogma, it becomes truth for 95% of the populous. The evolutionary implications of devaluing a human (soul?) and substituting it for DNA – valued at today’s scientific market price, combined with the technology to accomplish the banker’s desire for control will some day create a global monarchy with the rest of us relegated to serfdom.

    You are right in stating that the social implications of Christianity is an over valuing of the individual in the eyes of some – but I wonder if those same parties unknowingly assisting the global elites will ever comprehend the role they played in bringing about the truest form of universal and global communism (see Red Symphony interrogation). I suspect they’ll be as over-work and under paid as the rest of us and have little time form contemplation. An almost humorous note in this tragedy.

  95. Glenn says:

    Oh, and Largenton, I didn’t get that from Ben Stein, he stole it from me. 🙂

    Except that Mr. Stein only has half the picture still.

  96. Glenn says:

    Lastly, I believe Largenton claimed that creationism makes no testable predictions and therefore fails to qualify as science. I will only cite one example although I have found that there are as many predictions within creationism as there are within naturalism. This one will address both the question of predictive qualities and gravity as a theory (of fact?).

    In 1984, creationist Russell Humphreys published predictions for the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune in “Creation Research Society Quarterly” based on his newly developed “White Hole” cosmological model. Humphreys’ predictions for the magnetic fields of both planets were in the neighborhood of about 100,000 times greater than naturalist predictions based on the big-bang theory. Not only was this an extremely bold prediction, but the Voyager spacecraft was only a matter of months away from being able to accurately measure the magnetic fields of both planets.
    Guess what?
    A creationist theory not only made a prediction, but the prediction was accurate. That is called science. In addition, Humphreys’ White Hole cosmology, now explained in his book (which I highly recommend), “Starlight and Time,” even places the current theory of gravity (through his unique form of special relativity) into serious question.

    Anyway, if this does not put to bed the question of scientific qualification of creationism, nothing can.

  97. Glenn says:

    mik, you stated that the world figurehead for evangelism would be Palin (if elected).

    You do realize that the U.S. is either a post-Christian nation or we were never a Christian nation to begin with depending on who you ask? I don’t know much about end-times doctrine within evangelical circles, but I do have a few good Christian friends who don’t seem to give tribulation-type disasters much thought or energy. Maybe you’re reading the fringe minority into the overall majority?

    Personally, I will probably vote a write-in for congressman Ron Paul once again. At least that way, when Obama/Biden *OR* McCain/Palin screw things up… I won’t be to blame.

  98. batguano101 says:


    You are pompous but do not know the most fundamental biology.
    Perhaps you can snow someone out there, but BS is what you offer.

    You said-
    “Now if you want to argue, fine, but go and do some research before making yourself look a fool.”

    You have this beat by the inability to even know when You are stating total crap.
    There is a saying in Spanish- “Sin verguenza” meaning a person without shame.

    Sorry bubba, you are a total jerk pretending expertise- a $3 dollar bill- Sin Verguenza.



    We agree on this- of the field the only rational choice is Ron Paul.
    Unfortunately at this point it is not a functional choice.

    But I restate the issue at hand-

    “The issue here is the use of Evolution the religion to vilify political candidates for being Christians.

    I am an independent, so my view is not partisan, but the process at work here:

    1. Social engineering at it’s highest form, manipulating or attempting to manipulate core values of the nation.

    2. Selectively attacking Christianity and the Judeo/Christian value system upon which the nation was founded.

    3. False Flag use of the evolution as a religion.

    Simply stated- the attack of any candidate for being a Christian or holding Christian values and beliefs is a direct attack on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, inappropriate”

    Since you decline to address the central issue of the demonization of candidates, any candidate, based on evolution used as a religion to attack Christianity, I bid you farewell, and I might add, a hardy high ho silver.

    Ta Tah.

  99. Glenn says:

    batguano101, when I said, “I will go a step further” this meant that I agreed with your premise. In other word, I agree and will add this…

    Anyway, it was nice reading your posts and enjoy life!

  100. Glenn says:

    To all involved in these discussion I would like to say thank you for your time and energy invested. I have enjoyed myself and acquired a better education as well.

    I must move on to a different disciplines now as I believe novel and varied learning are the best way to keep the mind healthy, retain and integrate information, and avoid short/mid-term memory loss into old age. I wish you all well in life and the beneficial endeavors you pursue.

    I would like to say to Largenton – if you ever pursue therapy, I would recommend a form developed by Jeffery E. Young termed, “Schema Therapy.” It integrates all three of the main approaches (psychodynamic/cognitive/behavioral) and has produced good results with NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and milder forms of narcissism. Although it is unusual for people to seek therapy for NPD (directly) due to unconscious fears of exposure or inadequacy, other forms of crisis tend to bring them in – allowing for the source problem to be addressed. Be aware that a decent psychodynamic therapist is hard to find. Look for someone who seems to hold absolute power over you in regard to the ability to reinflict pain, yet, without abusing that power or crossing the line of what you can readily endure… that’s a pretty good layman’s indication from the client’s perspective that good psychodynamic therapy is in progress.

    Best wishes to all and especially to northbritain for hosting these discussions.



  101. Largenton says:

    OK I can see that Glenn is having fun making huge assumptions about me. Thank you for showing how arrogant you, yourself are Glenn, it is really appreciated. Firstly, I do not appreciate any side-tracking by suggesting I have problems. I feel it is a form of threat and shows the limitations of your arguments, or lack of. I suggest you seriously consider the effects that creationism has on a person, someone like VenomFangX should require the attention you wish to inflict upon me. I can say that at the moment I have a very happy life which is spent working and spending time with my beautiful girlfriend. Whilst you may state this could be denial, I really don’t give a shit. No matter what you diagnose, you’ve still not made any effort to validate creationism. Furthermore, with your proposals, I recommend you seek treatment yourself if you are this arrogant, it is really quite worrying how you ignore observational reality.

    I\ve recently wiki’ed Russell Humphreys in an attempt to find out who he was. I only found out that he proposed some observations about the young age of the universe in an attempt to claim something. Unfortunately he has many critics including such publications like:

    Ross, Hugh (March 22, 1999). “Starlight and Time Review”, Reasons to Believe. Retrieved on 2007-02-19. RNCSE 24 (1): 31-32

    “Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism”, National Center for Science Education (2008). Retrieved on 2007-02-19. RNCSE 24 (1): 31-32

    Which show problems with his YEC ideas. Unfortunately I am unable to find any particular reference to the paper Glenn mentions. There is one that is possibly that, however, I’ve seen no particular reference on his resume, and I believe my first reference quietly dismantles his arguments on the matter (3 The identity of the gravitational behavior of bounded and unbounded homogeneous/isotropic universes—an old error explained). That is in reference to the only paper he published in 1984 which is on his resume. So I am still unconvinced by creationism, especially as evolution has roughly 180 000 papers a year published on the subject, each one of them proving it correct. I can give you a sample of papers which I have viewed as part of my education and I can assure you that they out number any claims you make and provide evidence for the main points of evolution.

    Now onto Eugenics. I’m sickened by you Glenn, I truly am. Eugenics has hardly anything to do with Evolution nor natural selection, it is an old concept derived from artificial selection. I highly doubt that the Spartans knew anything about Evolution and they held a Eugenics programme along with others, weeding out the weak, etc. Darwin got some of his ideas from dove breeders, which is where Hitler and others got their concepts from, artificial breeding programmes which had a history which is older than the theory of Evolution. Do not pull Godwin’s Law on me Glenn as its just a waste of time. Last time I checked, Hitler, a man who championed Eugenics actually banned a number of texts which confirmed Evolution. If we read Mein Kampf and other points that Hitler raises, we also find that Hitler was against the concept.

    The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

    My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. – Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order

    The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

    So what were you saying again Glenn?

    And also I would like evidence that Evolution actually over-rules the concept of God, Ken Miller clearly doesn’t along with a lot of respectable scientists that I can quote in this field.

    Now onto a little bit from batguano. Thank you for the “non-contribution” post you made. In it you have tried to insult me (which I don’t care about) and then repeated your mantra. I’m sorry but making ad homs doesn’t win an argument. I’ve demonstrated a slight bit more about biology working than you have. Furthermore, if you wish to take the osteoclast example up, then can I ask why you’ve ignored endosymbiotic theory and that paper I provided? Furthermore, what about the presence of ERVs in humans and chimps, something I’ve raised to people before here and received no reply. You’ve presented me with non-answers here and itis clear that you and Glenn are enjoying giving yourselves backslaps whilst sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalala. Call me arrogant and a jerk all you want, but the fact I have the evidence and you don’t gives me that right to tell you that you are so fucking wrong. Furthermore, could you answer the point on the Dover Trial and understand why this is an issue? Your legal system has stated quite explicitly that trying to put creationism into the classroom is a crime. By showing her support for it, Palin is trying to over-ride your Constitution. That is not an attack on her religion as many Christians believe she is wrong, Ken Miller testified in a trial where he revealed the creationistic aspects of ID. He is an Evolutionary Biologist who has attacked creationists time and time again in these court cases where they try and break the law. It is not an attack on a religion, it is an attack on her beliefs which are wrong.

  102. Musad says:

    I used to believe that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago too and I would have thought Palin was crazy, but after seeing Dr. Kent hovind’s seminar on dinosaurs 4 years ago and watchng him debate a few scientists who believe evolution, I believe just like she does. I do know that Hovind is in trouble for some tax problems though. That’s not going to make me change my mind about the BIble anymore though. Ever since then I’ve been interested in science. It doesn’t take a genous to realize the evolution belief is a lie and fancy pseudoscience. I also want to go see Ken Ham’s new creation museum. I think it’s in Ohio.

  103. Largenton says:

    Ummm, tax problems? He’s in jail because he is a tax dodger. His degree is more or less fake, it means nothing. I’m sorry but Ken Ham is also of the same cloth. Evolution is a belief in the same way gravity is. You give anyone of Kent Hovind’s lecture and I can show you how much of a fraud he is. I’m sorry for knocking a guy you respect down, but I wish you to see what he really is.

  104. Musad says:

    No disrespect Largenton but what you heard about Hovind’s degree is prapaganda. I heard it before. Since then I’ve listened to probably 50 scientists who believe in creation science or intelligent design, mostly on the Christian channels.

    I used to watch this Christian channel called Sky Angel on satellite dish that had a creation science show every Saturday, but now I have basic cable and watrch TBN that has another creation show. Now I want to see expelled. Largenton, don’t fall for these prapagandas. I read some of your previous comments and you seem like a smart guy, but I think deep down you know the truth. Don’t let the lying spirit of the devil harden your heart to the truth. Jesus died for you too. He loves you like a good father loves his son. There’s to much evidence for the Bible.

    Just pray this prayer (With a respectful heart): “Jesus, if you’re real, then please come into my life and forgive me of my sins. Please reveal to me the truth, and give me a sign to let me know that you heard me. Then help me to know what to do. In Jesus name, Amen.”

    Take care Largenton. “Seek and you will find.”

  105. Largenton says:

    Ummm, what propaganda? His degree is from an unaccredited university which refuses to let anyone see his thesis. From that we can deduce his PhD is worthless, a diploma mill degree. My BSc has more value than that.

    I’m sorry but you are the one who has had propaganda put towards him. I’m taking an established scientific position, one with observational reality on its side. I can give lists documented every experiment which demonstrates the validity of Evolution. I took a degree in Archaeology and know that Evolution is logical and is the truth simply because I can provide the fossil evidence.

    As for the Bible, let me ask you this. I have read accounts about Exodus, where the Israelites supposedly take 40 years to travel a 40 day journey. Unfortunately I cannot find any evidence proving the validity of this claim. There is no signs whatsoever of nomadic activity during this period. Furthermore, historical, documented evidence points to Solomon’s son and grandson being amajor international figure at the time of their reigns.

    The scenario you point towards is a thing called Hope. You hope that this book is correct. It isn’t. It is a load of folk tales put together for propaganda purposes. I’m sorry if I’m painting a harsh picture but that is the way it is. I recommend you read the works by Ken Miller, an Evolutionary Biologist who is a Christian. Evolution is agreed upon by the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches as fact. The two major churches of Christianity both agree on this and the Anglican church has issued an apology on it. Furthermore in America, every time that Creationists have tried to propose their version of the “facts” to be integrated into the classroom they have been shot down. The Dover Trials is one good example.

    As for Expelled, I feel sorry for you. Expelled is a fake, a sham. Every single scientist that has supposedly been “Expelled” for their views was stopped for good academic reasons. The studio has been sued twice for copyright issues. Expelled has offered kickbacks in order to get pupils to see it. Is it right that teachers should take their children to view a film that proposes something that has been banned in promoting in public schools?

    I seriously recommend you vist Youtube and watch “Why do People Laugh at Creationists?” series by Thunderfoot. I recommend you view ExtantDodo and other people involved in explaining the basics of Evolution. If you are not convinced at least you’ve viewed some evidence which goes against your beliefs and you can understand why we have these ideas.

  106. Largenton says:

    Oh and one further question. Do you know what Evolution is Mussad and can you give a definition?

  107. Musad says:

    If Hovind has a worthless Phd. then that makes the other scientists look worse than they where before they debated him.

    As for Soloman and his sons I’ll have to research both sides to see why it appears that way. As for the Exodus account, watch the archeaological documentary “Exodus Revealed.” I got it from the discovery channel store and once saw it shown on PBS. It showed where the possible area of the 40 years of wandering is. There is much evidence they revealed for the whole exodus story. It also shows more than a whole hour of evidence for the Red Sea crossing. You can even find it on the internet. I’ve seen skeptical theories that discount the miracle of how they crossed over. like maybe there was a tornadoe and other theories.

    But the miracle of God parting the sea seems to be the only logical explanation since there are bones of the Egyptians and horses and chariots, and other reasons. Many of the archeaologists admit this on the video. You must hav known about this since you took a degree in archeaology. This shows that you’re just hoping that the Bible is wrong. The Bible says, “The fool says in his heart that there is no God.” That’s because life itself is a miracle.

    As for the Roman Catholic Church and Anglican. I used to be Catholic, and I still believe that they are true Christians, but I feel sorry that their church is failing to look at the evidence. They adopted this theory because they got scared when the theory of evolution came out popular in Darwin’s time. Remeber though they where the ones persecuting anyone who said that the world might be round, even though the Bible says in Isaiah 40:22 that “God sits on the circle of the earth.” In Hebrew it means a spherical circle. The problem with you is you will take evidence for the Bible and try to find any little possible way that it may be wrong, which is ok because that is science, but then you will not look at any evidence big or small that might make it right. But then when somebody says, “Hey look we found evidence for evolution.” You won’t question it. That’s not scientific. It’s just like “Piltdown Man.” Many scientists fell for this trick. Now they put monkey and ape skulls next to skulls of “pre-flood” humans and say, “See that’s evidence.” and people say “duh you got a phd you must be right.”

    I was a Catholic who believed in the evolution. Then four years ago I got upset when I found out how phony evolution is. I’m sorry to be so blunt Largenton but that’s the way it is. Now I’m going to college and I challenge my proffessors and the textbooks all the time.

    I won’t respond after this, because I’ve got too much homework to be fooling around on the internet. If you still continue to believe in evolution atleast still give Jesus a chance.

    But, One last question Largenton. What is the best evidence for the world being millions of years old? I’ll research both sides with whatever you come up with, but if you say DNA, carbon or metric dating, or the geologic strata column, I’m going to laugh. God bless you man.

  108. Largenton says:

    Well I did have a huge long post, but I’ll stick to the basics. Firstly Musad, please can you inform me what has more weight. Some random, biased documentary that bases something on creationist “evidence” or the leading Biblical archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein with the combined weight of a few hundred scientific papers and his book “The Bible Unearthed”.

    Onto your points, do you know what a scientific theory constitutes? Read my posts above, they give clear examples. Do you know why your Biblical argument fails? Because it uses circular logic, using the Bible to prove God exists because God dictated it. That’s like saying I have a piece of paper which says Hanks is right all the time, therefore, anything on this piece of paper is true. The Youtube analogy “Kissing Hank’s Ass” applies here.

    Furthermore, Spherical circle is a tautology, you’ve used two words to mean the same thing, Spheres are 3d versions of a circle, you cannot have a sphere that is not a circle, in fact the standard mathematical tool to determine the area of a sphere is almost identitical, just applicable for 3D. However, this fails there. The Hebrew word for circle is chuwg, sphere is duwr. Chuwg is used, not duwr, furthermore, with words describing the sky as a tent like structure it is no surprise it means circle, especially in context.

    Next onto the matter of the Piltdown Man, a hoax you conveniently forgot to mention, was uncovered by scientists. They have had any problems in the same respect for Evolution, in fact it answers all the questions perfectly.

    Please do not discuss morphology with me as that was my speciality, The clear examples of knuckle walking bipeds make this argument laughable, as well as the literature i have to hand.

    On the subject of evidence for the antiquity of the Earth I can point to quite a few things. Biochronology is one, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, thermoluminescene, amino acid racemization, varves, mtDNA and the simple fact of the geological features found within the landscape is another. Go and watch “Why do people laugh at Creationists?” I’m sorry but the points you make there about the flood prove it to be complete horseshit.

    Oh and please read this:

    This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

    Oh and Musad, Evolution besides being part of the scientific consensus also has be held up in court as correct. Unlike your doctrine. So I know it will be hard but I hope you find how to reconcile your Christianity with scientific evidence.

    Just please, do not break any commandments, especially Thou shalt not bear false witness. Kent Hovind did that.

  109. Musad says:

    HA HA HA! I told you I would laugh at your biased junk science. I’ve seen all of this pseudoscience before. The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. You’re the one doing circular junk science my friend. Metric dating can’t date anything that’s knowingly only 6,000 years old. So what happens when a paleontologist uses metric dating on a lizard that died 5,000 years ago but he doesn’t know it? The metric dating will say it’s hundreds of thousands or millions of years old. And he’ll trust (have faith) in that date. You use the same talking points that all the anti-creationists use. You accuse people of lying. Have you ever told a lie Largenton. Well then judge not lest you be judged. As From what I’ve studied about the circular earth, the Hebrews didn’t have a Hebrew word for “spherical” in the time of Isaiah over 2,000 years ago. So many scholars believe this was the meaning. I read that from a Jewish scholar. It’s just like how words change meaning. The King James Version calls a donkey an ass because that’s how they talked 500 years ago. So Hebrew words have changed and been added too. Look at the website below for an example of the circular translation and many other scientific accuracies in the Bible that you will say is biased even though you don’t even know the writers. The Bible also says in Job 26:7 “(He) God hangs the earth on nothing.” How would the writers of the Bible know that the earth was circular shaped and that it hangs on nothing, when you know historically, that man didn’t know this until about the time of Columbus. I read somewhere that the Greeks thought the earth was mounted on pillars.

    As for the courts, this is a new argument that you people use that will get old fast. The Lawful Courts have also freed criminals (like O.J.) and locked up innocent men, because the courts are made up of imperfect people like you and I. The jurors probably hadn’t studied these subjects and just believed in separation of Church and state even though they probably believe in God, because 90% of Americans believe in God.

    As for the scientific consensus for evolution, it is falling, but scientists are afraid of losing their jobs if they say their true beliefs. Half of Americans don’t believe in evolution and only about 10% believe in secular evolution. Here’s evidence on this secular poll.

    Here’s also just a sample list of what “Largenton” calls biased scientist (because they don’t believe like he does) that believe in mostly young earth creation.

    You can use all the fancy terms you want, but like I said, it doesn’t take a genius to know that the monkey to man evolution theory is foolish. Let’s see, what does the word “homo-sapien” mean? It means wise-man or knowing man. Am I correct? Well the Bible says, “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:22).” You worship yourself as the most highly evolved creature on earth. For you to imagine that you may have to answer to a supreme authority like “The Creator” of the world is something that you don’t want to think about, so you like many others, have grasped this junk-science like drugs to forget about the truth that you will one day face. I just accept it because so much of it is being proven all the time, along with miracles and personal miracles. Why would I just hope it’s true when the Bible says we’re going to Hell if we don’t repent? You think I want to believe that. I’d rather live in a fantasy world like you. I also found evidence for myself in my secular biology book that defies evolution. Have you heard of David Vetter? He was born without a thymus gland and so he had to live in an artificial bubble. He died within a couple days after trying to live outside. When did the thymus gland evolve so that people could survive? The thymus gland is highly complex. People would have to have a thymus gland designed from the beginning in order to live one day in the world. Even the fittest wouldn’t have a chance without that one small important organ.
    1 Corinthians 15:32 basically says if the resurrection is a lie then, “we should eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.” I would have no problem excepting evolution, if it where true. But you close your biased eyes and ears to truth.

    As for The Red Sea crossing, it is overwhelming evidence for the greatest miracle in the Bible, besides the creation. The Red Sea crossing show that I watched was also on The National Geographic Channel, and like I said, on PBS, and I bought the videos at the Discovery channel store (all secular organizations). Would you call these biased organizations? They promote evolution all the time. Maybe they’re “theistic evolutionists.” I don’t know. You probably hadn’t even seen the video and I’m sure you haven’t been there to the crossing but you still call them biased archeaologists. This just reveals even more your bias. Answer me this question Largenton. Are you a theistic evolutionist, or a secular evolutionist like your pet Charles Dawkins? If you say theistic I’ll cut you some slack, but if you’re a secular, I’m done. Go ahead and cuss up a storm, because I don’t believe that there are really atheists. You just don’t want to believe. We are without excuse.

  110. Musad says:

    The Red Sea Crossing, (Exodus Revealed, part 2 of 4)Dr. Leonard Muller, a real archaeologist, discovers the Red Sea crossing. Watch the whole thing on youtube.

  111. antharper says:

    The fact that millions of Americans could vote for this woman is scary enough. But the fact that John McCains health isn’t what it ought to be and that she someone who can’t digest (or even see) evidence when it is presented to them having their finger on the big red button scares me s***less. I’m digging a big lead lined hole as we speak.

  112. Largenton says:

    OK Musad, I’ve had enough of being polite to someone who clearly has no fucking clue what he is on about. Ready for a little radiometric dating?

    Firstly, what fucking crap are you talking about circular arguments? We NEVER use fossils to date the layers. Biochronology happens to work, and is precise, but we use radiometric dating, stuff that has proven to work since your computer is working on similar principles. The principles are used in medicine sometimes too, using certain radioactive chemicals which have extremely short half lives and no affect on the body (as the waves pass through it), but can be measured. The fact is, you haven’t read my link, which is rude and idiotic. Before calling it a junk science, you fail to understand that this principle has been proven to work, by using other methods such as dendrochronology, to be precise, counting tree rings. Tree rings are more precise, and have calibrated radiocarbon dates. In other words, we have been able to confirm the accuracy of these techniques, especially as other techniques confirm them!

    Concerning lying, I’m disappointed with you Musad again. Yes, lying is bad and I may have done it before, however, that does not give you the right to lie at all, does it? I may forgive you for your sin, but I do object to you carrying out the sin. That’s why we have laws Musad, they are used to stop people from carrying out what you might call “sins” such as murder and rape. I hate people trying to be sophisticated and instead just make themselves look stupid.

    Onto the word for sphere, I’m sorry, I’m not buying that bullshit. A few quotes.

    Isaiah 11:12
    12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

    Revelation 7:1
    1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

    Job 38:13
    13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

    Jeremiah 16:19
    19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

    Daniel 4:11
    11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

    Matthew 4:8
    8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

    He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)”

    “The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 93:1)”

    “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)”

    Just a few notices. Just to remind you of course, these verses got Galileo censured as well……

    Concerning the courts, let us see what the honourable Judge Jones had to say on the issue:

    “Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

    Teaching creationism, in the class room is in violation of your Constitution! Stop bullshitting as that was quite clear.

    Now I turn to the point you made about scientists turning away from Evolution. Musad, it doesn’t matter what imaginary figures you pull up (which Creationist sites are famous for), it doesn’t matter whether they “believe” it or not. Evolution is not about belief, its about cold solid fact, i.e. it happens.

    Oh have you heard of Project Steve?

    Oh how many Steves are on your list Musad? Because currently there are 958 Steves (and variations of the name) on this one……

    Now let us go onto the points you made. I’m not claiming I’m a genuis, but if your going to come up with stupid idiotic canards claiming there is no evolution, then stfu and get back to school.

    One, let us examine this link:

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. The clinching evidence is ERVs. ERVs are viruses which randomly insert themselves into DNA, causing no problems, but are passed on to the descendents because of their lack of effect (natural selection does not filter out neutral mutations). Amazingly, chimps and humans have a lot of ERVs in the exact same place with the exact same sequence. Amazing that, its almost as if we split from a common ancestor with chimps 7 million years ago.

    Arguments surrounding fossil hominins. One thing I think clinches it, is David Straits work on Australopithecines. After analysis of these hominins, along with ardipithecines, Strait discovered that they possess a knuckle walking feature, a common feature that chimps and gorillas have but we don’t. Since Lucy and the rest of the fossils are indeed bipeds (femur bone distribution and foremen magnum confirms this), it means that they evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor.

    See this is your creationist problem, you believe that we state we evolve from animals that are living “now”. You use the word monkey for instance. Instead, Evolution states that we evolved from common ancestors of chimps, who had a common ancestor with gorillas, etc. Its like family trees in respect, my brother and I have a common ancestor in our parents, just like me and my second cousins have a common ancestor with our great-grandparents.

    Now the concern with the “Homo sapien” (to use the correct name and method) was devised by Linnaeus, a man who invented classification before Evolution was discovered. Even then, he tried to group other apes and humans together because to his eye, they were very similar. Instead, due to religious intervention, we were given the title of Wise Man. Some people have argued occasionally that we should be moved to the Panini category or that chimps should be moved into the hominin category. However, what separates us is this deep prejudice against chimps half the time. To be honest, in my opinion and indeed, many of the scientific community including Dawkins, is that just because we have evolved and we have been more successful, it doesn’t mean we are in any way better, shape or form, it just means we succeeded, nothing else about being more highly evolved, that is another strawman.

    In fact, which holy book was it that claims we have dominion over the animals and plants of this world?

    Now can I ask whether you read my argument? Because I make reference to the fact that the Bible is a circular argument. Quoting the Bible to confirm its validity, does not make it true, it shows how brainwashed you are in a matter of fact. Or btw have you considered that to other religions you might be wrong? Just believing in the one doesn’t give you a better chance to be honest, especially as you’ve yet to prove any of the others wrong. If you’re just saying that you believe in God simply because you’re afraid of going wrong then that’s not a particularly good reason, nor do you particularly give yourself any favours by creating strawmen of my own opinions nor of what evolution is. I asked you if you know what it means, but it seems unlikely.

    What confirms that suspicion is that you use the case of the thymus gland. Indeed, a fully formed thymus gland in modern people is essential. However, this can be attributed to the same flaws as “what use is half an eye” and the rest of the creationist drivel involving irreducible complexity. Shall we read Darwin on the matter?

    “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.” (Darwin 1872, 143-144)

    This is further improved with the analogy made by Muller, with his Mullerian two-step.

    Rather than quoting Biblical verse, look at this way, Evolution doesn’t say anything on God. What it does say is that a book might be wrong. I analysed the video you use, Exodus Revealed and I have one major problem. Looking at it, I found it was using the evidence of a Mr Ryan Wyatt, a well-known creotard and his evidence I’ve always found extremely flawed, especially as the people who weren’t already biased, remarked on the problems. This is nothing as well, as you have ignored the evidence presented in “The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein, an Orthodox Jew, which states explicitly in great detail using better sources and a wide range of evidence to state it is bullshit. I’ve analysed the evidence, I happen to also have an archaeologist’s opinion, one whose word is the foremost authority in the field, combined with several other papers I have seen. Against a documentary which has no peer-review and is set out to convince the masses rather than the scientists, I find I am biased to what is called true academia, i.e. hard work and scientific work. Last time I checked, this got us further than making shit up.

    Concerning my religious beliefs, this has no bearing, but since you will complain I’ll say quite nicely. I am an agnostic. I don’t know whether God exists or not, but what I can comfortably say is that he isn’t the version that Creationists put forth from a book which I find is quite brutal occasionally and portrays a sadistic God who kicks people out of Eden because they do not know the difference between right and wrong. However, last time I checked, there is no problem with secularism (something which Christians of the last century promoted) not evolution. I don’t know what Evolutionists are because I don’t believe in scientific theories in the same way I do for God, etc. Its like calling me a gravitationist )theory of gravity) and a cellist (cell theory) too.

    As for atheists, all they are, are people who lack faith in a particular religion.

  113. Musad says:

    The four corners of the earth are North East South and West. I’m sure you saw that somewhere. I also don’t believe in religion. I believe in a relationship with God through Christ Jesus. I pray you find the truth one day. I admit belief in much of the Bible is faith, but evolution is not science. It is faith blended into science. I’ll pray for you Largenton. Take care, I hope to see you in Heaven one day. Musad.

  114. Largenton says:

    I hate it when people break the laws of their own religion. Despite me presenting evidence for evolution, stating evolution is a faith is down right dishonest.

    I think that is all I need to say.

  115. Dillon says:

    If I may comment on Glenn’s reference to Russell Humphrey and his cosmological model. I found the principles of his theory quite easy to understand, in line with GR/Special Relativity, and a good reference to his article which explains how he made those predictions as to the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.

    I also googled “white hole cosmology” and there are pages galore – both for and against the overall theory. Why Largenton would only read one reference – biased Wiki at that – is not a very enthusiastic seeker in my opinion. I can’t say one way or the other if Humphrey is correct, but his predictions being accurate is impossible to deny unless you just want to bury your head in the sand.

    Accurate theory or not, it follows the dictates of science – good science at that. I give one point minimum to creation science.

  116. Dillon says:

    Since I found a couple of Glenn’s posts quite interesting, I did a search for the petition he mentioned ‘against’ big bang theory and I think I found it.

    It was a challenge to wade through links about the Large Hadron Collider and find this little gem but there it is. Glenn, if he ever checks back in, can correct me if I’m wrong. I looked up about 25 of the organizations and individuals who signed it and it appears as though quite a few are secular, working cosmologists or physicists.

    New Scientist is also secular but seems to give its scientists complete academic freedom. I think I’ll be subscribing this week. Good stuff Menord.

  117. Dillon says:

    For any so interested, here’s a good synopsis of Humphreys’ WHC model. One disclaimer – it *IS* a creationist site so browser beware LOL

  118. Largenton says:

    Dillion, for your first point, I analysed his papers on his own site. After checking them, it revealed a single paper published in 1984. This paper was refuted in a secular science journal by Russ, 1999.

    Concerning your second point about the petition, I find them rather useless. As I proved with the Project Steve, there are far too many scientists who accept something which has been confirmed. Anyway, last time I checked the debate was over Evolution…….

  119. Dillon says:

    So any theory refuted is automatically rendered invalid – case closed? Doesn’t that leave us a bit confused in the overall picture of things?

    Also, an appeal to authority and/or majority does nothing ‘special’ for me.

  120. Largenton says:

    So why exactly did you research this petition? I’m not appealing to authority. If the Big Bang is incorrect, then it is clear science will be able to find this due to evidence, however, as it stands, there is an extremely strong case for the Big Bang including CMB radiation, red shift and Lemaitre’s calculations. Any new proposal would have to analysis these points and come up with a reasonable explanation.

    Concerning the first point I’m not entirely certain what you are meaning.

    “So any theory refuted is automatically rendered invalid.” Firstly, what theory? Are you referring to Humphrey’s paper? Oh dear, this shows some lack of knowledge. If it is a scientific paper then it is a failed hypothesis as there is evidence against the proposal, I believe I actually mentioned why earlier on, using a reference. Please do not use theory in the collaqual sense as it confuses the issue, especially when compared to scientific theory.

    If something has been proven wrong, then according to good science, this hypothesis does not match observational reality. With this in mind we certainly have a problem. However, I am finding this rather side-tracked, this discussion started about Evolution, this side-tracking into the validity of astrophysics is a irrelevant point. It doesn’t challenge at all any concept of Evolution. I originally stated that creationism is not science, because the invocation of God renders it unscientific. Now Glenn took that to mean that creationists can’t do science. Which is obviously wrong, I can name one or two off the top of my head. However, the point that stands is that creationist proposals are unscientific and are normally not put into scientific journals because they violate the rules of good science.

  121. Dillon says:

    Side tracked? Matt Damon is concerned “whether or not she (being Palin) believes dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago.” This is not necessarily an evolutionary-only issue as much as the overall philosophy of creationism vs. naturalism as it relates to the age of the earth and universe. If so, then cosmology is relevant in this discussion.

    If you had read any amount of the last link I provided, you would have seen that CMB radiation, red shit, and numerous calculations in addition to Lamaiter’s, and many other principles were discussed in detail. From appearances, it looks like you’re really not too interested in this subject. Also, if you think we have the universe in our pocket of understanding, may I laugh heartily until you tell me that is not your position?

    You mentioned the rules of good science in light of creationism. Can you explain these rules to me please?

  122. Largenton says:

    Actually its quite simple, Creationism is opposed to Evolution. Palin is a creationist, who has suggested she will support “teaching the controversy.” This controversy is actually against the law, the Establishment Clause none the less, which denies creationists the ability to promote their ideology in schools. Creationism is not scientific. Concerning the points raised by your website, I have already given a link which has refuted Humphrey’s tired old arguments, Go check them out. What I’m unable to understand is why you rely on this site. For a start, it is biased asyou’ve mentioned. Links are to creationist websites such as AiG which is a bag of shit and makes no qualms about saying how they love to indoctrinate children.

    Now onto some of the science. To understand the philosophy of science, one must first understand that nothing is able to be proven completely. What science does is matches the observational reality to hypothesis. If these hypotheses are correct and withstand scrutiny from peers, they eventually become a scientific theory, which is proven beyond reasonable doubt (using the technical definition of theory). In order to match observational reality, there must be some way of proving a hypothesis wrong. This is falsifiability. This is the main area which causes problems for creationists as their prediction (God created everything), is unable to be proven. Points such as the young age of the Earth have been refuted, yet Creationists try and prop up tired old canards, the obvious one being against radiometric dating, refuted here:

    Now you’ve provided me with a site which I’ve already provided a rebuttal. My original post on the matter. It is this post:

    read the two references and compare. I have two of them which make extensive use of scientific articles and show how twisted Humphreys is.

    Another thing I would like to point out is peer-review. Peer-review is where fellow scientists in a field, review someone’s work in order to detect errors. The paper might have been written before, or the notion may have been refuted. In mainstream journals, they follow the practices of science as put forth by Popper (and shown above in this post). Creationist journals don’t. They are not mainstream journals and don’t apply the same rigour. Therefore they are propaganda machines.

  123. Dillon says:

    Laws change and do not determine reality in science or any other field. Good and bad laws exist on the books and the only guarantee is that they will eventually change or cease to apply. Sodomy of any and all forms in Idaho can get you life in prison. In California, sodomy by itself is perfectly legal. If a law holds sway over reality, which state’s law represents realty?

    You have given me links that refute Humphreys and I have given you links where Humphreys responds to those refutations. So? I am only an amateur astronomer but am able to understand the gist of Humphreys’ model, the criticisms, and his response to them. If you are not interested or informed on this topic just say so. Providing a link and reiterating it over and over does about as much good to debate as a crying baby in the bedroom while the parents are trying to have quality sex.

    I agree with your take on the general rules and applications of science. I will add this though – a theory starts with an assumption. Take the attempt to catch a wild frog for example. We know it moves away when approached – then desire to know by what mechanism – this is the initial observation that stimulates the question of mechanical cause. One theory assumes that a creator has placed this mechanism within the frog for its protection because this creator intended the frog to survive and reproduce ‘til further notice. Another theory assumes that random, biological changes have occurred over long spans of time to favor this yet unexplained, now-guided mechanism. Both can make predictions which can be tested to see if these predictions prove true or false. Both practice and observe the rules of good science. Your argument reminds me of a referee who calls fouls only against one team for the course of the entire game. Same game, same play, same rules should result in a near equal ratio of fouls between teams.

    Biased? The only potentially unbiased opinions go against the main establishment which supports the philosophical assumption of the critic himself. Hence my link showing naturalists fed up with the establishment behind the big bang theory and its current state of bankruptcy.

    Radiometric dating. We have no idea what the starting point was for the elemental clocks of decay and you know this. If we consider the possiblity of rapid and “preemptive” decay after the formation of our planet, but most likely before organic life occurred – as in Humphreys’ model – all of the elemental decay measurements make sense, including C-14. Sorry, I agree with others here in pointing out that long age gradualism cannot account for this last element. One bad apple as they say.

    Peer review. This is no different than a boy’s club. Let’s peer review Darwin – Darwin not only “borrowed” heavily from a creationist – Herbert Spencer – in “Origins,” but by today’s peer review, Darwin’s theories have been disproved.” The only thing that remains is the basic philosophy stolen from a man who was too dignified to make a stink – only with a calculated, politically motivated, atheistic twist. Creationist journals have to resort to in-house peer review only because the naturalist establishment censors any challenges to their bankrupt world view which they struggle to support with a form of “science” that is anything but. Darwin’s Peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks for goodness sake. Nova had to glue half-frozen, lab bred moths to the trunks just to do their “documentary” supporting Darwin’s “research.” This boy’s club is as corrupt as any – don’t insult us with the peer review argument please.

  124. Largenton says:

    Oh god you really are a creationist aren’t you?

    OK one paragraph at a time.

    1. Last time I checked the Establishment Clause was the First Amendment. Now
    that is the one legal document I’ve see few Americans wanting to change and
    for good reason. It is a fundamental aspect of the law and if you change it,
    it clearly shows the warped and preverted aspects of people that clearly do
    not understand the concept of Democracy. If this is what America will go to,
    to further a religious agenda of a propaganda book then I feel sorry for the
    intelligent people living there. Goddidit is not science. Its being a moron.

    2. You don’t give Humphrey’s rebuttal. There is a link to Crying Rock, in
    that I see no references to standard scientific journals, in fact its all
    creationist after creationist speculation. No real science and no real
    experiments. I see no reference to the references I actually gave too. So
    that is what we term “a lie” Dillion. I do hope we don’t see any more.

    3. What predictions can be made to disprove the existence of a creator?
    Whilst for Evolution there are hundreds of potential ways to disprove it
    (29+ Evidences for Macroevolution is just one example of a document which
    lists them), there is no way to disprove a Creator as he is a supernatural
    entity. A supernatural entity cannot be observed in a natural world.
    Therefore, it is unscientific to put on par creationism. Furthermore, you
    have ignored the concept of scientific theory. Evolution has achieved that
    level. Creationism has not. Creationism is based on the ramblings of 4000
    year old shepherds.

    4. OK, please inform me of some significant scientific ground which has been
    changed by creationists doing hard research? I can name 2 scientists off the
    top of my head, who received prizes for challenging “scientific dogma”.
    Firstly is Lynn Margulis, who produced Endosymbiotic theory, she ddi loads of hard work and turned something which actually seemed to go against what everyone else had said and won awards for it. Another is Stanley Prusiner who managed to prove that proteins could exist that were capable of replication without a nucleic acid intermediary. This was done by hard work and he managed to discover that this was of importance for several human diseases. So basically, we can see that hard work pays off, not any mythical old boy’s network. It might be the same game, and same rules, but your team fouls a hell of a lot more than mine.

    5. Concerning bias yes. They are biased form the outset to believe that the Bible is true. Because the Bible says so. Circular argument? There is a lack of acceptance because of this bias. A great example is the Lenski affair. Richard Lenski is a scientist who had produced E-coli which had evolved the ability to digest citrates. In other words, it had evolved a new trait. Lenski published a paper on the subject. The founder of Conservapida, Schafly, wrote to Lenski, demanding the raw data and the method of the experiment, despite only skimming through the paper. Lenski wrote back saying all the data needed was on the paper. Schafly wrote back asking for the full data set citing law and stating on his website that Lenski was hiding something. In a briliant letter, Lenski wrote a letter explaining to Mr Schafly that the raw data happened to be E-coli living in his lab and that he was welcome to have them, if he had the facilities and the knowledge to look after them. The transcript in full can be found on wiki, which I can assure you, after viewing it at first on Conservapedia (before Schafly edited it) is complete. Furthermore, I would like to quote a letter written in American Scientist:

    “To the Editors

    In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages, as follows:

    On page 121: “Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanisms translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [of life’s birth].”

    On page 125: “From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life.”

    I have several reasons for retracting the statements. For the first passage, use of the requirement of simultaneity was a conjecture, unsupported by any proof. Separate developments of partial structures might well have occurred in an environment of randomly reacting molecules, eventually to join into one or more self-reproducing structures.

    The second passage refers only to an attempt to calculate the probability that a single molecule of a particular amino acid could spontaneously form from its components. The calculation was irrelevant, as it was based on an endothermic change during an imaginary spontaneous conversion of a mixture of component atoms and molecules into glycine under adiabatic and standard conditions, with no external source of energy. Such changes cannot spontaneously take place. Molecules of increased complexity have been found, however, when necessary components are available, with the aid of ambient energy from natural or experimental systems, e.g. electrical discharges, substantial temperature gradients or contiguous compounds or elements whose chemical reactions produce free energy. All of these could have existed under early Earth conditions, and thus this passage is completely inapplicable.

    Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists who have quoted my not merely out-of-context, but incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements, allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use it for anti-science ends.

    Homer Jacobson
    Brooklyn College
    The City University of New York”

    So yeah, bias…..

    6. Radiometric dating. Clearly, you have failed to read the link, or my mention of the word “Calibration”. Furthermore, you’ve ignored an article I provided from a Christian perspective which demonstrates how wrong your points are and how stupid they are. Please do me the courtesy of reading things that refutes the shit you’ve produced.

    7. Peer Review. Firstly let us examine your claims that it is an old boy’s club. If this is the case, how come people with radical ideas such as Lynn Margulis and Prusiner actually got rewarded for it? Provide some proof or please, shut up making conspiracy theories.

    Now onto the Darwin slurs. First off you state that Darwin borrowed heavily from Herbert Spencer. Unfortunately, no. Darwin had already been carrying his research out for at least 20 years before Spencer published a paper on it, two years before Origins of the Species. Next, Darwin proposed Natural Selection, Spencer was a Lamarkist, which was similar, but not quite. Darwin made the important observation that the animals which survive, pass on their traits to their descendents. This causes small but gradual changes over time, again the fossil record is a remarkable example of this. Lamarck merely observed that traits pass on to their kin. However, Lamarck proposed it in a way which included acquired traits, for example, a blacksmith’s son would acquire the traits of the father, such as the muscles. This is flawed as I would not inherit say a broken leg of my mothers. Darwin defined it as inherited characteristics, such as something having a longer beak would be more likely at pulling grubs out of trees, a phrase which Spencer coined as “Survival of the Fittest” AFTER reading Origins.

    Now you claim that Spencer was a creationist. What a lie. If you knew anything about Spencer, you would have realised from his works that he was famed for his agnosticism, even being condemned as an atheist from some quarters. So don’t fucking lie. That is the second I’ve found and I hate people lying for a cause and slurring two professional’s names. You also claim Darwin was an atheist, unfortunately, again, like Spencer, he was agnostic, only turning to it, after his discovery of his Theory of Evolution weakened his faith. So another fucking lie. You do realise you are slurring two people in the same paragraph.

    If you think Peppared Moths are the be all and end all, here are a few papers. These are direct experimental tests of Evolutionary Concepts.

    Cavefish as a Model System in Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) – contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

    Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) – refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

    Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory by J.R. Weinberg V. R. Starczak and P. Jora, Evolution vol 46, pp 1214-1220, 1992 – EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

    Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, pp 289 – 292 (02 April 1971) – EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

    Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution vol 47, pp 432-444, 1993 – EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

    Genetics of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction of Some of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) – direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

    Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration in Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) – direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

    Initial Sequencing of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, Vol 437, pp 69-87, 1 September 2005 – direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chmpanzees are IDENTICAL

    Origin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, vol 300, pp 325-329, 11 April 2003 – direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

    Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity by M.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale and J.E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 153-164. Feb 1998 – direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

    Protein engineering of hydrogenase 3 to enhance hydrogen production by T. Maeda, V. Sanchez-Torres and T. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) – DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

    Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) – direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

    Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, vol 56, pp 484-487, 1966 – direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

    The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 – direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

    The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) – direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

    So please could I have, in detail, the flaws of Evolution. And don’t lie. I hate people lying here.

  125. Glenn says:

    Did I say Spencer? Sorry, I meant Edward Blyth. May I copy paste to match your liberal use of this wonderful “tool” of debate on information that you – and I – could have just as easily done for ourselves? btw – the only reason I got the name wrong was because I was working on inherent, memorized information which I transposed. But hey – you wanna copy paste – let’s go.

    Darwin appropriated the work of Edward Blyth

    “According to anthropologist Loren Eiseley, Darwin appropriated the work of Edward Blyth, a little- known British zoologist who wrote on natural selection and evolution in two papers published in 1835 and 1837. Eiseley points to similarities in phrasing, the use of rare words, and the choice of examples. While Darwin in his opus quotes Blyth on a few points, notes Eiseley, he does not cite the papers that deal directly with natural selection, even though it is clear he read them. The thesis has been disputed by paleontologist Stephen J. Gould. But Eiseley is not the only critic of Darwin’s acknowledgment practices. He was accused by a contemporary, the acerbic man of letters Samuel Butler, of passing over in silence those who had developed similar ideas. Indeed, when Darwin’s On the Origin of Species first appeared in 1859, he made little mention of predecessors. Later, in an 1861 `historical sketch’ added to the third edition of the Origin, he delineated some of the previous work, but still gave few details. Under continued attack, he added to the historical sketch in three subsequent editions. It was still not enough to satisfy all his critics. In 1879, Butler published a book entitled Evolution Old and New in which he accused Darwin of slighting the evolutionary speculations of Buffon, Lamarck, and Darwin’s own grandfather Erasmus.” (Broad W.J. & Wade N., The New York Times], “Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science,” Simon and Schuster: New York NY, 1982, pp.30-31). [top]

    Blyth was Darwin’s main, but unquoted, source of inspiration with respect to the notion of ‘natural selection.

    “Edward Blyth … made many contributions to the natural history of Southeastern Asia; yet he could have been largely unknown today had he not been saved from oblivion by Loren Eiseley, who has suggested that Blyth was Darwin’s main, but unquoted, source of inspiration with respect to the notion of ‘natural selection’. Eiseley arrived at this conclusion through a literary investigation. The material thus brought forward is of varying credibility, but still I think one must be a very orthodox Darwinian to be left completely untouched by Eiseley’s accusation.” ( Lovtrup S., “Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth,” Croom Helm: London, 1987, p.27). [top]

    Darwin listened to, and noted with care, the words of someone else who saw the force of natural selection: Edward Blyth

    “However, it is certain that Darwin listened to, and noted with care, the words of someone else who saw the force of natural selection: Edward Blyth, a south London chemist a year younger than Darwin, whose passion for natural history had led him to neglect his business, so that he had to sail for Calcutta at the age of thirty-one and take up a poorly paid position as curator of vertebrate collections in the local museum. Before leaving for India, Blyth spoke often at scientific meetings in London, some of them attended by Darwin. Darwin’s early notebooks on ‘transmutation’ (for years he avoided using the word evolution) contain transcriptions of what Blyth said. In 1835 and 1837 Blyth’s theories were published in the British Magazine of Natural History. Darwin, according to a cryptic reference in a letter, seems to have read these too.” (Hitching F., “The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong,” Pan: London, 1982, p.231). [top]

    Eiseley found evidences in Darwin’s essays that, between 1842 and 1844, he had studied Blyth’s work” but “made no reference to him.

    “Why isn’t Edward Blyth’s name a household word? Why isn’t he buried in Westminster Abbey? Blyth (1810-73), a creationist, first published essays on natural selection in 1835, 1836 and 1837, over twenty years before Darwin published The Origin of Species. Loren Eiseley found evidences in Darwin’s essays that, between 1842 and 1844, he had studied Blyth’s work. Later, after Blyth went to Calcutta, Darwin corresponded with him, showing particular interest in his studies of animal variation. … If Darwin did absorb Blyth’s ideas, he made no reference to him.” ( Pitman M.*, “Adam and Evolution,” Rider & Co: London, 1984, pp.75-76). [top]

    As to the Establishment Clause/First Amendment – at an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation’s founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands. On the other hand, persons seeing a far broader meaning in the clause point to writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggesting the need to establish “a wall of separation” between church and state. One only need to look at the creation of the education system and the universal use of the bible and creationism for the first one-hundred-plus years to verify that the underlying meaning of the First Amendment was NOT to censor religion from schools or any other place. Supreme Court interpretation of the Establishment Clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of Education. Voting 5 to 4, the Court upheld a state law that reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. So you see, the Constitution is not to be cited for today’s meaning – the courts are.

    Darwin – I take it you are not bothered that the man who you rely on for your world view and every associated belief was a plagiarist, fabricator, and a liar. But hey – at least he’s real as your thinking goes.

  126. Largenton says:

    Oh Glenn. Its nice to know you make sock-puppets to lie to me. I’m sorry but I find little reason to debate with a liar. Instead of being honest, you’ve tried to be dishonest and that is incredibly low. So rather than accusing others of being liars, let us examine why you are wrong. Firstly, let us examine the association with Darwin and Blyth. Despite this “lack” of acknowledgement, it is clear in the first chapter that Blyth is acknowledged.

    “…Mr Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one…”

    Whilst there are people which have claimed that Darwin stole these ideas off Blyth, the acquisition of Darwin’s notebooks reveals that this is false. Mayr reveals that Darwin came up with the concept of selection, whilst Blyth mistook it for elimination:

    “Blyth’s theory was clearly one of elimination rather than selection. His principal concern is the maintenance of the perfection of the type. Blyth’s thinking is decidedly that of a natural theologian…”


    Mayr E. 1984. The growth of biological thought. Harvard. p489

    Anyway, I don’t particularly care how you slander Darwin to be honest, the theory of Evolution is still valid. Observational reality reveals this, as some of the papers I cited before.

    Onto the points about the Establishment Clause, unfortunately, whilst you cite this argument, it is clear, that whilst it is used to prevent the government supporting Christianity in general, further information must be considered. With the standardisation of science into Popperian theory, the creation story is seen as a religious myth, something that science clearly is not. With that in mind, the State must not support Christianity in school by teaching a creation myth which strongly draws upon the roots of one religion. The example of the Flying Spaghetti Monster clearly highlights the problems and was the reason for its creation. Furthermore, the court cases as you put forth, highlight that each time creationism comes to the court, it is revealed as a lot of gibberish with no scientific bearing.

    Thou shalt not bear false witness. Well done Glenn.

  127. Glenn says:

    Isn’t life full of surprises? I thought you’d find my “coming out” mid-debate enjoyable. I also thought you’d have guessed before I had to make it obvious. Oh well 🙂

    Anyway, enjoy your world view and I will certainly enjoy mine. Furthermore, I hope you marvel at the wonder of the universe that you live in as I do each and every day. And if there is an afterlife, I most certainly hope it is not the one described in the Protestant bible with the predications therein. Not just for your sake but for all of unbelieving mankind. I have not sacrificed a thing in this life due to my beliefs but have only found each day more enriching then the last so I will find no dissapointment in an alternate afterlife of lack thereof. Blessings to you and farewell gain.


  128. Largenton says:

    Actually I find your coming out merely evidence that I shouldn’t trust you. As for wonderment, I also find that Evolution gives life a certain magnificence. As for sacrificing nothing, you’ve sacrificed your mind and intelligence you have for stupidity and deceit.

  129. Largentons Girlfriend says:


    this is Largentons girlfriend, Debby.
    I’d just like to add to all of you, don’t give him any credubility. He is an internet addict that does nothing but start ridiculous arguments on the net. Why? I don’t know, it’s sad, his parents and I keep telling him it’s sad but it’s his choice. He’ll never a get a decent job or a decent life because he wastes all his time here.
    Now people, do you really think somebody like that is worth arguing with?

    Just ignore him. Thank you,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: