The full-scale Noah's Ark replica at the Ark Encounter during a preview of the park on July 5, 2016, in Williamstown, Ky. At 510 feet long, 85 feet wide and 51 feet high, based on the measurements in cubits found in the first few chapters of Genesis, the ark is the largest timber-frame structure in the world, according to the Ark Encounter. RNS photo by Emily McFarlan Miller

Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope.

Fundamentalists are vowing to make a last stand for God in Dayton, Tenn., on Friday (July 14) when a new statue will be installed on the courthouse lawn. Going up alongside a likeness of William Jennings Bryan is a depiction of Clarence Darrow, Bryan’s pro-evolution adversary in Dayton’s historic Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.

The creationist organizing the protests is threatening to bring in a militia to thwart installation of the Darrow statue, which she calls an insult to God and Christians. It will take a lot more than that, though, to stop Americans’ growing acceptance of evolution and apparent shift away from the strict creationist view of the origin of the species.

New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the “young Earth” creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.

According to a Gallup Poll conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38 percent, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys. Fifty-seven percent accept the validity of the scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.

Has atheism taken over so thoroughly? No, and that’s why this apparent break in the creationism-vs.-evolution stalemate is significant and even instructive to those in search of creative solutions to our other intractable public arguments.

As the new poll reveals, the biggest factor in the shift is a jump in the number of Christians who are reconciling faith and evolution. They are coming to see evolution as their God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.

"Science doesn't have to drive people away from faith,” says Deborah Haarsma, president of an organization called BioLogos that promotes harmony between science and Christian faith.

It’s endlessly frustrating to secular and religious liberals, but the creationist view has held strong sway in this country in the decades since the famous Darrow-Bryan courtroom duel. Over recent decades, percentages in the upper-40s have taken the creationist position; the figure stood at 46 percent in Gallup’s 2012 survey.

Tenacious anti-evolution resistance continues to influence debates over issues including public school curricula, government support for creationist installations like the Noah’s Ark replica in Kentucky, and research access to national parks. A creationist researcher, for instance, claimed religious discrimination in his successful legal fight with the U.S. Park Service over its refusal to grant him access to collect rock samples. His purpose: marshaling evidence in support of the creationist belief that the Grand Canyon was created by a great global flood a relatively recent 4,300 years ago — the same flood that Noah and company are said to have ridden out on the ark.

Creationists will believe what they want to believe. But they should know the consequences. Continued fighting to promote creationism is hurting religion’s credibility in an age when science and technology are perceived as reliable sources of truth and positive contributors to society. Anecdotal and polling evidence implicates religion’s anti-science reputation in the drift away from church involvement — especially among younger adults, nearly 40 percent of whom have left organized religion behind.

Not surprising in view of our growing secularization, the percentage of Americans taking the strict evolution view — no divine role — has grown significantly since the 1980s, from 9 percent to 19 percent in the latest Gallup survey.

But the latest movement in public opinion shows onetime creationists taking refuge not in the “no-religion” zone but in “both/and” position. The percentage of people choosing the hybrid view — just 30 percent in 2014 — was 8 points higher in Gallup’s May poll.

These tea leaves tell us that more people are refusing the all-or-nothing choice between faith and science and opting instead for a third way: acceptance of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution while seeing a divine role in the process. “Divine evolution” is a term some use for it.

If we were to apply this approach to other stalemated arguments and false binaries, what other possibilities might emerge? Can’t we support Black Lives Matter and police officers who serve conscientiously? Can’t we support the legal availability of abortion and strategies that would reduce its incidence? Can’t we accept the scientific consensus on climate change and acknowledge a role for free-market business innovation as part of the solution? In the ongoing tussle over health care, can't we envision a system that combines the best private and government solutions?

For now, something to appreciate: growing public rejection of an unhelpful creationism-vs.-evolution fight that does no favors for either religion or science. As more believers are wisely accepting, you can embrace both — and both are better for it.

(Tom Krattenmaker writes on religion in public life and is communications director at Yale Divinity School. His latest book is "Confessions of a Secular Jesus Follower." Follow him on Twitter: @TKrattenmaker)


  1. The existence of other faiths is an insult to god and Christianity. You get upset about a statue of a lawyer.

  2. Here’s a link to the Grand Canyon incident to which the article referred:

    He won his right to collect samples. Truth be known that if we let creationist scientists collect those secret rock samples they will be able to prove the Grand Canyon was created during the Great Flood and not millions of years ago as atheistic geologists have been duping us to believe.?

    The geologist does have a PhD in geology but works for Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham. The Park Service limits collections of rocks to mainstream research and likely felt it was a waste of rocks for a totally bogus study. In my opinion it wasn’t his Christianity but his junk science that was the cause for refusal.

  3. We defend the cause of statues and monuments, that, is an insult to God and Christianity. Isaiah 1:17

  4. Honestly Jim, when evolutionists get so desperate to salvage their dying religion that they try to prevent a professional PhD geologist from simply collecting a few rocks from the Grand Canyon (What? Is there a shortage of rocks at **The Grand Canyon** of all places?), rational people of all flavors must ask themselves why they are letting evolutionists openly scam them and their kids.

    C’mon folks. This kind of anti-scientific bullying is unprecedented, even for evolutionists. It makes no sense; the GC is a public park location for all Americans. We Americans — with or without PhD’s — get to pick up pretty rocks and do scientific observations on them. Why are evo’s so frightened ?

    If evolution was based on an actual “scientific consensus”, instead of a confirmed consensus of bullying and threats, the Grand Canyon incident would never have happened at all.

  5. It was National Parks Service who turned him down twice on the merits of his proposal.and credentials. It was only through political intervention that he got his rocks. Snelling wasn’t content with rocks outside of the NPS boundaries. Has little o do with anything besides not meeting quality assurance mechanisms as to bona fide, academic research.

  6. I’m afraid THIS evolutionist scandal isn’t amenable to the usual stale recycled Band-Aids, Linda. For a while there, it looked to the general public like the Park Service had inexplicably lost its marbles.

    If evolution is scientifically true, (as opposed to being a world-class scam that requires bullying, threats, and censorship in order to survive), then what harm would it have done to let the PhD geologist have his rocks (from a Grand Canyon chock-full of rocks)?

    After all, there’s no way that a geologist could discover anything that would threaten the “settled” theory of evolution, right?

  7. You obviously didn’t read the article (or my post for that matter). It has nothing to do with evolution. It is illegal to remove rocks, fossils, plants or animals from National Parks. You have to get permission. The NPS ran his proposal through other scientists (like peer-reviewed). They determined it was junk science.

  8. Again, nothing to do with evolution. Trying to prove Noah’s Flood created the Grand Canyon. Totally different subject.

  9. Umm, the PhD geologist DID ask permission and submit a proposal, remember? He played by all the rules. The NPS responded by offering blatant viewpoint discrimination, but their insanity didn’t quite pan out. Oh well.

    “National Park Service officials denied his routine request to obtain a few fist-sized rock samples from the Grand Canyon after learning of his Christian views about the Earth’s beginnings.” (Alliance Defending Freedom, legal group)

    “Despite the fact that Dr. Snelling had accomplished prior research in the canyon, Park officials ran him through a gamut of red tape for more than three years.” (ADF)

    “They kept piling on demands. They asked for two independent peer reviewers, (Bob) Unruh says. He (Dr. Snelling) supplied three. They demanded more and more specifics about his research.
    When they couldn’t stop him with bureaucratic hurdles, they turned to secular academics for their opinion. Those, predictably, recommended denial, knowing that Snelling is associated with Answers in Genesis—a Christian young-earth creation ministry. One of them said, “ours is a secular society as per our constitution (sic)” and suggested “inappropriate interests” should be “screened out.” This is clear viewpoint discrimination.”
    (David Coppedge, CEH)

  10. Oh no no, Jim. There’s simply no rational way that evolution can account for what biology has uncovered in the world around us, UNLESS you insist on geological “deep time” of millions and billions of years in which mindless, zero-teleology, naturalistic evolution can finally get things right.

    Do you rely on oxygen to survive? Yes, we all do. Well, evolution can only stay alive by relying on geological “deep time” like 4.6 billion years.

    So if you can show that the Grand Canyon could have been originated by the global Noahic Flood, then suddenly you have disconnected the theory of evolution from its only life-support machine (“deep time”). Say bye-bye to the lie of 4.6 billion year old Earth, and you say bye-bye to Evolution.

  11. There is overwhelming proof for a 4 billion year-old Earth. Only creationist scientists (few in number) oppose it because of their conviction that Genesis is true. They haven’t been able to offer any credible evidence. The geologist got his rocks so we’ll see what happens.

  12. As an aside, it’s probable that the 38% of Americans who accept creationism form the majority of the 40% of Americans who embrace the Trumpmeister. .

  13. Creationists will never accept evolution because it disproves Jesus’ divinity. How can Jesus be divine (Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51) and believe Adam and Eve’s son Abel is an actual historical figure? OOPS.

  14. Would that be The Flood which occurred about 2,100 BCE (based on begat dates), some 1,000 years after civilization had arisen in Egypt, China, Mesopotamia, and across the world? The absurdity in creationists’ pseudo-science is that all the earth sciences (astronomy, cosmology, geology, hydraulics, archaeology, etc.) must all be conspiring with the sole purpose of disproving a 6,000 year old creation. You’re delusional.

  15. And yet you embrace graven images (prohibited by the Second Commandment in Exodus 29:4) like the cross.

  16. Sadly they are forced into these untenable positions and these absurd justifications because of their acceptance of Genesis as being literal. No amount of reason, common sense or evidence can compete with these faith-based beliefs.

  17. It does meet the definition of graven images. It is displayed on walls, massive crosses erected on land and (it is a murder weapon) worn by worshippers.

  18. Thanks for some context on the cross.
    My original reply to Ben was meant to restate what is offensive to God in my view. My view as a Christian is a self critical view when it comes to the issues of statues and monuments. Isaiah 1:17 is a verse Donald Trump quoted while addressing some Christian leaders who are his supporters. The verse is a criticism of what is going on at the time it was written, and to paraphrase it says, learn to take up the cause of widows and the fatherless. Learn to do right. Defend justice.
    We are going to call on a militia to defend a statue? I’m not defending that, I find it offensive. I find the verse in Isaiah ironic given what is going on today considering the causes we defend.
    On the cross issue. Yes it is a image that represents something but I don’t think that is a good or full definition of what a idol is. I think a idol is anything we worship. I think we can worship religious freedom. If we stick a cross on top off the White House as a symbol of religious freedom I would argue religious freedom is the idol that the cross on top of the White House represents. I don’t worship a cross, but a cross represents who I worship, but many times in our society the cross is a symbol of something else. So I’ll agree with you about the cross being a idol or representing a idol given the right context, but it is not a all inclusive statement to me.

  19. “It does meet the definition of graven images”

    Did I miss read this post the first time? Or have you edited your original post?

  20. You can find policies and procedures in place to approve or deny research requests for the Grand Canyon park which are on-line and lay out specific criteria. (The criteria have not been changed since 2002.) I am guessing that the fact that he is not affiliated with an academic institution nor has published in a peer-reviewed academic journal since the 1980’s were the primary grounds for turning him down. No anti-evolution scandal.

  21. My goodness! Positioning your argument with a “triumphalist” tone that you’ve won, when the state of the world looks quite opposite, does a great job of making you look like a sorry fundamentalist whose faith makes him frightened to look up into the sky for fear of seeing a red shift.

  22. “with or without PhD’s” – but those with PhDs are most likely to have the expertise to understand the results of those observations, and where they disagree the consensus is more likely to be accurate than the maverick who has a preconceived expectation within boundaries that may, for him/her, be uncrossable.

  23. I listened to this guy lecture about 10 years ago, and he was then talking about a sample-collecting trip down the Grand Canyon. I don’t know why he has to do it again–is it a way to get press?

    Anyway, his goal was to undercut radioisotope dating. He took metamorphic rock samples (only igneous rock can be reliably dated), sent them off to various labs, got back dates all over the place and said, “See? Can’t trust it.”

  24. They can sample the layers exposed in the Grand Canyon at other sites nearby that aren’t part of the National Park system. They want the Grand Canyon for the press.

  25. He submitted a proposal and then they turned it down as junk science. What’s hard to understand here? Then he came back with another one, plus his big brother (Alliance Defending Freedom) with a lawsuit. The Park Service figured that they had better things to spend their money on than a lawsuit, though that’s (slightly) debatable.

  26. When I first began to research the Religious Right after it began in 1977, I was surprised to find creationism to be one component of the political correctness they demand. In retrospect, it is consistent, and the Right is consistently wrong.

  27. you surely know that way to judge true and false things… you pick up school books from around the world and look into them… what is described equally the same in all or almost all books – that is probably true… and what is described in each book differently – that is probably false and is result of either pure lies or just misinterpretation… for, truth cannot be lied about… for example, the acceleration of the gravity of the earth is 9.81 m/s2, in any country in the world… if stated differently, it can be measured once again and again and so proven true… but religious stories around the world are plentiful but all different… do your math…

  28. Science is never supposed to be a majority-vote thing.

    Unless one wishes to salvage the religion of evolution.

  29. Consensus is built by the majority of studies agreeing with the theory. However, new evidence, if confirmed, can weaken or destroy a theory regardless of what the majority thinks.

  30. Christians are the most delusional people on the planet. If I had a dollar for every time Jesus was going to come back this year for the past 50 years- I’d be Bill Gates rich. Wrong wrong, always wrong.

  31. Delusional post. Simply, define everyone who is delusional as christian, and christians are delusional. So, you are delusional before beginning.
    Anyone can be called a christian. Who knows, like the thief on the cross they may be in Paradise with the Saviour, having lived a life of crime to the last moment. Then, Judas (Iscariot) did everything right – visibly, anyway — up until the last moment. It would have been better for him if he had never been born. The only difference between myself and that self-same Judas — if there is any — is the grace of God. Nothing else. So, only the Saviour knows who is with him in paradise.
    But to disabuse us of ideas of science being non-‘christian’, at least in appearance, try this tiny sample:
    Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it. MAX PLANCK
    After the knowledge of, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork.
    The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God
    Michael Faraday
    I have looked into the most philosophical systems and have found none that will work without God.
    James Clerk Maxwell
    If one day you have to choose between the world and love, remember this: If you choose the world you’ll be left without love, but if you choose love, with it you will conquer the world
    Albert Einstein
    Believe in God, in His providence, in a future life, in the recompense of the good; in the punishment of the wicked; in the sublimity and truth of the doctrines of Christ, in a revelation of this doctrine by a special divine inspiration for the salvation of the human race.
    Andre-Marie Ampere
    All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.
    Isaac Newton
    Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.
    Galileo Galilei
    Science is the process of thinking God’s thoughts after Him.
    Johannes Kepler
    “Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.””I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.” “The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.””The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words.” “Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.” KELVIN

  32. The advance of science eventually solves mysteries in science. Evolution, of course, has never been in question — as an unrolling or staged revelation, obvious in the rock strata and literally demanded by GENESIS. The question has always been, “What was the mechanism by which the species were revealed?” Once that question begins to be answered, the technical meaning of the cloudy parts of the biblical account focus clearly. That point in history has arrived. (I publish extensively on-line.) We can now teach species origins and geologic history with a Bible in one hand.

    The ‘Tree of Life’ is central. Central to the Garden of Eden, and central to the revelation, in sequences, of created divisions of species. In a beautiful analog of a natural tree, life — once imparted to cell(s) on Earth– life flowed up the branches. New growth — buds, shoots, flowers, fruits — were the already created and effectively living species. How could a living species not be physically tangible? (The Bible makes it clear that species existed before becoming tangible, GEN. 2: 4&5). A species, Man’s spirit and soul excepted, is information married into a living cell. So, living cell(s) were automatically transformed at points of time due to information storage and processing. Species which had already appeared were conduits of life (= flowing sap) and the transformation outcomes were not genetic products of those already visible species. Exactly as happens in a tree. The older growth supports and acts as a conduit, but is not the genetic ancestor of new growth. Information signalling is a major factor in outbreak of new growth. Modern bio-technology clearly points to this process. Information processing is ‘king’, when thinking of the revelation of species. DNA, RNA, autoimmune systems, sex cells, etc. etc. — all the wonderful information processing capabilities of the cell — end the darwinistic dead end. . Information, by definition of itself, is both created and timeless. Hence, all simple life (plant category) Day 3. The earth then was ‘let’ ‘bring them forth’. Flowering plants, waited until Day 6. All complex life, Man’s physical body possibly included(?) — Day 5. The ‘waters’ were ‘let’ ‘bring them forth’. Land animals, already created in an information sense, were ‘formed of earth’ or modified for land, Day 6. In all cases, Man’s soul (intellect) and spirit (inner man of the heart) excepted, in all cases bar Man, the ‘waters’ alone or the ‘waters’ then the ‘earth’, were ‘let bring them forth’. In due time, as they were called for in the biosphere. . But the tree of life produces life. Why is Man dying, whilst bacteria, virus’s and all sorts of pests and diseases proliferate? As GENESIS informs us, we now are barred from the Tree Of Life. The information capability involved in programming perfect health, and perfect species, is no longer our’s. We can not attain perpetual youth, nor transform higher life forms into new species. Even the ‘dust of the ground’ — of which we were formed — has risen against us in revulsion against sin. We begin to die as soon as we are born. That’s physically. But isn’t human existence much more than a hamburger and a drink of water?

  33. 1). I studied and practised geology in Qld when this pair were active here. Snelling is a genuine “hard rock” or volcanics/mineralogic investigator. He would have been well advised to have kept with his calling, where he did enjoy success.
    2). This nonsense Ham and Snelling have (again) cooked up is standard old fare. Rock samples of the Canyon will have been taken long ago, thin sections made for microscope study, chemical analyses, stress evidences, particle deformation ……….. . All would be available in the relevant geologic laboratories. Simply, go and ask. Most people are reasonable.
    3). The Bible says or implies in twenty places that the Earth as a planet is of an age that can scarcely be imagined. As anyone can find out in five minutes — Bible. The everlasting hills, the perpetual hills, Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the Earth …….. . This crew are tiring and more than irrelevant.

  34. You pose a poser.
    How can you or I be human, without a human father and mother?

    Was Hitler correct?

    I suffer from dyslexia myself. We could begin by discovering how incremental change over time through one species giving birth to the same species, which becomes a different species, but no-one knows how, creates different species, when one species can not give birth to a different species.
    If Darwin also had dyslexia , don’t blame him.

    From WIKIPEDIA, the free encyclopedia
    Ernst Walter Mayr ……………. was one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists. ………….. His work contributed to ……….. the development of the biological species concept. ……………………..

    In his book, “Systematics and the Origin of Species” (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others.

    Extracts: ‘Darwin on the Origin of Species’, EDINBURGH REVIEW, 3, 1860, pp. 487-532. Published on-line by John Van Wyhe.

    The essential element in the complex idea of species, as it has been variously framed and defined by naturalists, viz., the blood-relationship between all the individuals of such species, is annihilated on the hypothesis of ‘natural selection.’ ………………………………….

  35. Umm, a specific “No” on item #3. (Actually all of the items, but #3 is the item I’ve spent most time with.) The Bible is extremely specific and literal about the time element of Creation Week in Genesis chapter 1.

    You get a unique and direct time demarcation in Gen. chap. 1: The Hebrew word ‘Yom” (“day”), *combined* with a specific ordinal number (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc), *combined* with the phrase “evening and morning”. This time formula is very serious, because it unavoidably limits each day of Creation Week to a literal 24 hours.

    Phrases like “The everlasting hills” (Gen 49:16) are absolutely NOT a specific time demarcation, so they can NOT be used as a back-door surrender to evolutionists’ materialistic / atheistic “deep time” presuppositions.

    Do you go to church on Sunday? If so, you are inadvertently proving that Creation Week was a literal 7 days of literal 24 hours each day. In Exodus 20:8-11, the days are literal 24-hour gigs, including the seventh day.

  36. What “triumphalist”? Christians are having to work hard every day on this issue, although it’s clear now that the religion of evolution is on the defensive, being hammered and hampered by its own weak-spots and blank-spots, and visibly, clearly, rationally inferior to intelligent design.

    That’s why people like Tom Krattenmaker (and/or yourself, for that matter) are stretching for anything, ANYTHING, that they can remotely interpret as good news for evolutionists.

    But not even you can deny that Dr. Snelling defeated the evolutionist bullies on THIS gig, by the grace of God. This is a very visible victory.

  37. Christians are still working on questions like the general timeline of the Global Flood (an exact mm/dd/yy date is not really possible). But they have come up with reasonable, rational estimates such as (for example) approximately 2348 BC.

    But that’s automatically going to be disliked by evolutionists who start off their history estimates — and their dating games — with unproven pre-scientific pre-suppositions that the Bible’s historical claims, based on supernatural creation, are automatically false.

    For example, in Gen, human civilization doesn’t really “arise”, but is ALREADY on the table, with Adam’s own children. These are very intelligent people, not stupid cavemen. Cain starts building an entire city (Gen. 4:17) not long after moving away to Nod, east of Eden.

    Just a few descendants down, you get Jabal (livestock specialist & nomadic culture, verse 4:20), Jubal (musician, specializing in string instruments & pipes, v. 4:21), and Tubal-Cain (tool-maker specializing in both brass & iron tools.)

  38. I know that’s your standard mantra there, but in fact Christians (young-earthers, old-earthers, ID’ers, and even a few of the theistic evolutionists) have done an EXCELLENT job of rising up and visibly wrecking some of the major claims of evolutionists, especially regarding us humans and also our cells.

    in the 70’s, I thought the young-earthers were essentially toast. But they made a very big comeback around the same time that ID rose up nationally. The huge Ham-Nye debate proved to America that YEC was back in the saddle again.

  39. Creationism/ID is a faith-based belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Evolutionary Theory is based on the evidence-based study of the world around us. What the apologists for Creationism fail to understand is that if actual, verifiable evidence was found that overturned Evolution in favor of another evidence-based explanation, that there is every incentive out there to do so. The person (or persons) who could pull this off would be world-famous, remembered throughout history, and have access to unlimited funding, etc. There is no incentive to hide, bury or dismiss actual evidence except in the minds of Creationists who live in a world that is in conspiracy against them. There will always be people, the Flat Earthers, the YECs, those who say we never sent men to the moon, the Bigfoot believers, the Autism is caused by Vaccines folks, the Global Climate Change denialists, etc. who are fully invested in their faith-based worldview that demands absolute adherence lest their worldview be shattered.

    Genuine skeptics are open to having their minds changed by the evidence. Faith-based beliefs are immune to evidence. Studies have shown that the more evidence that contradicts the deeply held belief of a person actually makes their defense of that belief stronger. That’s why it is useless to debate or engage with those who hold extremist, fringe, faith-based beliefs. All of the evidence in the Cosmos only serves to convince them they alone are right and that everyone else is engaged in a grand conspiracy against their deeply-held belief. All we can do is contain them so that they don’t hurt others with their willful and prideful ignorance. Our world continues to make advances based on our understanding of Evolution for the benefit of humanity. YECs offer nothing of value, nothing of substance, nothing worthy of discussion in the 21st Century. They are full of sound and fury and signify nothing.

  40. When you post that a mom of one species never gives birth to a new species, that is actually correct.

    The term species is actually just a way to refer to what a genetic lineage looks like at a particular time.

    As an analogy, its akin to seeing one “lineage”, as, say, you, as a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then an adolescent and then a young man, and then an old man.

    There is no clear demarcation where you can say which is the “real you”…and no clear demarcation for example of when you stopped being “a young man” and started being an “old man”.

    When looking at fossils for a lineage, we see the same sort of transition…so, just as a taller parents have taller kids, on average, if being taller was “what worked” so the genes were passed on…the kids will be taller, and their kids will be taller in turn as THEIR parents were taller, and so forth.

    If a certain height is optimal, and being too much taller confers no additional survival of offspring…it levels off, and so forth.

    If you look around, you might notice some of us are taller, or shorter, or thinner, or fatter, allergic to dairy or gluten, and so forth…and, if conditions change, if the above passes on their genes, lets say a starvation disaster occurs, only the fat people survive, as they are able to store fat better….and are skinny, but alive people, when food is in short supply…the genes for being skinny get weeded out, and, most of whoever is left, carries the fat genes, and so forth.

    You’d then look around, generations later, when there’s more food, and notice most people are fat….and so forth.

    Basically, evolution, as far as the results you see, is more about what survives.

    A shark for example is so well adapted to its environment, that changing would tend to be a disadvantage, as it would be more likely to make the offspring LESS adapted, so, sharks have evolved to stay about the same.

    IE: Its not about a process you can say goes in a particular direction…its about a process that weeds out life that cannot adapt/is not as well adapted and is out competed.

    The reason we can analyze genetic materials and say who a baby’s daddy is, also tells us who the grand parents were, and their grand parents, all the way back to sponges or corals, etc.

    Each ancestor leaves a trace of THEIR genetic materials in its offspring.

    Its why for example we can see that most Europeans have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, and how we can see that people migrated out of Africa in many many waves, and then recrossed back and for and hither and yon, interbreeding with each other over the millennia.

    UNDERSTANDING how a mom never gives birth to a new species, yet, there are new species, is already common knowledge, and is a impediment ONLY to YEC/Victims of agnotological campaigns.

    Basically, when you have a few dozen generations, you see basic changes, say a dog goes from wolf-like to chihuahua-like, but in MILLIONS of generations, the changes can be much more dramatic than even that.

    Understanding the time involved and what each generation represents, is the key to understanding evolution.


  41. I ran into a guy at the airport who told me the earth is flat, and used his Bible to support it. Was he right?

  42. Has any Creationist scientist created a working model (would be cool to see computer generated simulation) of the tremendous forces needed to create the Grand Canyon over 40 days/nights?

  43. Actually, idols of Ancient Mesopotamia were simply representations of their gods. Still, YHVH forbade them, and with a study of the first law one sees that God actually said, any representation of anything in the earth or heaven. However, Gentiles were never expected to follow that law. In fact, after Naaman was healed of leprosy and wanted to honor Israel’s God, Elijah gave him permission to worship the Assyrian god when his emperor commanded it.

  44. Creationism should be rejected because it makes no sense scientifically or religiously. The two creation stories in the book of Genesis cannot be taken literally because that makes them contradict each other.

    The first creation story has the world created in six days; the second one is about the day of creation. The first story has the animals created before the humans; the second story has the man created first, then the animals and then the woman was created out of the man’s rib. In the first account, the deity is referred to in the plural (Elohim); in the second account the deity is referred to as Yahweh Elohim.

    As these accounts are so much at variance, they cannot be taken literally without doing violence to one or the other or both. Therefore knowledgeable people accept that a literal interpretation is impossible and they find other ways of taking meaning from these stories.

  45. Was he looking at the runway.

  46. Unlike ANSWERS IN GENESIS, I actually quote the Bible. As do many people. The one item that A.I.G. avoids approaching as a literal document!
    GEN.1 we have seven days, Yom. Gen. 2, it was all done in ‘the day’, Yom.
    Then in JOB it says, “Are thy days as the days of Man?”
    As for evolution in the sense of an unrolling, All plants were made, Day 3. The flowering plants, trees bearing fruit, etc, are specifically associated with the Garden of Eden, Day 6.
    All complex life was created (EX NIHILO greek translation) Day 5. All. All. All. Literal text. Land animals, (complex life), being already created EX NIHILO, were ‘formed of earth, Day 6. ‘Formed of earth’ is a much lesser expression than created (EX NIHILO).
    Then in GEN. 2: 4&5 it specifically says that as an aspect of the creative event, plant species were existing and alive, when they were not tangibly present in the Earth.

    Of course, the Bible makes a joke out of Darwinism/”Common Descent”.
    “Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs?” Etc. Etc..
    Not worth stressing over. I cover all this on-line as an aspect of teaching Origins. Science now clarifies all this. Best wishes.

  47. At GEN. 2:4 (as you know) a transformation occurs in the text. For the first time, God takes to himself the fuller name, THE LORD GOD. Meaning, lord of all created things — and more. So the text itself demands that up until this verse, creation was yet in progress. After this verse, everything has been created, so the script becomes purely a commentary and an enlargement on the activities of the six days. Immediately, the text lays down an underlying principle of the creation of living things. GEN. 2: 4&5. See all plant life has been created before it becomes tangible in the Earth? Then, it only becomes tangible according to a divinely instituted plan/procedure, with Man as the purpose.
    The animal class is even more remarkable — an instance being the insects.
    Even learning by osmosis will overwhelm us with the number and variety of insect species. Makes the literal interpretation of GENESIS even more wonderful.
    We need the Authorized Version. It is the exact transliteration from the Hebrew. GENESIS 1:20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:…….
    “Let the waters bring forth abundantly…. …..fowl that may fly…” Is an insect something that may fly? When squashed, is an insect earth or water? What does abundantly mean?
    So, the first meaning of the Hebrew includes abundant water-based creatures capable of flight. (Day 5, of course, is the Cambrian.) The Hebrew has the remarkable attribute of being able to make two equal statements concurrently. See ‘margin’. The equal (margin)concurrent of V. 20? “…..Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
    So, the equal concurrent implies? Creatures capable of strong flight but not specified as being solely, repeat, solely, brought forth by the waters, abounded as part of this creative event. The Cambrian was when all the blueprints/patterns of complex organisms, man’s body perhaps included (?) sprang into existence. Fact of palaeontology. Fact of GENESIS.
    Birds, bats and flying reptiles are not water when squashed — they are more akin to? Try GEN. 2:19. “…out of the ground the Lord God formed ….. every fowl of the air……. .”
    So, there is the distinction — a preponderant kingdom of flying water if we like, pre-dating and overshadowing by volume the other classes of — flying — earth. But whereas the insects are solely water based, the birds, etc — ‘fowl of the air’ — the birds, bats, reptiles etc. are water based earth modified. My old palaeontology lecturer would love it. All complex life, back in the Cambrian. Vertebrae, brains, eyes, the lot. Not all instantly revealed, but implicit. Water based, subsequently modified to suit a purpose. Man being exceptional. Don’t worry. The Bible tells us the process involved.
    The Bible literally demands a staged revelation of already existing species. Line and verse. But it isn’t simplistic heathen hoo ha and it is a vast topic. There was (and is) a tree of life (from which we are now barred) and there is what is known as the Adamic curse – morphs and mutations, pain and human death, known to us now. The evolution pusher who ignores Scripture therefore becomes hopelessly confused.
    As may the ‘creationist’ who ignores the literal Bible.

  48. Being a geologist, and trained in the topic, that is how I would once have explained it. Whilst wondering why the facts were in so many niggling ways contrary to the verbiage. Something didn’t add up.
    Not that it ever concerned me, personally.
    I did, however, attempt to actually teach geologic history, myself — and then the educational conundrum inherent in all this grew up into a personal educational hurdle. Which is no longer a hurdle.
    Darwinism is a mental picture presented through mental strain and is unreal to geology and the real world. Evolution the unrolling was a quantifiable event not requiring endless explanations and it did not require time, it was designed for time.
    Hitler was wrong. Mayr was right whilst being inadvised in related evolutionary theory. The EDINBURGH REVIEW was correct re. natural selection, but did not mention the then mystifying link between adaptation and speciation. (Lamarck’s speciality.)
    Modern science ends the puzzle. CreationTheory dot com, mainstream, ending the origins education puzzle.

  49. Nice try, Philip. However, that still doesn’t explain why in the first account, the male and the female were created on one day while in the other, the man was created first, then the animals and then the woman.

    Jewish scholars and the early fathers of the church and knew that there were inconsistencies in these stories, and by the Seventeenth Century skeptics were speculating that the five books of Moses were composed of different documents. In the Eighteenth Century, a French physician, Jean Astruc was the first to suggest a relationship between the different documents, based on whether they referred to the deity as Yahweh or Elohim.

    In the following century, scholars did a lot of work on the documents that make up our present Bibles. This scholarship enriches our understanding of the Bible; it does not have to present a problem to people of faith.

  50. As I explain above — without ‘trying’ — truth is not an ‘effort’ — the literal text is a sequential account of events in time sequence up until the expanded title THE LORD GOD, GEN. 2: 4. If someone knows more than the church fathers and the people who handed down the divine texts — fine. Just don’t involve me in academic speculations!
    Since the text itself implicitly states that creation finished at 2:4 — as I, borrowing from the opinions of Wesley, Knox, Calvin, Luther, Wycliffe, Augustine, etc etc., stated above — the text from then on can only be regarded as a commentary or expansion on the text up to 2:4. Methods, principles, MODUS OPERANDI. NOT necessarily a continuation of time sequence events. In fact, by throwing in seeming contradiction, the divinely inspired author is pointing to something we otherwise would not see. The Scriptures are classic ‘truth in tension’. Again and again, the sacred texts place two superficial opposites side by side, so the human mind does not go overboard on narrow, concreted opinions.

    There is but one account.

    If we wish to learn more about the MODUS OPERANDI involved in the placement of Mankind on Earth, after reading, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
    Factor in, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul………………..

    And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed…………………………….
    And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it………………………………..
    And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
    And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh………….. .

    Commentary, expansion, deeper meaning, examination of method, personal relevance ……….. note, things were created in time sequence, but time sequence was not an end in itself. Ultimate purpose is the end in itself.

  51. What do you mean by “ultimate purpose”?

    Are you suggesting that the rapid expansion of a singularity and the consequential processes which led to random mutation moderated by natural selection are purpose-driven? If so why?

  52. My border collie just now emerged triumphant from behind some herbage with a ‘roo leg in her mouth. Amusing. Ahh, kangaroo. I am in Australia. Can’t go better than a dog. Must be nutrients, in bones, which benefit dogs? I could never get nutrient out of bones.
    You probably could reply to the ‘ultimate purpose’ far better than I.
    At the risk of overtaxed CLICHE’ — you, certainly, and I, believe it or not, you, alone. I. alone. Every human being, even if they were the only person to exist —- you and I are held to be of value, value, recurring, unaccountable value.

    Even dull old geology says it. Since the overall topic is related to evolution, I take the liberty of copying a summary of the first technically precise discourse on the structure of living things as it relates to the sequential appearance of living things:

    J. Reader, 1986, THE RISE OF LIFE. William Collins Sons & co Ltd.,192pp, p.140-142. “Every right-thinking man knew that nature was an orderly and wonderfully harmonious system, operating in accordance with divine laws which, though they might not always be easily understood, were never without purpose. All living things were purposefully adapted to the places where they were destined to live and were endowed from the moment of creation with all the physical adaptations they needed to function there, whatever the prevailing conditions. Perfect adaptation was the term used to explain the bewildering diversity of living things. Each organism was perfectly adapted to its ordained place and status on Earth, and each part of the organism was perfectly adapted to an ordained function in life. The eye, for instance, was so constructed because in that way it best fulfilled the need to see. And so on, with every part of every living thing, everywhere. The first natural historians filled volumes with examples of just how perfect the divine adaptations were, and explorers returned from foreign shores with ever more exotic confirmation of the fact.

    For many naturalists active at the beginning of the nineteenth century perfect adaptation was no longer merely a fact to be observed, but also a factor to be sought out and employed as the explanation of observed facts. Cuvier called it the final cause, the condition of existence.

    Divinely ordained perfect adaptation sufficed as an explanation of the living world …. . After Cuvier established the fact of extinction in 1796, many chose to view it as proof of divine intervention …… Cuvier … [suggested] … that the earth had experienced a series of divinely ordained catastrophic upheavals, during which its physical features had been sculpted and its inhabitants annihilated, to be created afresh each time, equipped with all the new adaptations needed for a new world. ……. The modern world was calm because it represented the completion of the divine plan, the final cause: the emergence of man.

    But neither the deluge nor Cuvier’s catastrophes satisfied everyone. Others saw more than just a sequence of creation and extinction in the coming and going of species through the ascending fossil record. Perhaps species did not come and go at all, they suggested, but were transformed one into the other by a process of gradual adaptation that spanned generations. This suggestion had the welcome merit of explaining away the evidence of extinction, which remained for many an uncomfortable contradiction of the divinely ordained perfect adaptation they had been taught to believe. It became known as the theory of the transmutation of species, much adhered to during the nineteenth century …. .

    But if this was so, countered Cuvier in an 1821 publication, traces of the gradual modifications linking ancestral and modern forms must exist in the fossil record. Where, he challenged, are the intermediate forms ….? This early example of the call for missing links that has so characterized studies of the fossil record was answered in 1851 by Richard Owen …… .”

    [Owen, with the benefit of a more complete fossil collection, did not propose missing links in the common or darwinistic meaning of the term. J. Reader, p. 148-149. MY ADDEND] “Owen’s theory … published in 1851 … The Law of Progression ….. . The key point of Owen’s theory was that the nature and physical structure of animals was preordained, not acquired in response to … environment …. . Owen first presented his theory of successive development at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1846, illustrating it with what he described as the archetype [= master template] of the vertebrate skeleton. …….Owen’s archetype is remarkably similar to the simplest [and oldest] vertebrates subsequently found. …. In a series of drawings he showed how every bone in the skeletons of fish, reptiles, birds, mammals and man could have been adapted from the archetype. The successive development of the cranium, jaw and all four limbs is quite explicit; so too are the origins of eye, ear and nose. ……. Based on the studies of fossils and comparative anatomy, it charted a perfectly believable course for the vertebrates’ successive development, with the added benefit of discounting extinction – species did not die out, they were … transformed.

    Owen set down this answer to the question of how species originated …. . Species had an innate tendency to diverge from the ancestral form according to the dictates of a divine plan, he said, and the existence of the divine plan was proven in the very conception of the archetypal vertebrate: ‘… the recognition of an ideal Exemplar for the vertebrated animals proves that the knowledge of such a being as Man must have existed before Man appeared. For the divine mind which planned the archetype also knew all its modifications.’

    The [fossil record of] the horse? Owen had an explanation: ‘Of all the four-legged servants of man none have proved of more value to him, in peace and war, than the horse: none have co-operated with the advancing races more influentially in Man’s destined mastery of the Earth and its lower denizens. In all the modifications of the old … type to this end, the horse has acquired nobler proportions and higher faculties, more strength, more speed …. As such, I believe the Horse to have been predestined and prepared for Man.’

    ‘Even the space between the incisors and the molars in the jaw of the modern horse seem to have been specially prepared to accommodate the bit,’ he added.”

  53. I’m having difficulty following your thoughts

    “Every human being, even if they were the only person to exist —- you and I are held to be of value, value, recurring, unaccountable value.”

    Am I right to assume that by “unaccountable value” you mean a value so great it cannot be accounted? It seems to me that value is based upon counting, at least to the extent that value, being able to be “good” or “poor” necessarily requires the judgement of comparable (able to be compared) measurement, and therefore no other meaning is admissible.

    If I, or you, were the only human being they would still be valued? – by whom or what?

    Poor Owen – the horse, like some of his ideas, have fallen far from the position he thought them appropriate for.

  54. Valued by the Valuer General’s Department.
    A bullocky here in Australia commented that he couldn’t tell what had the least brain — a bullock, or a bureaucrat. What are you aiming to qualify as? Both?

    Apologies to all good public servants. I worked for government, myself.

  55. Hi Philip,

    It seems that your argument is that creation was specifically shaped and ordered for humans. Hence your suggestion that the horse was specifically designed to accommodate the bit. Of course, it could equally be argued that the bit was specifically designed to control the horse by the means of the natural gaps in its teeth.

    Humans were shaped by their environment. The way that this happened could have been by divine intervention or by natural selection.

    Go to malarial areas and many people carry the sickle cell anaemia gene. This gives them a great deal of immunity to malaria – provided that they don’t get a double dose of the gene. In that case, they will have sickle cell anaemia.

    Go to hot areas, and note that in many cases, the native people have dark skin that protects them from the sun; go to colder and cloudier climates and the native people have fairer skin, that enables them to extract more vitamin D from the sunlight but makes them prone to sunburn.

    Go to the high lands in Tibet and Nepal, and many people have a genetic trait that helps them to thrive in the thinner air of those high altitudes.

    Tribes that drank milk have a high degree of lactose tolerance; those that don’t have a high incidence of lactose intolerance.

    It is possible to account for these facts by saying that the deity shaped the humans for different living conditions; it is also possible to argue that the environment shaped the humans by means of natural selection.

    If you account for these differences by means of natural selection, it makes sense. If you account for these differences by means of divine providence, we have the difficulty of accounting for the disadvantage of these differences: sickle cell anaemia, vitamin D deficiency for some and skin cancer for others,

  56. I recall a conversation with a deaf, eighty-something resident of a Gloucestershire village when I was a twenty year old Lunnon boy. I commented on how good the weather was and got the answer “half past four”.

    I wonder why that conversation should come to mind after reading your responses.

  57. As I mentioned somewhere above — I was ‘schooled’ in evolution in the sense of a non-dogmatic form of Darwinism. Your explanations are familiar to many people. To even begin to get to the bottom of this topic would require a download longer than this entire blog, leader and all. It would require days upon days of familiarization with the fossil record. My palaeontology lecturers were world ranked. The higher they were ranked, the more tentative their Darwinism.
    Your details above are not entirely irrelevant. They nevertheless obviously fall far short. Without attempting to go into the labyrinth: If Man arose from some furred animal with features akin to chimps or whatever, why does he have no fur, less athletic/muscular ability, in fact, features which disqualify him from survival in the wild?
    As I say, the investigation of the topic is no small project. Those hypotheses about mutations, etc. are gone under the bridge.
    Perhaps you could try going to Lamarck, Neo-Lamarckism, Epigenetics .. …. .. .
    I recently set a hen with eggs. She had been laying eggs for a period of time. She went on the brood, and that same day or thereabout, began to brood over the nest. She turned the eggs regularly, never left the eggs unattended for too long —– and nearly precisely three weeks after beginning to brood, the chicks hatched, all within 48 hrs. She wasn’t surprised. Any human, not ‘in the know’, would be amazed. I am amazed. I am amazed by Nature every moment.
    The mechanisms of information processing and technology, especially those which produce animal instinct — so sophisticated, no-one has probed.
    As Lamarck attempted (unsuccessfully at the time) to explain, some sort of memories of the past presumably become a factor in the re-programming of DNA at the moment of species transformation. But — here is a rider — not all memories get to be programmed. Some unhelpful memories are programmed. We do not see perfect adaptation. As for example in the case of eels which breed in salt water, swim thousands of k.’s, go upriver, live freshwater, finally, swim back thousands of k.’s, breed — then die. They do not live to train the young — who do precisely the same.
    Why do they do precisely the same?
    Natural selection? Really? What, they swim thousands of k.’s through the oceans, to avoid being eaten by sharks? (As an aside, it could be a long-distant memory of the ocean being narrow — a spinoff of continental drift.)
    As with natural selection leading to a naked, physically (not mentally) retrograde, ape-like creature where a simple ape would have sufficed —- doesn’t add up, does it? But environment certainly comes into the equation.
    This is modern. Bio-info -technology.
    Lamarck and Owen are the big names.
    Owen’s argument was not reliant upon horses or any one family. As a world leading palaeontologist/anatomist, he traced out the pathway of transformation of the structure of living things — with the empirical, unavoidable certainty that, since the changes were all implicit in development of higher life forms and of Man, therefore, Man was pre-ordained. Simple logic, simple anatomy. No religion. No escape from the evidence.

  58. Hi Philip,

    Thank you for your detailed reply. You said,

    “As with natural selection leading to a naked, physically (not mentally) retrograde, ape-like creature where a simple ape would have sufficed —- doesn’t add up, does it?”

    It certainly doesn’t add up if you consider sheer muscular strength. However, when you consider an ape-like creature that has several crucial differences – feet adapted to walking and running; a brain that is more cunning and adaptable; an ability to work together at a common goal; an ability to survive and thrive in a huge variety of climates – we have an animal that is not as frail as you might initially think.

    Australian Aborigines had been living in the desert for thousands of years where European explorers often died.. The Inuit have lived for thousands of years beyond the Arctic Circle in Greenland even though European settlers had to leave; Jews and Armenians have survived genocides. Europe survive the Black Death. Many others have survived repeated famines and pestilences. Humans are not as feeble as you make out.

    The Psalm 139:14 says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Meanwhile, many of the apes are in danger of extinction.

  59. “They are coming to see evolution as their God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.”

    God’s magical powers are not a mechanism of evolution. Christians should stop pretending their God had anything to do with it.

  60. Snelling was, and is most probably right. But neither argument or evidence series can successfully demonstrate even the approximate date of creation of the Grand Canyon. It is simply NOT demonstrable scientifically, without looking at a flood model, and there are huge tracts of sedimentary rocky evidence that evolutionists (and anti-Flood geologists) refuse to address.

    Can any one of you point me to evidence, from radioisotopic measurements, that can have the values determined fully calibrated against samples of known age? That is the science that we cannot do, and have no way of doing. But of course, we love to pretend that this is not necessary, and we know the age must be enormously old. – The fact is we ASSUME an age range, and ‘confirm’ the age by approximation of the results that match the uniformatarian and evolutionary assumptions. Sure the Earth ‘could’ be old, but the science still cannot validate that. There is NO calibration, therefore there is not means of verifying age directly. So what do some do? They do some radioisotope work, and compare the positions of local sedimentary rocks to get an idea of the likely age, via the assumptions made about the sedimentary fossil bearing rocks. Circular reasoning, NOT science. And it is the sedimentary rocks which demonstrate a more recent origin of their amazing fossil contents. The solar system also does not show signs of its supposed great age, and the planetary origins are not explained by supposed billion year old processes.

    We don’t expect to be popular when we point this out. You see, the ‘Emperor’ of arrogant evolutionary long age assumption against the truth revealed so clearly in the sedimentary rocks (the great flood of Noah’s time) has ‘left his clothes behind’ and his naked and pathetic figure is exposed.

    Sure, from the young earth creationist point of view (my view), the possible ages of the stars and of theories on the development of the universe appears to be at odds to what we find on earth. However, it is also just as true to state that even these same cosmological apparent facts (such as the rate of expansion of the universe, and of the absence of evidence for dark matter and dark energy) are in direct opposition to some of our most cherished scientific understanding.

    The universe is a very, very mysterious place. But so is the Earth, and reductionist arguments that evolutionism introduces do not make the science any more successful. We are not as knowledgeable as we believe we are. “We do not know” needs to come from the lips of scientists, a lot more often. We are extremely arrogant, and ignorant of the ways of Almighty God. If we insist that we know better than the Lord Jesus, who believed that Adam was a real person, along with Noah and of course Abraham, then we had better wake up. Time is short. He is about to return.

  61. The premise “Creationism support is at a new low” is a false one. Granted, the argument has never been more fierce, and the ignorance of the evolutionist side, in that they do not know they have been duped by the received assumption of the evolutionary dogma, has also never been greater. The online content and other published material has never been more diametrically opposed. The battle for the mind of man, as some have called it, will always be the most intense of all. However, of the churches which are growing and making disciples, those that are doing so are those that accept no compromise on the matter of origins, and at least do not accept the evolutionary dogma. I hope that most here have already rejected it. I would be happy to discuss, if not.

    The most worrying thing of all, for me, and many creationists who accept the basic premise of the Bible’s narratives, and of the relatively young creation of all things, is that the ‘Church Militant’, as it used to be called, is being highly militantly active against itself: Fighting the Word of God and refusing its clear teaching on sex and men and women’s complimentary but different roles, fighting itself, denying Christ’s own interpretation of sin, perverting marriage, and allowing destruction of human children in the womb like the rest of the world on an industrial scale.

    How shall we escape the judgement of history (as shall one day be made upon us, in the awful light of truth by God Almighty) if we continue to destroy the foundation of spiritual wealth of freedom and democratic ways of life we have inherited, and pay lip service to the Word we say we treasure? And how shall we indeed escape the Final Judgement when the Lord will say to so many “Depart from me; I never knew you… you who practice lawlessness.” These are the issues of life in God’s world today. Truth, repentance unto God, and justice.. Am I ready? Honestly; I am not. I am back-slidden.

    But, from the premise of this article, the ridicule placed at the door of AIG, Creation Ministries International, and is clear. I don’t think most of the Church wants to address many of the above areas of decline, and the Reformation, so boldly begun 500 years ago by courageous men and women, is not for them something to be highlighted for reasons of deep Biblical truth, as the truth of God’s word for so many is only truth when it is convenient for them to hear. The “itching ears” era is with us as never before. 2 Timothy 4:3.

    God help me, us, to repent and form a closer relationship with him, to seek closely after him, and see what He will do with us for our day. He gave His all for me. What shall I give for Him?

  62. Jim, you appear to have a wrong view of real science, in my view. If you accept any of the premises of evolutionary thinking (development of complex lifeforms including man perhaps, from simpler forms, even after a possible ‘divine seeding’ of creation that some believe in) then I can only say that is what I used to believe. I.e. I believed evolutionary ideas as truth. But then I was not a trained biologist. During my degree, and ever since, evolutionary science showed itself as bogus and unsupported by the facts. True, I was a Christian who was having his eyes opened in astonishment at the levels of assumption and conjecture in modern science led by naturalistic principles. The Richard Lewontin anti “foot in the door” syndrome was everywhere – we got our toes bruised! People were very aggressive with that to those of us who wanted to point out another view is possible, and fully scientifically supportable. But it did not put us off.

    Perhaps I need to look closely at what you are saying. What is the junk that you think is present please?

  63. Snelling is more committed to the principle of the fact of the recent creation than you think. He loves the Word of God, and will not compromise its simple interpretation that God clearly intends where that is plainly the purpose. Do you deny the worldwide flood of Noah was total and global, and that humanity was destroyed? Do you deny the recent mountain building that took place since, the distribution of fossils on much of the European Alps and the Himalaya (showing no ‘millions of years’ of erosion), with the massive drop in sea levels and pushing up of some of the continental plates?

  64. In THIS Bob, we are in complete agreement. Theistic evolutionists do not understand science and are in their own little dream world, more dogmatic than many other groups. I speak as a Biblical believer w.r.t. the Creation events in Genesis. Evolution is completely incompatible with a biblical faith in Christ and His eternal Word.

    Although we do not share the same viewpoint, your statement correctly hits the nail on the head, in presenting my evidence to those who hold the things of God dear, but who accept the evolutionary arguments. God, truly, did not have anything to do with evolution, as it is entirely false. Adaptation of species (not evolution of spp.) is a fact which is measurable, and the world has changed since the creation a great deal; not least because it was a perfect creation, which was later marred by mankind’s sin, and the Fall was a factual, space-time event which resulted in the start of the rule of death. How this happened, and how the food-chain worked before man sinned is unclear, and mysterious. But the results of it are all around us.

    If, as this misguided article suggests, God ‘did it via the evolutionary model’, what is the Bible’s account for, exactly, since it teaches quite another story? – And exactly how do we reconcile this evolutionary acceptance with the teaching of the Bible as truth? I believe we cannot do that. But since you are not of that belief, I had better not ask this question of you! Hoping that someone else will catch this and weigh in..

  65. There are not two creation accounts. Chapter two is a thematic presentation, not a sequential one. None of which contradicts the first chapter.

  66. Re. ” random mutation moderated by natural selection” This is an unscientific assertion which cannot be demonstrated, runs counter to known genetics and biochemistry, and does not fit any of the evidence of origins.

  67. Surfnut, It has been known for more than a thousand years that there are two creation accounts in Genesis. I have drawn attention to the contradictions in the stories if they are taken literally. Just stating the opposite is about as credible as the claim that a dead parrot isn’t dead. Check out this video:

  68. So, the geologic column has just been laid down, and Noah releases a pigeon (dove) which returns with a sprig of a tree, growing in the rock pile laid down in a massive traumatic event three weeks previous.
    Something akin to the Garden of Eden which THE LORD literally planted on literal Day 6, and after Adam had been created (physically, anyway) on Day 6, and had named all the animals, and had been put to sleep so Eve could be bio-engineered from some of his bone and flesh, and they had been married, then they were put in this Garden where now fully grown flowering and fruiting plants are a feature. Slick work, 24 hrs.
    The Tigris-Euphrates drainage system was associated with Eden in some way. The same river/rivers which Moses & co. could mention in Scripture, as being exactly where they are today. Probably a thousand years AFTER the great flood. The same rivers, Eden — associated. Therefore the Tigris-Euphrates remained IN SITU during the great flood. But, according to Ham and Snelling, those same stratas cut by those rivers were mostly, if not entirely, laid down by Noah’s flood.
    Then again, since THE LORD was born in Bethlehem because all the world was taxed — necessitating physical presence of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem — therefore, since all the world was taxed, the inn which crowded them out was overrun in fact by red Indians.

  69. It always amazes me that Creationists who aren’t biologists are often quick to put themselves in the role of Judge of All Science, deciding that biology is nonsense. The fact that they don’t have a doctorate in biology never seems to give them pause.

    We go to scientists for our science. That you don’t understand it should neither be surprising nor give you cause to reject it.

  70. “God, truly, did not have anything to do with evolution, as it is entirely false.”

    Thanks for showing off your total ignorance of science and your obvious fear of science. You could use Google to look things up and educate yourself but you would rather hide in your everything-is-magic fantasy land.

    Evolution by natural selection and genetic drift is the strongest fact of science. It’s ridiculous I have to tell you this in the 21st century.

    I repeat: Look things up. There’s tons of information out there. If you’re too lazy or too afraid to educate yourself that’s your problem. Nobody cares. So don’t waste my time. I don’t explain science to a know-nothing science denier for the same reason I don’t teach dogs how to play chess.

  71. Thanks 🙂 but actually “It has been known for a thousand years” – and more – that there are people who want to pick holes in God’s word who do not believe it. There are many who are like this. Don’t waste your precious life. A day cannot be recovered, traded in, or rewound. Judgement follows.
    A thought: We don’t ask a surgeon to fly a plane, or a geneticist to write for Plumbers’ Weekly. A careful, and prayerful study of the bible, demonstrates that the ‘contradictions’ that unbelievers say exist are the product of their unwillingness to work with the text and allow the Holy Spirit of God to reveal its purposes, which are many. They (and even some who suppose themselves believers) do not believe that God intentionally inspired each word, and that each word used in the original therefore was intentionally written for our benefit for all time. Instead, they seek ‘experiences’ of God, and not His truth first. “Narrow is the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” said the one we call Jesus.
    To understand how accurately and precisely the bible speaks the truth, I can only recommend the book of Daniel, which has a remarkable set of prophecies, many of which have been clearly fulfilled. I hope you will read it with an open mind. Remember, that the bible itself predicts that many will scoff and laugh at it, believing it to be irrelevant. Yet, “Know therefore, and understand” says Daniel. This is an emphatic statement from a man who did.
    He did understand and know first-hand the awesome power of God, and he, a Hebrew slave, was given the job of prime minister of the kingdom of the Medes and Persians.

  72. Is this a joke, or a game to you? You suggest the argument “all the world was taxed …therefore…the inn which crowded them out was overrun in fact by red Indians.” ?!
    You appear to love to float great tissue-weak arguments over what you (apparently) still suggest you believe at heart to be truth! Is this just a game to you, I ask again?

    I could point out the obvious point (which I am sure you will respond to) that the interpretation of the language should be contextual and, by the rule of holy scripture, must take into account the intention of the whole bible, which, whilst it was being compiled, the writers could have had no complete knowledge of. JUST like any other book, each of the author’s words has overall purpose and meaning. There is obviously no contradiction whatever with the use of the phrase “all the world.” It is an expression that the ancient world used, and we still use today. For example elsewhere, when the pharisees spoke of Christ saying ” the whole world has gone after him”, had all the world gone after Christ? Elsewhere it is stated: “then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized. Really?!

    Is that how you want to waste your intelligent, God given mind, to argue and try to destroy the literary credibility of the verbally inspired word of God? I am sorry. If you say you believe the Christ, on what basis do you know Him, and His words, apart from indeed .. his recorded words? Is the understanding of the Bible just anyone’s guess? Is God that careless of what the Word means (yet speaks of verbal inspiration in 2 Tim 3:16)? Shame on you sir for your attempt to detach the relevance of Genesis (and all references to it as the authoritative source of the meaning of sin and of the need for the gospel) from the essence of Christ and the redemption that came from the seed of THE PHYSICAL WOMAN, the first woman, Adam’s mate, and his wife, Eve.

  73. Hi Bob, This is amusing.The usual response from someone who likes to play religion against atheism games. Ha! – “You don’t understand biology”, or “You don’t understand evolution”. We have heard that one so many times!

    Questions for you:
    1. How does a doctorate in biochemistry, or other biological field make it certain that you, me, or anyone else can correctly define what is / is not evidence for a supposed scientific truth where that ‘truth’ is not demonstrable by any experiment know to mortal man? – If you have an example such an experiment that demonstrates the FACTUAL basis for the evolutionary dynamic, then I believe you would already be a rich man and would be repeating that experimental work for all to see. Oh dear me! I am stifling a laugh, but really, it is not funny when atheist/agnostics and even religious scoffers pretend THEY have the sole licence to report or judge the ‘truth’ of science, whilst hiding from the long list of very inconvenient truths that blow evolutionary delusion right out of its primordial ocean of soup, and which they have not even an intellectually honest answer to? (And please, please don’t come back with “abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution…” as, if it did not “have anything to do with evolution”, then where DID evolutionary chance and necessity”, as Monod called it, begin?).

    2. And – How does the fact that I studied the life sciences for 10 years, also a red-brick UK university – which was an education in naturalism, believe me(!) – at degree level make me less qualified than ‘arrogant you’ to judge fact from fiction? A child of 13 can see that the basic constructs of the evolutionary argument have not changed in 50 years and that there is no more evidence for the common descent of all of life now than there was over 45 years ago when the double-helix was described. The argument is essentially an argument about the nature of what science is, but you people love to obscure that fact or directly deny it. You lie, and you lie to yourself, which is a serious thing. (I am a UK BSc with Hons but no longer employed in biology 35 years later, yet I have continued to study all developments since, and try to encourage the Christian church to think carefully about what is an essentially simplistic (and completely fallacious) set of arguments against a creator God).

    3. You will know of plenty of people with doctorates, some double BIOLOGICAL science or other physical science doctorates, who refuse the delusions of the evolutionary deception. So, your own argument is therefore null and void.

    Finally, Bob, when you dismiss those who don’t have science doctorates, first consider the meaning of the word science, which means knowledge: Is it possible that knowledge of truth is what the study of science is about? This, rather than the promotion of an essential IDEOLOGY where those intelligent, educated people who don’t believe it are described as “ignorant”, yet, to whom the evolutionary believing professors are unable to demonstrate its factual basis?

  74. Re. ” Look things up. There’s tons of information out there” Agreed. Let’s both do that? – You just don’t want to understand that other information exists that blows evolutionism out of the water. I am 40 years down the line on this subject, dear BobC. Don’t patronize. But do please address the key questions which currently – it may be – you deny exist.

  75. You just admitted you are happy with your bias Bob. Sad. It is all political with you, so why even bother with the science?

  76. “the consensus is more likely to be accurate ” interesting. But its funny how the way that science has advanced has always, but always been against the consensus, and those that break the consensus are and always have been the pioneers. You clearly don’t understand how science has worked in its history.

    Example statement from the consensus (which is still widely believed): “Junk DNA exists”. FACT: so called junk DNA has epi-genetic interactive functions which are only just beginning to be unraveled. It may be that the term junk will be dropped since these interactions were not understood (by the consensus) at the time the word junk was 1st used. I say “stop the labeling; do the research, and drop the premature conclusion making.” It makes headlines, but does not get research done.

  77. Surfnut, you have changed the subject from the creation stories to the book of Daniel. As scholars worked with the creation stories they found reasons for the apparent inconsistencies: they came from different scribal traditions.

    When different eyes read the Bible they can come up with different insights which enrich our understanding of the text. It has happened time and time again. The Song of Solomon was once interpreted as showing the love of God for Israel (Jewish interpretation) or the Church (Christian interpretation.) Later scholars, interpreting them literally, saw the songs as love poetry. The Book of Judges can be seen as anti-woman or as a protest against male stupidity and cruelty to women.

    There is no need to fear modern scholarship or different interpretations of the Bible. If the Bible is the word of God, then no power on earth can overthrow it. However, if it’s just another book, it will still be valuable for the insights it gives into the human condition.

  78. If we wish to be biblical, let’s rely on the Bible. If we wish to be scientific, let’s rely on the Bible. We can not insist on a young earth and a literal Bible in combination with ‘flood geology’. Can we. As the Bible demonstrates. And who would wish it? A young earth doesn’t make me right with God.

  79. I see you sit on the fence (or maybe you are just pretending to for entertainment, as some here seem to do). Creation believer bating is an elitist Western sport. It can even earn you good money on a Youtube channel. Yet knowledge of Christ and obedience to Him is sliding out of sight in so many places. God is not mocked.

    Changing the subject away from creation and Genesis? I think not. The matter of the creation account being critically disassembled, provoked me to remind us both of the canon of scripture, which is a remarkable fact, and the close agreement of all of the word with itself in all essential matters, including, as I believe, the account of creation and the Fall of our first parents into sin. And there is the rub: Destroy the account of creation, and its literal meaning of events, with the Temptation. Fall, and the removal from Eden, and you remove the reason why sin was first judged by God, original sin, and the reason for the Saviour. Many young people in the West and the East mock sin, which puts them at risk of Hell fire. One of the reasons for this is the decline of the teaching of the Church, and the belief in evolution and secular humanism.

    Even though you may disagree, the Bible agrees with itself throughout. – Evidence of its own authority and origin, since it contains the very words of the Saviour. Tell your worries to the Lord and see what He says about it perhaps.

    You are far too relaxed about the ‘scholarship’ of these days, and the bible being strong enough to stand alone. The point of course being that for nearly 1000 years, powerful men, many of them scholars, prevented or obstructed the new and truthful God honouring scholarship of Tyndale’s day for perverse reasons of the power and influence of the suppose church. You are too much like Mr Worldly Wiseman. Perhaps read the book of Jude, and the letters to Timothy. See what God says about the word, and keeping it precious against a backdrop of persistent attacks and distortions of scripture.

    I am sure however you will agree that we are to see to it that the word of God and the gospel message it contains, is transferred, intact, to the 3rd and 4th generation. We are not to spend fruitless time (on this blog) ripping it apart and telling each other how clever and scholarly that is. It isn’t. It is particularly well accepted form of cultural suicide. Wake up. Or do you wish your grandchildren to go to Hell? People died in the flames at the stake to bring YOU this word. Were they misguided, or excessively zealous?

  80. Creationism — evidence that dinosaurs still live among us today.

  81. Surfnut,

    Thank you for your detailed reply.

    I have every respect for the work of Tyndale, martyred for translating the New Testament and part of the Old Testament into English. i also see that you are familiar with John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress.”

    I won’t argue with your beliefs. I can see how they shape your thinking about church history and modern scholarship. However, I would like to point out that people with different views can enrich each other with their different insights.

  82. There is nothing “sorry” about being a person who believes the fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints. I am a fundamentalist, and I am not sorry. I love life to the full, and I wish others did, but God knows them and loves them too, just as much.

    The love I have for God needs some work. Of that we can all be certain. But I am looking forward to seeing the Lord who paid the cost to redeem my life and made something better of it. God is real. The Lord, the King of All Creation is coming back to rescue us from final destruction. Hallelujah! Come Lord. Come soon! Things are getting really bad.
    -Hoping to see you at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb of God. Don’t scoff. Get to know Jesus. HE is THERE for each of you.

  83. Neither does any kind of creation belief, INCLUDING yours, make you right with God. But I say is easier to approach God from an acceptance of His truth, than a denial of the clear meaning and intention of scripture, which the scribes clearly wrote for either their own reasons, or from God’s inspiration. You choose. It is not a hard choice for me.

    You talk as if you know everything and are an authority, yet you cannot, and you are not. “Can we.” ?? What? Patronizing to say the least. “As the Bible demonstrates”.. ?? It only demonstrates that it is precise in language where it is clearly being precise due to the very words used, and the context which reveals the intention! And no-one can actually disprove what it says. But you will try… As a result, you are unable to defend it, apparently. Sad.

  84. “Faith based beliefs are immune to evidence”… ? No. Real faith is based on the real world, where evidence and testable fact – truth – is very important. However there are things that we are finally challenged to accept, or reject. For example, the death of Christ for the sin of all the world. The reality of faith, real faith, is based on the existential reality of the Living God, who you know exists, but refuse to acknowledge, because you don’t want to come to him to have your sin dealt with.

    My faith belief is based on the testimony of the witnesses to the life of Christ, who wrote down the truth about the person they got to know, and who were equally astonished to discover that they too had completely misunderstood what he had said and meant by some the things he spoke about!

    His death was recorded in history. His life had been remarkably ordinary, until reaching the age of about 30, when for 3 short years he turned the world upside down, merely by teaching 11 men and a number of women about the way that leads to life. His was an entirely peaceful message, laced with stern warnings of the danger of ignoring the coming judgement for each of us. On death, he reviled no-one, and forgave even those who crushed the life from him, and who had already ripped his back to shreds, with a scourge – surely shortening his life to mere days, even without a crucifixion which he was to endure for about 6 hours.

    Will you not come with me, and look on him who loved you, as recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Do not turn the Christ away when he comes to knock at your door. He will. And he may only do it once more. I pray you would hear his voice today:
    He said “..The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.” John 10, v25-30
    “Come to me, all you who are weary and are heavy laden, and I shall give you rest.”

    Come. JUST come as you are. He who made the world will not turn anyone away.
    You will be so glad you did.

  85. That’s fair sir. I hope we can agree on more things than I had believed.

  86. Jim and Stuart: No-one knows, from the evidence, what could have eroded the Grand Canyon. From all the evidence, it appears that it most certainly was not cut over millions of years.
    1. Radioisotope methods do not yield reliable ages for Grand Canyon rocks.
    2. There are absolutely remarkable and unexplained features, such as the contact between the Coconino Sandstone and the underlying subjacent Hermit Shale from the North Kaibab Trail. ‘Ten million years’ are missing at this contact point. What is YOUR explanation for the exactly flat contact, with nothing between and no sign of any erosion? Here is a nice pic of the contact:
    3. This review of the problems with some of the theories (both creationist and evolutionist) is here

  87. Bob, you said: “They can sample the layers exposed in the Grand Canyon at other sites …They want the Grand Canyon for the press.” So i reckoned on that being an admission of bias.

  88. I see an agenda on the part of Snelling. He’s not doing science, he’s grandstanding.

    Not sure what your concern about bias is, though.

  89. You’re entitled to your opinion, dear Bob, which is a pretence and smokescreen for your complete lack of any scientific basis of reply to Andrew Snelling’s work. You can ridicule the faith in God that he and I share all you like, but you cannot pretend Andrew Snelling PhD is a not a first class scientist with an excellent industrial track record in varied industries, including the U.S. nuclear industry. His CV contains the following facts, which put many who criticize him to shame: He is neither “grandstanding” nor fooling around with the truth of science, as you do, and are again doing. You are just full of it, have no better answers that you wish to share, and clearly don’t care what you say, if it gets you some atheist kudos. NO need for any factual content eh Bob?!!
    – Fun Facts for Dear Uncle Bob –
    Dr. Andrew Snelling, has a B.Sc. with first class honors in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales, and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney. He worked for a several years in the mining industry throughout Australia undertaking mineral exploration surveys and field research.
    He has also been a consultant research geologist for more than a decade to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for internationally funded research on the geology and geochemistry of uranium ore deposits as analogues of nuclear waste disposal sites.

  90. You’re entitled to your opinion, dear Bob, which is a pretence and smokescreen for your complete lack of any scientific basis of reply to Andrew Snelling’s work.

    He applied to the Grand Canyon for permission to take samples. His request was denied on scientific grounds (or lack of science grounds). Indeed, his desire to access certain geological layers could be fulfilled by driving to them in areas outside the Grand Canyon itself.

    you cannot pretend Andrew Snelling PhD is a not a first class scientist with an excellent industrial track record in varied industries, including the U.S. nuclear industry.

    Cool. I love the US nuclear industry. Unfortunately, that’s off topic. His request was judged by scientists to have no scientific merit. When faced with a lawsuit, the National Park Service decided that it had better things to spend its money on than a lawsuit, so it caved. That does nothing to bolster Snelling’s request this time.

  91. Which scoreboard are you looking at? I work in pharma doing research into antibiotic resistance and see evolution on display in my lab daily. In fact, the entire problem we are trying to fix is caused by it.

    The truth is the truth. and you don’t have it. I sit here and watch 20,000 generations of bacterial cell cultures burp up successful mutations that increase fitness and ruin our antibiotic arsenal. When you are next seeing a doctor and getting an antibiotic to treat an infection, remember that what are you getting is evolutionary science flowing through your body.

  92. 1. Let’s see. If evolution is all ideology that is hiding things that blow it out of the water, it seems mighty fishy that the huge weight of all the evidence has given me lab techniques to watch evolution occur right before my eyes. I watch bacterial cell cultures move through tens of thousands of generations and observe nearly every component of the integral theory happen right in front of me, including drift, random mutation, effective speciation, etc. I can even trace back the arisen successful mutations to the generation it happened and watch the genetic drift match the predicted clock cycles. Its a pretty powerful “delusion” as you call it, that i can grab any animal out of the forest, isolate a set of trait nucleotides, isolate the same trait nucleotides in you, use the clock to determine drift, predict the ancestor, then grab another life form predicted to be on that branch and see a version o your trait nucleotides. I think you don’t know what you are talking about.

    2. What planet are you on? Perhaps you need to study how the modern synthesis has evolved from 1942 through genetic biochemistry through to bioinformatics. Are you even aware of the Integral Evolutionary model now that we have drift calculated across common ancestral markers? Again, I think you don’t know what you are talking about.

    3. The existence of .0001% of scientists who disagree and who don’t offer an alternative theory counts for little. Were they to come up with something, that would be another story. But none have. Cherry picking one study that doesn’t conform out of the tens upon tens of thousands that support the theory, then claiming everything is disproven, is bollocks.

  93. Fundamentalism and its reliance on an interpretive framework that claims to take the Bible literally is heresy. It is a modernist anti-science movement attempting to fight the erosion of their faith by twisting the Bible into a set of “fundamentals”. Most religions have this. This social phenomenon between religions manifests its primary identity as making the claim that taking its holy book literally is the only thing the constitutes true religion. Parts of Hinduism does this. Parts of Islam does this, etc etc. It is all the same and merely differentiated by the level of violence and exclusion they employ. The movement is marked by fragmentation as each group claims the other is apostate.

    I grew up as a fundamentalist, and I know the mindset very well. Thank God I escaped early. It is a false and criminal religion whose very existence depends on supposed literal interpretations. And thus evolution is like poison to you. For if Genesis is not literal, then the whole religion falls. Such a perversion of Christianity is more akin to a social cancer than a denomination.

    In its ultimate sense, fundamentalism is an attempt to circumvent faith with a drive towards certainty that God does not offer. And, since God works by faith, this ends up being a denial of Him and the gospel.

  94. Science is about the weight of evidence alone. And the weight of evidence for evolution remains unchallenged. You are welcome to challenge it with science. Cherry picking is not science.

  95. Re. “effective speciation, etc” Thanks for the reply. This is very interesting! But I cannot agree.

    SPECIATION (the breeding of distinct genotypes/phenotypes within isolated populations):In ‘higher’ animals and plants this is NOT in doubt! We have been effectively doing it by selection for thousands of years, but now we have strong evidence that this is demonstrated in the wild populations by some good studies. Indeed, it would be difficult to deny speciation is a fact, it is so well supported by experiment. But many, perhaps even you, do not understand what is happening in that process.
    The fact that you think the speciation process, which has only ever been shown to be an adaptive response WITHIN the genera (as you very well know), has anything to say to the idea of great leaps of ‘evolution’ – (a supposed set of enormous ‘changes’ of ways of life, using new designs of organisms of which the origins of change are in fact unknown) – is very typical of a scientist who is soaked in the hocus-pocus and double-speak of the evolutionary theory, and cannot see the facts, just as they are. You are looking through the wrong glasses – the rose tinted ones. And there are plenty like you, I agree on that point. But the emperor has no clothes, and you fail to admit the facts.

    -Your problems that you need to overcome are simple:
    1. Not a single fact of science demonstrates the slightest tendency of any type of organism – not even bacteria or phages – to completely re-design itself, fulfilling some new design requirement that evolution presents as having taken place by some kind of selection pressure on randomized (wild) genetic experiments over ‘millions of years’. The only changes we observe provide selective advantage to the same spp. and no drift towards the development of newly packaged, usable functional design data occurs, nor does it appear to be logically possible on paper, given the facts of genetic function and inheritance.

    2. You are blissfully unaware (but perhaps willfully in denial, as an intelligent person) of the relevance of this fact, having lived, quite happily, for many years with the delusion of common descent from ‘simple lifeforms’ being supposedly some historical function of the existence of life which one has to be a ‘lunatic to disbelieve’.

    And you tell me you are some sort of experienced lab worker.. Well, you would believe in the evolutionary paradigm, wouldn’t you? You expected me to say that, I am sure. But it is also a financial thing, and for this I do not blame you – There are significant, historical and quite hierarchical lines of internationally prestigious research going on all time (at huge expense to general scientific effort around the world). These are ploughing the evolutionary furrow and re-seeding it as quickly as they know how. I won’t deny that it must be interesting research at times. In China today it’s a career gaining enormous kudos. It is interesting to observe how it works.

    What, though, are the FACTS? Let’s make an overview of a couple of them:

    You will know from your work that any bacterial organism – (classically E.coli or S.Areus, or other well loved species in experiments) – that mutates the sequence coding for a protein almost invariably does not survive, as the protein is unable to fold and behave as a biologically active material in the intracellular processes, or sub-cellular architecture. The corrupted sequence is usually useless. It is also demonstrable only that bacterial forms have enormously variable substrate specificity, which (evolutionaries like you will tell us) enables them to “evolve”, yet all that changes is that there is a temporary population shift, which can be shown to revert to the most common form when the substrate is changed back to the original AND the other breeding lines or varieties are again allowed to mix with the apparent new variety. The so called new variety is not a new organism, but merely a specialist adapted (sub-speciated?) organism that is often unable to survive since it is too specialist. Like the MRSA strains that are so very dangerous today, where there is sterility and no competition, there it can thrive and do its damage now that the resistance factors are widespread (and worryingly, increasingly so).

    This rapid prototyping of organism strains in bacteria is a very good argument for immensely competent design for each organism. It is the built in variability: Else, how did the ability to vary the highly specific data in the DNA just enough, and at the correct level of the information architecture, come about to allow the adaptive response and ‘hold all the cards’ ready for the right phenotypic outcome at the right time? By randomly varying the information and keeping the ‘good cards’? => Circular reasoning. Yet I am certain you both understand the problem, and shall deny it in the next breath, or tell us “that is not how it works”. Don’t pull the wool. It is these facts that evolutionists never respond to with any science. They cannot do so, as there isn’t any to use in refutation against these observations. Just lots of studies showing what they call ‘evolution’, but as we have seen, is in fact rapid adaption and prototyping of new strains.

    Your response demonstrates that you believe in the evolutionary hypothesis that all things came about from ‘simple processes’ by chance progression during “millions of years” (NOTE: Evolution it is not a theory as no test for it has been demonstrable to allow any kind of design change to occur to show links between a protozoan and a polychaete worm). You have to explain where the change in the informational content for the engineering of these organisms came from! –
    – And believe me, as a biologist turned engineer, this really is engineering on a massive, yet microscopic scale. Merely to specify the genetic datasets for Euglena is a monumental engineering and information technology task, and there are still huge unknowns. We don’t know what part (if any) of the DNA tells cells that they should form an arch to create the simple structure of a capillary.

    Isn’t it also remarkable how, despite their capacity for very rapid adaptation to new food substrates, temperature, light tolerance and chemical and anti-microbial tolerance, bacterial forms of life are still the same bacteria and genera they have always been, as far as we know – with an almost unlimited capacity for variation? !! Evidence for the NON-evolution of life appears clearer than ever: Despite a few 10’s of thousands of years (as claimed) in ice-sheets or glaciers, the spores of existing species of microbes found in the ice are still the same species we have known on Earth today. NO EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMIC IS IN EVIDENCE, AFTER THOUSANDS OF YEARS IN THE ICE. THERE IS ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GENOMES.

    Yes, life has changed. The questions are more about what has changed, and by how much, and whether we, as intelligent people, are prepared to see where this line of enquiry may genuinely lead.

  96. I am an evolutionary geneticist. I do research in antibiotic resistance for pharma. Unfortunately, most of what you have written cannot be classified as anything other than garbage and obscuring gobbledegook.

    Everything you’ve said is based on some kind of premise that no new information is created. You are demonstrably wrong. This is made up garbage from someone thinking they will sound clever extending the 2nd law of thermodynamics into bioinformatics. It looks like junk from answers in genesis. In my lab we culture multi-generational bacterial cell lines tens of thousands of generations down. Most of it is now automated, thank god. Over two years and 40,000 generations, my lines are responsible for three new bacterial envelope traits and the creation of two new dimers in ATP synthase. They are all traced to genetic drift in the earlier generations on record. In fact we can pinpoint the initial mutation exactly and pretty much every drift down the lines that evolved the new traits. Most drift and mutation result in broken codons or an expression stop. But some do not. And some effectively pile on to create new traits. More so, some drift and mutations are information intensive – reducing the negative effects of drift at other points. This enables some drift to speed up trait development.

    Structure is one thing, but metabolism is another. A colleague’s lines generated a new mechanism for citric acid metabolism at gen 30,000. Structure, metabolism, and replication – there is nothing else.

    All this babble that about new varieties not being a new organisms and substrate changes blah blah is absolute garbage. All of it is excuse-making similar to calling a used car a “pre-owned car”. Built-in variability? Really? Where? We sequence the whole things now you know. It’s not there. Especially right when I can trace trait emergence to specific drift points and their loci? A green car likely does not have yellow paint underneath.

    Again, your ramble is an attempt to redefine the evolution we see as some kind of built-in variation in order to ensure that no “new code” is being created. Well, wrong. I have it in my drawer. And if our assumptions about the envelope development pans out and we see the same process across the board, you will find an entire new line of antibiotics on the shelf in about eight years which will be less susceptible to resistance.

    I think you need to find a new approach to hang you hopes on. New structures and processes are created from the interaction of disorder and complexity. I’m sorry, but Jesus didn’t pre-program all variation. And your babble about theory or no theory is absolute junk. Again you attempt to redefine.

    Look, where is your theory of information conservation? Where is it?

  97. Wow, that is some serious self-delusion masquerading as a “higher truth.” Your entire premise is based on your subjective claims and not upon any objective reality. That is why it is called faith and not science. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover several times and the NT dozens of times. What else did you believe could have convinced me that Christianity is a human made myth? Just read the Bible without the blinders of faith and you’ll see that it has no more claim to an ultimate truth than the Koran, the Mahabharata, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or any other human authored religious text from history. (I’ve read them all too. It is hard to judge a religious text unless you have read it. I do recommend the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 6 of the Mahabharata) as it is one darn good story. The Diamond Sutras of Buddhism are also fascinating reading.

    I’m sure the news will provide coverage if there is ever any evidence of the supernatural discovered. Just contemplate how many faith-based claims have been made throughout history. Then consider why there is no one faith for humanity. Narrow it down to Christianity and consider why there are hundreds of denominations and thousands of interpretations of the faith? How could that be if The Bible was truly the “Word of God?” How incompetent does a deity have to be to fail to communicate its message? Apply Occam’s Razor and which is more plausible… that there is a supernatural being that created the Cosmos and humanity but then really screwed the pooch in communicating this wondrous feat with humanity by leaving no evidence or that such stories are myths from an earlier time written by superstitious people trying to explain a world they did not understand? Think about it.

  98. Jason, Thanks for the reply. 🙂
    Re. “multi-generational bacterial cell lines” – What spp. are they? It must be interesting work occasionally. Could you please provide at least one paper covering this work, or a similar paper that is not proprietary to the pharma and on public release? Otherwise, I don’t see why I or anyone else should take any of your tone particularly seriously. You appear biased, and do not attempt to answer the challenges that are clearly there, preferring to rubbish all, and concede nothing to the discussion making our conversation more interesting. Why cannot we ask questions first about the nature of this work? You may rant against my position and statements. Yet you do not refer or demonstrate any foundation of truth on which your claim of ‘New Kinds Of Life’ is based.

    You say “All this babble.. about new varieties not being new organisms and substrate changes blah blah is absolute garbage. ” – Is it? In what way, from first principles, is an organism classifiable as NEW? And so to demonstrate my statement is ‘absolute garbage’ what can you do? What WILL you demonstrate? Do please explain and provide a paper as a reference backing this up. I am sure it will be astoundingly clear that there is no new life form being ‘adapted into’ or ‘evolved’, but a lot of minor changes to existing biochemistry which can indeed allow a widely adaptive response in the organism. TELL us some of these adaptations, or ‘evolution’ if you wish to name them as such. Words do not phase me. Truth is what this is about. The experimental outcome is the evidence, which is the truth. The conclusion is the conclusion. Often all that is a new hypothesis, of course..

    Question: Serious. No trick questions etc. I am actually interested: Can the existing organism (standard variety that exists in natural habitats -although you have not identified the sp. yet) actually continue to exist along side the ‘new’ variety? Does one out-compete the other, as would be predicted with the right food source? And if it does, is it possible ever to see the new organism variety drift back towards the old one, given time and the right opportunity in the experimental conditions?

    Funny thing it is (as far as I know as you have not show anything) that you are unable to demonstrate that there has been any change of the type of organism (E.coli to ??.?? ) – I.e. something that could not be classified as, say, a coliform that came from only a coliform colony?

    Notice that we should bear in mind that species distinction in taxonomy is a subjective field to an extent, and based on a scientist’s judgement, especially since no-one has produced even a new genus to date, let alone a new form of life, that would demonstrate any truth in the Darwinist idea that all genera came from a single ancestral organism, no matter which kingdom of life they exist within today. This is the Darwinism belief that we contend against, and for which there is no verifiable evidence, other than by assumption:
    – Homologous design, for example, is produced by evolutionism as evidence of common origin, and school children are told “This is strong evidence that all arthropods (to take one group) had a common original ancestor..” However that is scientifically erroneous thinking, since, from the only physically existing evidence we have to day, the fossils, we see that the Arthropoda have always had a huge diversity of forms within the same basic plan, and it even appears to be the case that there were more genera in the past than today. -The progression over the millenia appears to have been ‘Big diversity of many forms’ (the past) to ‘Lower diversity and fewer forms’ by extinction (present day). That is not to say that genera have not developed (‘evolved’) from former, similar organisms, if we need to use the word to describe change WITHIN type, or kind. That is observed today, and is the result of diversity from rapid adaptation that is part of the living world. Thus, we have the amazing deep water shrimps making their living from bacteria around the hot ‘black smokers’ 1 mile down, but the brine shrimp living in coastal waters. They are both shrimps with almost the same body plan. Both are specialized in their own way. Several species of each exist. A common origin from some original kind of shrimp is possible here, but it cannot be assumed for organisms of different types, just because there appear to be similar features such as limb design, life-style, or their means of generating energy.

    Therefore, common origin is not implied or required, UNLESS you first assume evolution must be true -It could simply be good design by a master designer). – Of course, any scientist would LOVE to have a new species named after her/him, especially where that is a genuinely new species. Although, I am pretty sure that in Western Europe, if you guys had created a new species of bug there would be a great deal of worry over it being release to the environment, as, according to you, this ‘new sp.’ is a new kind of organism.

    Now to your mistakes:
    Re. ” …Built-in variability? Really? Where? We sequence the whole things now you know. It’s not there.”
    and Re. “where is your theory of information conservation?”
    I fear this reveals you are greatly mistaken and do not understand what is meant by variability. This is the built in ability of the genus/species to vary the expression of its genes, not create new information structures or produce those information structures in the genes and keep them until a ‘nice sunny day’ when its time to bring them all out and make something special like a completely new protein synthesis pathway for a protein never seen before in that organism, or, taking it further, after new kinds of proteins, new intra-cellular and eventually a multicellular architecture – say a leaf? Or a feather (designed for flight) or a wing of a bat? – That is the whole point, which you clearly have not yet understood: The data structures that are there for each spp. get recombined in extraordinary ways. You know this! It is demonstrable using a classical Mendelian approach. It can today generate some interesting outcomes as the selection methods are steered towards a desired outcome, like nylon digesting bacteria, for example, or short varieties of rust resistant wheat having a heavy cropping tendency.

    Nope. This is not a surprise in the least to a creationist who knows perfectly well there is immense potential in the genome of every organism, until it degrades towards extinction where too much breeding happens with too few genes coming from outside the local population. Yes; life is well adapted, and indeed designed to survive. If it were not so, many of the cell lines you have bred, and the fish I have bred would not have survived. Many of mine bred with greater vigor and reliability the generation after taking in new wild varieties as brood stock.

    So, for the bacterial metabolic pathway changes, this is just the powerful ability to vary the food source and survive, given perhaps some coaxing and specialized lab techniques to select for a new trait or variety. What’s new? Surprising you do not appear to know this (or wish to name it in these terms). But it is a fact you are unable to deny: The variability in many rapidly generating organisms is very strong. Even for higher organisms. Plant breeders know this.

    No, No. “Information conservation”, as you put it, is not a problem that anyone other than the evolutionist has to worry about! It really isn’t. It is you who need to worry about that, as you do not have a clue how a genome could evolve a design for a new kind life (say a crawling organism to a flying one, or a heterotrophe to an autotrophe, or the other way around), keep the genes that ‘might’ be useful to an eventual new design, and then successively capture sets of genes for the final design that no-one knows is actually needed, least of all the organism involved.

    You see, the problem that evolution has, is it cannot demonstrate that copying mistakes could ever build an information architecture, much less produce a transcription system by random processes and conserve the useful evolved bits and pieces until someday – BINGO! – it all happens to work together. Sadly no. This is cloud cookoo land. But you are welcome to believe that if you wish. Just don’t call it science.

    That is not to detract from the great research that you are doing. Can you please answer the points raised, and provide a paper as evidence. Some scientific factual data for evolution of new types of organism?

  99. re “modernist anti-science movement ” Now that really is just bull dung with lots and lots of flies on/..

    You say “a perversion of Christianity”, but what for you would authentic Christian thought, logic, faith, and practice look like? Interested on the genetic topic, but this is probably even more important, as you say you did have a faith. I wonder where it went, and what its supposed to be based on now.
    Weird statement “certainty that God does not offer. ” Yet you then proceed to tell us that there is a ‘gospel’? So what IS the gospel if it is not certain, and so cannot be GOOD NEWS?

    re. “God works by faith” No no. God does not work by faith. It is man who must fall at the feet of Christ and accept that He died for him. That is faith, based on the certainty of the Truth being evident, and that (somehow we do not know how as it is by the Spirit) the Holy Spirit has graciously sown into the heart the conviction that Christ is truly Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

  100. Re. “evidence, if confirmed, can weaken or destroy a theory..”
    – So long as that theory ain’t the blessed, worshiped and hallowed theory of the evolution of all life, with all aspects of that damnable pack of lies stripped bare and bleeding in the gutter, but the deluded still walking by on the other side, pretending everything about this delusion is fine and dandy.

  101. “Weight of evidence”?? You are Joking? -Hot air smelling of something nasty! If you had a thimble-full of demonstrable evidence, you would not have to continually rehash little digitized comic-strip explanations of this most pathetic and UNDEMONSTRABLE of ideas man has ever dreamed up to explain himself away. (No theory, of course, as theories can be tested, which evo-religion cannot, except by thought experiment and pretence to fact which is mere assumption and further delusion).

    Case in point: Your genetics research assumes “close homology means common descent from evo-source organism.” =LUNACY. Common homology MAY or many not support common descent. No one can say, as THERE CAN BE NO TEST THAT CAN REVEAL THE TRUTH in real-time, I.e. by experiment that can be observed. Dummies know this. Why don’t evolutionary scientists? There are specific genetic assumption about common descent that are not at all scientific, but totally foolish. Evolutionist circular reasoning again. Sad, and not science:(

    Evo-deludes have too much to lose; careers, grants, reputation, and the great pipe dream of sanitizing evidence all to tell one story. We cannot endanger that. Can we?

  102. Re. “ academic institution nor has published in a peer-reviewed academic journal since the 1980’s” Wrong – Snelling has published peer reviewed research. The ‘problem’ is that since 1992 they have not ever been reviewed by evolutionists (and so neither were they turned down) and published in the sorts of publication that you, a biased evolutionist, would accept. Let’s face it, would you review his papers since that time? No? Right – So you have gross arrogance to tell the world that he has “not been peer reviewed since the 1980’s.” He can only be reviewed if he is.. um.. reviewed! What you should have said is that no-one would review his output today, and stand with him, because most of “you are biased, and would not want to promote any kind of view point, no matter how academically well considered and no matter how good the research evidence, if that viewpoint did not presume to the supposed fact of an evolutionistic origin of all life.” That, dear lady is something you might not want to admit. Well, not as a supposedly even handed scientist who goes for the evidence and follows it no matter where it leads… Ha.

    And, by the way, you are wrong about his papers published (marginally); the following demonstrate the end of his active career as a mainstream geological research scientist; a very valuable career, and one in which he could have continued earning a good living. But he didn’t. He gave that up for Christ, and the truth.

    Edis, R., L. Cao, J. Cashion, D. Klessa, A. J. Koppi, T. Murakami, T. Nightingale, T. Payne, A. A. Snelling, N. and Yanase. “Chemistry and mineralogy of rocks and soils.” In Alligator Rivers Analogue Project Final Report. Volume 8. OECD/NEA/Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, 1992.

    Snelling, A. A. “Geologic setting.” In Alligator Rivers Analogue Project Final Report. Volume 2. OECD/NEA/Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, 1992.

    Snelling, A. A. “Koongarra uranium deposits.” In Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea, edited by F.E. Hughes, 807–812. Melbourne, Australia: The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1990.

  103. “……premise that no new information is created…. “.
    You create new information, yourself, or the germs think it up overnight?
    When you come in in the morning, the new spooks your information creates have a new copy of THE TIMES all ready?

    You are in denial of science/rationality.

    As you well know, the processes in cells which occur today are the same biochemistry as was happening back in the Pre-Cambrian.

    New strains, new varieties, new supposed ‘species’ — all done with pre-existent genes/genetic information etc.. .

    You meant, newly observed as far as I know.

    We don’t live in the hyper-evolutionist spook -ruled haunted universe.

  104. I “rubbish” nearly everything you’ve said for two reasons. First, it is mostly impenetrable gobbledegook. I’m sorry to keep sounding like an ass, but it is just junk. It is argument back from your theory with wild claims about how evolution is crazy because of some x,y,z, with no support offered for your theory. It is like you perform thought-experiment logic tests on mechanism, and then declare them invalid without evidentiary support. Aristotle ye are not. And second, I refuse to accept your frame of argumentation – the frame used by creationists to confuse and deceive. It is a frame which twists how science works and is the prime weapon you leverage against truth. Rather than collecting evidence for a counter-theory, it makes statements of theory and offers its own vague mechanisms without supporting evidence. Then it makes demands that unless we disprove your unsupported theories with something approaching the creation of new life forms in the lab, evolution is invalid. The bulk of your text is an attempt to do this.

    None of your approach is science. It is religion. For pedagogical reasons and similar to what i’ve taught first year students, here is an operable review of how science works to set it straight after reading through your jumble.

    Science consists of three streams of activity. One, it works to collect data, perform experiments, and construct mechanism. Theories of mechanism are supported by evidence collected through observation of current and past phenomenon and experiment. Eyewitness testimony is accorded a very low value and we must see evidence in the form of data that is recorded by a machine.

    Second, things labelled “theory” are constructed from and supported by vast amounts of evidence. Nearly all evidence collected on any one subject contains studies that support a theory and studies that contradict it. In order to be added to the weight of evidence, the study must generally make its case statistically with regards to error, etc. Studies that contradict the theory must outweigh studies that support it in terms of volume and mathematical weight. One study or experiment either way means very little. It is the weight of the volume and the statistical mathematics of the evidence which lends support and construction to a particular theory. And if the evidence comes from multiples lines of study, the weight of that evidence increases. A theory written mathematically is usually referred to as a law.

    Science PROVES NOTHING as it uses INDUCTION. It merely looks out into the world and establishes mechanisms and their probability of being universally true. What we have seen establishes mutation and the evolution of life via natural selection and other pressures with a very high probability from multiple lines of evidence. We use these mechanisms daily in the lab and in medicine, and they behave as predicted. Their operation over time has left footprints in the genomes of each life form showing its change over long stretches of time as favorable mutations accumulate and various forms are weeded out. No other operable mechanism has been offered with any evidence to account for what we see. You are welcome to offer one. Bring evidence. Think of the fame you could achieve and the money you could make.

    And third, science incentivizes scientists to either make good on a theory or to break it. We are paid by either making a predictive mechanism work, or we are paid to destroy that predictive mechanism. Your resort to theories that do not support your religion being some kind of biased conspiracy theory is just that, a conspiracy theory by someone who cannot come up with the evidence needed to support his theories. I do NOT get paid to support evolution. In fact, I get paid to interrupt, destroy it, or to find out that it isn’t working as we thought and it is some other mechanism we can disrupt. I get paid to create functional drugs that withstand evolved resistance. My job would be much easier if this resistance came from something already there and did not evolve. That way it would be much easier to disrupt.

    Contrary to what you believe, we see life forms acquire new traits not already in the genetic code. We see this through many different lines of evidence, with direct biochemical observations now added to the list. And in the genome we see the footprints of the traversal of mutation and error accumulate and travel over time. In terms of my own research, every generation in our automated procedure is sampled and stored in case we have to sequence it. As such, I have the mutations that create new traits in hand and know exactly when and where they occurred.

    Creationists attempt to obfuscate this method and deceptively twist it. You first think up a hypothesis – something that contradicts evolution or is an alternate explanation. It must be fuzzy and nonspecific, as eventually you will use it to point out of science to a supernatural source. You then cherry pick a study or handful of studies that roughly might support it out of the mass of evidence. Rarely is a new study commissioned, and if it is, it is usually very specific to finding a contrary piece of data. You then claim that this little smidgeon of evidence has given your theory far more weight than the theory of evolution itself, upsetting it. Then you make statements as to the levels of evidence then required to support evolution extending far beyond the evidence already demonstrated and multiple orders of magnitude beyond what you yourself have demonstrated as evidence for your own theory.

    In addition, you use “gap” logic to try and then tell me that your theory is now so unbelievably supported by either no evidence or some smidgeon, that the things we don’t know then invalidate evolution. It is all really quite a joke. But it is also presented with such confusion and misuse of scientific language that the uneducated person might believe it. It is ultimately an act of falsehood and evil.

    I will now comment specific to my research. It is based upon a validation of Richard Lenski’s work with E. coli. You can find a recent discussion on this work in https://www.nature. com/articles/ismej201769.epdf?author_access_token=p-QO7lgN1WbAI4F4taO60tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MCCqLft1vZyrbzPh5Kux66eWmll8kGK24hh31bp1G2PZrZjky4Wwd9JkGMkGGsEny8X0tR9Ekk52vaqsO1KdBI I have placed a space in the URL to keep it from being filtered out of this post.

    Here is more of a discussion on the work when variations in population and gene transfers add to the soup. It is all about the variability of the clock, which is integral to our work. https://academic.oup. com/mbe/article/32/11/2897/981768/Synonymous-Genetic-Variation-in-Natural-Isolates

    His original main work of interest is here: http://www.nature. com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/full/nature11514.html

    Now, Lenski’s work is universally hated by the creationist crowd, which has made a desperate bid to debunk it. Some just state the exact opposite of its findings, as if stating something makes it so. And some have attempted to find holes such as the ability to create the mutation much earlier than the generation he found it in. This last one we have found interesting.

    Lenski’s work and creationists’ assertion that metabolic development is a merely built-in variation that has been activated caused us great interest. Oh and by the way, what’s the big deal with metabolic pathways? Either the pathway is there or not. And if there, it is coded for or not – it does not spring from nothing and it is blood and guts so to speak of biology. Few things are as important and key to life. You know this. Please consult your old biology textbook on metabolic pathways and the creation of proton gradients for the transformation of ADP to ATP. Here is a simple refresher from a simple source on how NADH is produced from citrate.: /wiki/Citric_acid_cycle Remember, I am placing a space in the domain name on each URL so they don’t get filtered out. And if you remember, NADH is used to create the proton gradient.

    And this is why I fight creationists like yourself. You see, with our lab, it was my job to prove you people right. My question was that did claims of earlier development of citrate metabolism (than at the high generation count) signal code reuse and an expression change, or mutation? Finding an expression change mechanism driving antibiotic resistance would be a goldmine. Such is why your claims of conspiracy are so crazy. The money lies in antibiotics in finding that it is fixable targetable built-in expression coded variation, not evolution.

    In order to do this we’ve created a similar experiment in a variety of other bacteria on a much larger scale and added many controls to explore both vertical and horizontal gene changes. If we have an epigenetic invocation of a operon from something as simple as the new expression of a promoter, then we need only find promoter expression change mechanisms. Here is a nice bit on an example operon. http://www.biology-pages. info/L/LacOperon.html If such expression is methylated at the DNA level and reversible, we include such operonic coding under epigenetic mechanism. Here is some help: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973776/

    and http://mmbr.asm. org/content/70/3/830.full

    But, instead, we found new multiple mutations which piled on to create traits, no changes in any existing operons or even possible hidden operons. No population reverted and removed the mutation. As such this was a setback. But, and here is the lovely secret: it has allowed us to isolate at least one area of resistance development that hints that the insertion of new code to do a double strand copy check could reduce the genetic clock on copy error drift, and that it might be possible to store backup strands in the loop. Possibilities like this extend far beyond bacterial resistance into programmed cancer resistance should a way be found to port some of this to eukarotes. One way to think of it is genetically engineering the existing strains of bacteria to stop being so susceptible to mutations – extra expression of copy checks with backup reversion, etc. Once we have an operable pharmaceutical to submit, you will see our research published. And yes, while CRISPR is easier, there is another way to insert this.

    But, here is some information I can divulge. We use fully sequenced Arthrobacter chlorophenoclicus A6 as it has a variety of pore traits which seem to vary by what they are dumped into. Genome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/nuccore/CP001341

    Additionally we use Acidithiobacillus ferroxidans. We also use seven others but whose identity must remain proprietary. We have 50 static environments and 100 variable environments, and all with the associated controls. We have environments set up where competition and natural selection occur. We have environments where we make alterations the create substantive competitive pressures. And we have environments where nothing changes and variation still occurs over time. And there are yet more, including some looking for punctuated spontaneity just for kicks. There are six generations a day with snapshots taken for each. While we don’t sequence every snapshot we sequence a cluster to determine where and when we see the exact mutation.

  105. part 2 of my answer:

    Now, Lenski’s work is universally hated by the creationist crowd, which has made a desperate bid to debunk it. Some just state the exact opposite of its findings, as if stating something makes it so. And some have attempted to find holes such as the ability to create the mutation much earlier than the generation he found it in. This last one we have found interesting.

    Lenski’s work and creationists’ assertion that metabolic development is a merely built-in variation that has been activated caused us great interest. Oh and by the way, what’s the big deal with metabolic pathways? Either the pathway is there or not. And if there, it is coded for or not – it does not spring from nothing and it is blood and guts so to speak of biology. Few things are as important and key to life. You know this. Please consult your old biology textbook on metabolic pathways and the creation of proton gradients for the transformation of ADP to ATP. Here is a simple refresher from a simple source on how NADH is produced from citrate.: /wiki/Citric_acid_cycle Remember, I am placing a space in the domain name on each URL so they don’t get filtered out. And if you remember, NADH is used to create the proton gradient.

    And this is why I fight creationists like yourself. You see, with our lab, it was my job to prove you people right. My question was that did claims of earlier development of citrate metabolism (than at the high generation count) signal code reuse and an expression change, or mutation? Finding an expression change mechanism driving antibiotic resistance would be a goldmine. Such is why your claims of conspiracy are so crazy. The money lies in antibiotics in finding that it is fixable targetable built-in expression coded variation, not evolution.

    In order to do this we’ve created a similar experiment in a variety of other bacteria on a much larger scale and added many controls to explore both vertical and horizontal gene changes. If we have an epigenetic invocation of a operon from something as simple as the new expression of a promoter, then we need only find promoter expression change mechanisms. Here is a nice bit on an example operon. http://www.biology-pages. info/L/LacOperon.html If such expression is methylated at the DNA level and reversible, we include such operonic coding under epigenetic mechanism. Here is some help: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC4973776/

    and http://mmbr.asm. org/content/70/3/830.full

    But, instead, we found new multiple mutations which piled on to create traits, no changes in any existing operons or even possible hidden operons. No population reverted and removed the mutation. As such this was a setback. But, and here is the lovely secret: it has allowed us to isolate at least one area of resistance development that hints that the insertion of new code to do a double strand copy check could reduce the genetic clock on copy error drift, and that it might be possible to store backup strands in the loop. Possibilities like this extend far beyond bacterial resistance into programmed cancer resistance should a way be found to port some of this to eukarotes. One way to think of it is genetically engineering the existing strains of bacteria to stop being so susceptible to mutations – extra expression of copy checks with backup reversion, etc. Once we have an operable pharmaceutical to submit, you will see our research published. And yes, while CRISPR is easier, there is another way to insert this.

    But, here is some information I can divulge. We use fully sequenced Arthrobacter chlorophenoclicus A6 as it has a variety of pore traits which seem to vary by what they are dumped into. Genome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/nuccore/CP001341

    Additionally we use Acidithiobacillus ferroxidans. We also use seven others but whose identity must remain proprietary. We have 50 static environments and 100 variable environments, and all with the associated controls. We have environments set up where competition and natural selection occur. We have environments where we make alterations the create substantive competitive pressures. And we have environments where nothing changes and variation still occurs over time. And there are yet more, including some looking for punctuated spontaneity just for kicks. There are six generations a day with snapshots taken for each. While we don’t sequence every snapshot we sequence a cluster to determine where and when we see the exact mutation.

  106. I make drugs using the principles and mechanisms of evolution – which includes the formation of new traits and processes from mutation. I do this by growing organisms through tens of thousands of generations. I see it in front of my face. Your statements to the contrary are quite laughable given what I stare at in the lab every morning. It is like someone facing me and telling me the sky isn’t blue on a sunny morning.

    If you are over 50, you are likely taking a drug right now that was developed using these principles. It is quite the joke on how you want to stop this research, but you absolutely LOVE the results. Actually, your horrible religion is not joke. I cannot laugh at something that terrible and dangerous.

  107. Jason, Thank you. The reply was fascinating, apart from –
    1; the drubbing you attempted to give my views (but of which I feel you failed to demonstrate understanding), and 2; the misconception of my position, here and there interwoven. 3; You also did not reply to my points, yet. But you are a specialist biologist, and time – life indeed – is short and uncertain as I was reminded by someone beautiful, younger than I, dying of a stroke this week aged just 52, a similar age as my precious wife. There is no time to kill today, in fact, unlike the old song. We had better get our lives in order. Myself included.

    But I am very grateful to you for offering some background data and reading material. It will take me some time to digest, and I am interested, so I shall do this over the coming weeks. At that point, I may have learned something, and will reply further. This is then an early reply to tidy up one or two things. Hopefully you could discuss what I have offered as challenges, in the meantime.

    As I say, you obviously did not understand my points, or perhaps did not wish to think them through, before replying at such length (not a reply to mine); although you are very keen to state all my points are rubbish without actually addressing them directly. That is simple poor form and style, which I hope does not demonstrate a mind hardened against potential new truth. Sadly these are the common responses and tactics of the “Evolution-must-be-a-consequence-of-adaptation-so-it-is” belief, and the “In any case I am telling you it is” argument method I have faced so many times. Your group has nothing more to offer towards reconciling facts with the evolution from simple to complex theory, so the ACTUAL facts ‘out there’, often, are not addressed, or the discussion opportunity is trashed. Most unfortunate, and, as I am sure you can imagine, it can be disheartening when clear objections are not answered directly. You see; there always seems time to throw around lots of supposed evidence – other than evidence of evolutionary levels of change that qualify for serious consideration within the supposed microbes-to-man argument so ridiculed by creationists, but religiously clung to and taught as fact by, frankly, delusory people who don’t want to know or admit what science actually is able to tell us, in my view.

    However, never mind that! I concede that I have plenty to look at from what you have said, and I am grateful for the science you have kindly taken the trouble to offer. I just take exception to the spirit in which it is offered (the rubbishing of my questioning of the evolutionary paradigm).

    1. Firstly, your criticism is misplaced that creationists do not offer an alternative mechanism for the existence of life on this planet in scientific terms: On the contrary, we have excellent evidence (which you evolution believers so kindly uncover so often in some of the modern experimental work done) that there has been no evolution from simple to complex whatsoever, discernible, other than the diversification of species from assumed pre-existing groups that were most probably, it would appear from the fossil record, invested with enormously variety from the Beginning. After all, even you lot admit that life appears to have sprung up rather quickly; some feel far too quickly for the long periods of slow change and gathering design data from nothing theory (random mutation of ‘simple’ life forms. And, yes, that beginning was not, as far as anyone can know, a natural phenomenon, as there is absolutely no evidence that life could ever arise from random chemical accidents. In fact, Jason, I am perfectly certain that you, as a strongly rational person, do not believe it could. Do you believe this?

    Please don’t tell me that this does not matter, and you just look at “the evidence.” If you say this, you are excluding 99% of the evidence of science, in current understanding with all scientific disciplines, which exists to damn this most diabolically stupid and unscientific idea. You talk about evil. Ha! What is that then, which IGNORES FACTUAL AND RATIONAL SCIENCE if not evil, and pretends to the lie of life occurring and developing by chance processes which themselves appeared from nowhere? THAT is the evil lie. Your pretence that creationists put out evil is laughable, by comparison, since you SAY you ascribe to scientific truth – which TELLS US that such things do not happen. Since when does a machine more complex than any mind can conceive (I again submit the supposedly humble E.coli) spring, little by little, from dead chemicals in self assembly, like a factory making itself without a human engineer?
    I really expect you to come up with something better than your attack from moral objections. I think you forget that is not in the scientific remit..

    Re. “Science PROVES NOTHING as it uses INDUCTION.”
    I could not agree more! You are preaching to the converted on that. I used to do science, remember? Where did i suggest anything to the contrary?!

    2. Misunderstanding of position on change: Re. “Contrary to what you believe, we see life forms acquire new traits not already in the genetic code..”
    Yes, new traits, however brief they may be in appearance due to environmental selection pressure, are not in doubt! You think creationists don’t believe mutation can do anything useful at all? You think that we believe that ‘variation’ stored the citrate metabolism option switch, or that we think it could not come from mutation of the genes in high generation counts? You really must get out more. You think we believe variation is like dice? Well, that is wrong. The evidence, we merely have to point out, does not allow evolutionists to build up their much needed case-book for random mutation, productive of design changes unrelated to the existing general way of life of any specific life form you care to name.

    Please NAME ONE that has led, or appear to be leading to anywhere other than greater specialization of that unique life form or species?

    There is a simple challenge. You see Jason, speciation make things more specialized within their ‘format’ or design blueprint for life, not less, but variation and hybridization conserves what is useful in the gene pool, and enables raw survival of all traits within a set of similar populations. Alll this is factually demonstrable. You cannot surely deny these things? That is incredibly clear, and is good science, which I, as an ex-farmer (the first work I did), used to do when breeding fish.

    I feel you need to read deeply from the Technical Journal of Creation over a number of years of issues – all freely available as back issues on the web- and do some searches for what is actually believed, and the detailed positions on some subjects that genuinely do exist. We know perfectly well how evolutionist like to tell us that we can’t do science, but they cannot deny the facts. I can only recommend for many answers and properly thought out arguments against the evolutionary conjecture that you will find there. You can then, using the referenced sources, look at the good science that has been done (also by evolutionists that are referenced where required). You need properly documented creationist sources, and not anti-creationist biased ones. After all, I make it my business to know all about what evolutionists believe! I was one myself for my undergraduate years. If you do that, I believe you will understand our position much better.

    Yes, we agree; we “see life forms acquire new traits”. HOWEVER (and the new traits are extremely limited changes, which is hardly a surprise), what is undemonstrable is whether what bacterial cultures do, can be applied to other situations in changing and adapting organisms. (Yes, what evolutionists call mutation is an observation of factual phenomena. But you used a word, commonly applied to many changes we see in the living world, to that change. The same word is used for the deleterious (disastrous) changes that occur to cell line which are irradiated with ionising radiation. Mutation. -What is it, indeed, that we are actually observing?

    What is unknown is something much more important, and subtly ignored (unanswered by evo-truthers): Now we know what these mechanisms are, to some extent, may we assume that this mechanism of change is some kind of design engine, and that it could, given millions of years, have produced bacteria from (something simpler?). Well. we believe what we may NOT simple assume that, as there is simply not an iota of evidence for such a fantastical claim, convenient, though it may be for evolutionists to speculate in the name of science. But THAT is not science as everyone else in experimental science knows it. Where is the hypothesis that can be tested for this idea that could take the idea forward?

    3. Scientific method problems (that old chestnut):
    You say: “Theories of mechanism are supported by evidence collected through observation of current phenomen(a) … and experiment. Eyewitness testimony is accorded a very low value and we MUST SEE EVIDENCE in the form of data ” And you are right; there is though ONE error (which I therefore omitted above; an categorical error of understanding of truth you wish to ascribe to): You stated … “evidence collected through observation of current and past phenomenon” (you meant past phenomena). And in intending to state this you pretend to the evolutionary distinctive viewpoint that you can read the past from the present with accuracy, i.e. the present is key to the past. This is not within the scientific method to demonstrate, alone, since the deep past is “beyond our ken” as we used to say. We cannot know it, since, we freely admit the world has changed with so much complexity, we can only see partial things; evidence for some things (such as that there were alligators and fishes in the past that were fossilized in marine sediments) is demonstrable, but not what caused the fossilization to occur, and not what date in time this happened. The idea that you can uncover those things from genetic studies, or geology, or any other scientific discipline is untestable by the scientific method. Indeed, when creationists wish to use scientific methods to look in detail at some claims of evolutionists on some fossils or rocks, they are denied access to the material and are told “You only want the material for religious reasons” or “You cannot use that method on this sample; it is too old and the method is not valid.” See the circular reasoning and blatant bias, not to say dog in the manger politics?

    Yes Jason, that one is the view believers in evolution fake-fraud territory wish to believe, and is well exposed in your thinking. Why do evolutionists want to believe this? – Because they wish to of course. It makes perfect sense to the mind that can only ever accept that naturalism is all there could be at the root of the development of life, and Darwin must have been right, so “let’s demonstrate it by any means we can and shut up the objectors.”

    -You seem to forget that every hypothesis must be tested against reality (experiment and observation), and if you cannot do this, then how are you to produce data that have meaning, except that you label something you wish to be considered as data as ‘good’ and some data as ‘not useful’ this biasing the supposed ‘results’ which are not in fact results that can address the problem requiring investigation.

    4. Sources and meaning of ‘change’:
    I have never implied that there is some kind of archive of every trait that has ever existed and which, by variation might usefully come out to the organisms advantage. Have I? Read what I have written please?

    I have never implied that mutation is unable to account for some forms of change. But you want to lump all sources of ‘change’ together and make a zebra from a paramecium over 500 millions of years. The problem is that the fossils say no, the biochemistry has no way of advancing a theory that has any actual data from adaptation studies that allow a mechanism to be put forward in even logic, let alone show some kinds of progression ‘upwards’ for what is supposed to have started as single-celled life.

    For some traits of course, this is demonstrable. The Lenski trials (and no doubt many of your own, of which I am envious as I have not carried out such research) do NOT demonstrate anything other than the fact that bacteria change (mutate) successfully to survive and thrive. This is part of their mechanisms, and, clearly, if they did not do this, the planet we live on would probably be completely different. We know how bacterial colonies do this. But the question we have to ask, is to what extent, if any, are such adaptive changes (you can only call these ‘evolutionary’ by faith – which is the topic of this page) possible to extrapolate to higher organisms and their adaptation (which is not evolutionary change by the modern Darwinian definition), and THEN, finally to what extent this type of change could (theoretically) and hopefully CAN be observed to cause an organism to rearrange its ‘design data sets’ – what its genes and other cellular contents represent – and re-architect itself towards some other form of life?

    Please read what I have argued for, and answer each of my ‘concerns’, if you can. I hope I have made myself clear. Others seem to think that I do, reasonably often, but not, it appear on this page. Why am I not surprised..

    Thank you again.

  108. re. ” preconceived expectation within boundaries that may, for him/her, be uncrossable.” =PRECISELY the evolutionist ‘adherent’ position, which often refuses all facts, unless they happen to already be in line with their religious belief of long ages of slow change on planet Earth punctuated (to relieve the boredom one would imagine) of catastrophe and upheaval. Ha ha!! What a joke. – The only rock solid ‘fact’ in the arsenal of evolutionary atheist is his/her cast iron refusal to look at other scientifically valid evidence that unfortunately for evolutionists does not allow their ‘theory’ (read untested hypothesis) to even sit on its behind, let alone stand in any debate with the ACTUAL facts, which they refuse to admit.

  109. Such ACTUAL facts being?

    And, since you seem not have much knowledge of the subject, one of the requirements for a “scientific theory” is that it makes testable forecasts. Consequent upon the scientific theory of evolution such forecasts have been made and subsequently validated through discovery. Examples include fossils, drug-resistant bugs and a Madagascan bird forecast by Darwin himself but only discovered after his death.

    If I’m ignorant about a subject I have two choices, shut up or attack in the hope that I can hide my lack of knowledge. Which are you going to do?

  110. – For which small minded and foolish response I am sure you are very proud; and from that, it would seem the choice of two is in fact yours. I don’t waste time debating those who have no manners, and who offer nothing genuine to the conversation.

  111. ” other information exists that blows evolutionism out of the water.”

    Sir, please take your complaints about the established truth of evolution to every biology department of every university on this planet, if you don’t mind being laughed at.

    Your obvious fear of evolution is a good thing because you are the best possible advertisement for atheism, aka reality.

    One more time to help you understand: Every competent biologist in the world would agree you’re equal to a flat-earther. And that’s what they call you science deniers. Of course they usually completely ignore you know-nothing flat-earthers for the same reason they would ignore a cockroach walking down a sidewalk.

  112. “the world has changed since the creation a great deal; not least because it was a perfect creation, which was later marred by mankind’s sin”

    Sir, what you have a serious mental illness. Your disease is incurable unless some day you realize how sick you, which is not likely.

  113. Creationism is the philosophical foundation of all reasoning. The basic logic of creationism is inherent in common discourse. What creationism does is it validates both subjective opinion, like opinion about what is beautiful, and objective fact, like the fact the earth exists. Materialist philosophy solely validates facts, it simply provides no room for subjective opinions, like opinions about what is beautiful, at all. This is why history shows that materialists in politics, socialists, are generally against freedom of opinion. So when creationism in society goes down it generally means people will be more oriented towards facts, and less oriented towards subjective opinion. It means we will have people who know a lot of facts, but who are underdeveloped emotionally. The results will be personal and societal catastrophy.

Leave a Comment