Skip to content

Cyclops Cat Cartoon

Evolutionists insist that all life is the result of “millions of beneficial chance mutations” that happened over millions of years — yeah, those mutations really worked well for Cy Kitty!

Cartoon and commentary contributed by Jim Pinkoski.

See Jim Pinkoski’s book, A Creationist’s View of Dinosaurs in our museums store Click HERE

John Adolfi


  1. JimSDA on April 13, 2006 at 10:14 am

    Let me clarify one thing — micro-evolutionary changes in Life Forms is completely acceptable, it’s just that MACRO-evolution is NOT POSSIBLE nor provable from the evidence of the fossil record! There may be the occasional mutation that “seems” to link one kind of Life Form to another kind of Life Form, but the fact of the matter is that the “thousands” of intermediary links that Darwin “assumed” would eventually turn up in the fossil record DO NOT EXIST — so we are faced with the reality that God created all the various kinds of animals and Life Forms fully formed!

    When the animals came off of Noah’s Ark, the climate and geology of the world was greatly changed from what it had been like in the Pre-Flood world, so at that time God had to alter and “change” and institute evolutionary changes into all of the animals to various degrees so that 1) more variations could flourish, and 2) ALL the animals and man could survive!

    Micro-evolution is true and can be studied in the lab, and God has been overseeing all those changes — but it will NEVER extend to include macro-evolution!

    99.99% of the time “freak mutations” will harm or KILL THE ANIMAL — this happened to Cy Kitty — and if those same mutations began to frequently happen to human beings and people began showing up with “one eye” or other genetic mutations, those mutations would probably be killing us off too!

    People, you need to stop holding up “blind evolution” and “mutation” as the positive aspect of evolution — because IT ISN’T!!

    All Life is obviously the result of the love and attention of an Intelligent Designer, and it only makes sense to give Him the credit that He deserves! You can still study science in the classrooms and delve into the details of “how He did it all,” but let’s forget this really STUPID idea that “blind chance evolution” and “mutations” created Life — it never happened that way!

  2. independent thinker on April 13, 2006 at 11:15 am

    Evolution is a slow process and to think of this one sample cat as a negative mutation. Cats are already adapted to life and to have one eye was not a positive mutation. The death of the cat may or may not be related to the same mutation. There are many two eyed kittens that die!

    Animals that have evolved over many millions of years will be quite suited to their environment and therefore most modern mutations may not be beneficial but some are. For example plants living on a mine have become tolerant to heavy metals but the same species away from the mine dies if it is transplanted in an area polluted with heavy metals. A beneficial mutation in the genome must have ocurred and spread through a population in order for these plants to colonise a new area.

    Humans have negative mutations also. Maybe not as complex, or as extemely noticeable as one eye. Humans can be born with four fingers on one hand, prehensile tails, albinism, down’s syndrome and many genetic disorders which are due to mutations in the genome. Would you be suggesting that these are the work of a benevolent God? He is obviously not that intelligent after all.

    As for the comment on the lack of fossils, that is the comment I would expect from an uneducated imbecile. Fossils are very rare as they take certain processes in the correct order in order for them to form and then an archeologist just happens to dig them up. This is why fossils are all found in certain regions eg. the burgess shale. To put it simply this long process means that the time modern man has been around is not long enough for there to be a full fossil modern human.

    Look at all the missing link species that have been supposed and later found – mainly the archeopteryx (between a bird and reptile) and the new discovery of a species that is between a fish and a land limbed animal.

    With a change in environment then natural selection pressures will change and adaptable animals will survive. We may be able to record this when human induced climate change causes disruptions.

    I must emphasise the point that as humans we have a relatively short lifespan and it is therefore no wonder that we do not see lots of mutations

    It is so easy to think of a magic creator making all the living things as it solves everything! It is completely unquestionable but also illogical (who made the creator?) but it is not so easy as that.

    Mutations and random chances did create life and the basic principle of replication maintained life. The only meaning of life is to replicate and that is the genetic programming in all living things.

  3. JimSDA on April 13, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    The previous poster, “Independent Thinker,” totally avoided “thinking” about my comments of how the Universe and everything would have to begin if there was no Creator — and he just commented upon that tired old worn-out supposed dino-bird, the archaeoptryx, as if is the cure all for all the tens of thousands of needed missing links — when the thing is probably just another version of an extinct bird!

    Again, we need to go to the very Beginning and try to understand the IMPOSSIBILITY of “slow mutant change evolution” being able to create the first single-celled Life Form — IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN!!!

    And why are all you guys so hung up on this thing of “who made God”?? IT DOESN’T MATTER “who made God” when you guys can’t even understand that evolution is an impossible way for any of us to get here! The Bible says that God is ETERNAL — and it’s just something that our little tiny brains can’t understand at this time! But our brains CAN understand that we are living in a Universe that is VERY BIG and VERY COMPLEX and it EXISTS — so there must be a lot of things out there that our little minds know literally nothing about, but they ARE there!

    Which includes **God**!

    And if He wasn’t out there, we surely wouldn’t be here!

  4. independent thinker on April 15, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    The first line of your latest comment just shows how closed minded you actually. To believe I am a he, when this is certainly not so. Just as the predjudiced bible presumes all supreme power to be male.

    But to my actual point.

    The Universe is as massive and infinite as our brains are small. Scientific advances have been huge but there are still hypotheses that need disputing or proving by solid evidence and peer review. I doubt the bible was ever peer reviewed – its just a collection like Aesop’s Fables. It contains good rules to live life by but good people will always know right from wrong and bad people will always disobey them.

    Not many years ago the church disagreed, and punished, anyone who suggested that the Earth was spherical. But now I doubt there are many in the church who believe that it is flat. The church will always lag behind science which it will eventually accept. It shows where the forward thinking minds are and those that are constantly clinging to the past.

    Science is in the process of discovery and new ideas will be hypothesised and rigouresly tested. The point of science is to disprove ideas, whereas religion merely attempts to find reason in god.

    The idea that the beginning of matter cannot be understood is exactly the same problem as where this creator came from. Surely an all eternal god would have been detected by at least one of the energy recorders that have been developed. Something so powerful must give off a kind of energy especially if ‘he’ is “everywhere”

    I have a few questions which i would love you to explain

    Why does an all forgiving and generous God send people to eternal damnation without a second chance? Even the American judicial system gives fellons a second chance.

    Are all humans inbred if Adam reproduced with his own rib. Their children must have been clones as the genomic DNA would be identical?

    *Religion is an opiate of the masses and a political tool*

  5. JimSDA on April 16, 2006 at 9:37 am

    First, when you sign in by using a generic non-gendered name like “indepentent thinker,” you run the risk of people not knowing if you are a “he” or a “she” —

    Back in the 1980s when I lived in the D.C. area I did cartoons for Dr. Carl Sagan’s newsletter, and met the man — and I admired the way that he attempted to find a balance between science and religion! BOTH are here to stay, and if people are going to slight either of them in their research, then it is my opinion that we will NEVER find the ultimate Truth about anything!

    The Bible was written in “non-scientific” terms, because its main purpose was to communicate that 1)God was real, and 2)there were certain things that human beings should and shouldn’t do in order to be right with God and to be saved — and “science” was something that would only pop up quite near the end of mankind’s 6,000 time stay on the planet, so it just falls into the category of “argue amongst yourselves about it for a couple hundred years” and then the Lord will return and settle all the arguments!

    Sure, there were some bad periods when “science” people were basically condemned by ignorant religious people — but let’s look at the early condition of that wonderful fields of science! Especially the one called “medicine”! In the 1800s “doctors” used all sorts of things to try to “cure” people, and the cure was often deamed WORSE than the disease!!

    George Washington was bled to death! People were told to gargle urine for tooth aches! Doctors operated without washing their hands or their instruments!


    And you think that the religious people of those centuries should have just rolled over and blindly accepted any new thing that came down the pike in the field of “science”???

    NO WAY!

    Take a look at the brilliant “scientists” of the 1950s — look at how crude the computers were back then, those scientists were just beginning to invent TVs, there were no VCRs, no xerox machines (back in 1960 when I was growing up I remember going to our local library in California and using their copy machine — the thing only made a NEGATIVE copy print of the pages I wanted to xerox!) — sure, those scientists had set off an atomic bomb, but in so many other things they were like IGNORANT CHILDREN!

    And do you honestly think that these “children” had such a firm understanding of “science” that they could already make up their minds that evolution was a scientific fact?!?


    Those scientists of the 1950s were IDIOTS compared to today’s scientists! And it was those scientists who dogmatically made it a requirement that “all scientists agree that evolution is true” and all future students of science have to accept this as “fact” to make it through our school systems of “higher education”!

    Those people of the 1940s and 1950s were scientific MORONS, yet there’s this mystique of the general public believing that they were “the gods of all knowledge” or some such thing — and it’s just pure foolishness!

    Fortunately we are growing beyond that small-minded perception — more and more of today’s scientists have taken the knowledge in their respective fields to the max, and they have concluded that God is a reality that now must be included in their equations!

    We are just in the period of time where the rest of you folk just need to “catch up” and see the same things that those brilliant men are seeing!

  6. six_ways on April 16, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    Jim, you keep saying that macro-evolution is impossible; not once have you given a reason for this. By all means you can say that it’s impossible, but not withough backing it up!

    The first line of your latest post completely misses independent thinker’s point; given no information about her gender, you assumed she was male.

    When you say “Science was stupid back then” you completely miss something else: That was NOT science. That was quacks. If it’s not logical and well-thought-out, it is not science. Maybe all doctors then were like that, but that doesn’t make it science. Science is never stupid, by definition. If it’s stupid, it aint science. And of course people should not blindy accept science! That’s not scientific either! Science should be accepted, but only after you’ve thought about it.

    And why exactly were those scientists like ignorant children? It’s not like anyone was going to instantly come up with a pentium 4 PC as soon as the idea of a computer was invented. It takes absolute genius to even come up with the idea of a working computer from scratch. Those scientists were in no way idiots, and your statement that they were blatantly shows your lack of understanding of the scientific process. Todays scientists are no cleverer, THEY JUST HAVE THE PREVIOUS SCIENTIST’S WORK TO START WITH. If today’s scientists started completely from scratch again, they’d only get the same amount done! If scientists in the past were morons, you’d be good at the job then. How could they be morons for pete’s sake? I’ll bet you don’t even know how a microwave works, but that’s been around for years.

    And I think your statement about small-minded perception just shows how truly small-minded you are. How in hell does one ‘include god in an equation’? What kind of phoney scientist would do that? Would they include flying pigs in their equations? Tell me Jim, just what is the mathematical symbol for god? Science and God are absolutely, completely mutually exclusive. If god exists, then ANY scientific result could just be a miracle. The whole basis of science is reproducable results. If god just decides to make an experiment not work all of a sudden, the entire theory becomes useless because it CANNOT BE TRUE IN ALL CASES. Therefore either science exists, or god exists. Any scientist in the modern world who believes otherwise is by definition therefore, NOT a scientist at all.

  7. six_ways on April 16, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    I would also point out your further belief that men are the only intelligent people on the planet:
    “We are just in the period of time where the rest of you folk just need to “catch up” and see the same things that those brilliant men are seeing!”.

  8. JimSDA on April 17, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    You asked some good questions, Six_Ways!

    Regarding my saying that Macro-evolution is impossible, it’s because there is too big a genetic difference between things like bats and human beings, so one could never evolve from the other!

    Why would I use bats and humans as an example?

    It’s because bats and humans are right next to each other on the Chromosome Chart!

    Bats have 44 chromosomes, and human beings have 46 chromosomes — and here are other numbers on the chart:

    Tobacco has 48
    Chimps have 48
    Amoebas have 50 (4 more than us!)
    Cow has 60
    Horse has 64
    Duck has 78
    Dog has 78
    Chicken has 78
    Turkey has 82
    Sweet potato has 90
    Goldfish has 94
    Carp has 100
    White Ash has 138
    Fern has 480!

    Evolution has always taught that “simple” life forms evolved into more complicated life forms — so the Chromosome Chart should reflect that, but it doesn’t! And, as some have pointed out, this may be why most biology books, uh, neglect to include the Chromosome Chart — because it obviously goes against the teaching of evolution!

    Regarding the scientists of the 1950s being dumb and the doctors of the 1800s being total idiots, those are the time periods wherein “evolution” was believed to be correct — so I think it’s real important to take a good look at the people who supported evolution! THEY WERE INTELLECTUAL IDIOTS for the most part! They knew next to NOTHING back in their days, and with this less-than-perfect knowledge they insisted that they knew all they needed to know to say that evolution was the way it all happened — and it was STUPID of them to make those claims!

    “Simple-minded” people of the 1800s took the single tooth of an extinct pig and made “Java Man” from it — and LOTS of these “simple-mided errors” were fully believed and taught in our “science departments” and “science” text books in our nation’s schools! LIES, ERRORS, and DECEPTIONS!

    I think it’s time we acknowledged that “ignorance”
    never leads to finding the Truth, and evolution was mainly supported by ignorant 19th Century “science” and the desire of secular people to turn their backs on God and the morals taught in the Bible!

  9. independent thinker on April 18, 2006 at 3:41 am

    The amount of genes that an organism has is in no way related to its complexity. this is a phenomenon called the “C-value paradox”. There is so much DNA in the genetic code that can be termed ‘Junk DNA’ has it has no recognisable function. The more ‘junk DNA’ there is present the harder and longer it takes for mitosis to occur. This fact makes an organism with more junk DNA less complex and vice versa.
    Therefore the chromosome chart is not an accurate representation of genetic complexity. One needs to study the output and control of individual genes.

    Again you point out the obvious differences between science and religion. Scientist accept past failures and learn from them whereas religion defends every decision it has ever made, whether it fits into the modern world or not. It is not ‘ignorance’, but as six_ways stated, it is previous research and development. Everything starts of with a trial and error basis. That is why it is not called trial and success or development and research would no longer be required.
    For the 1800s Scientist to believe in evolution is not stupid. They all accepted and stated that for evidence to mass it neede further work by scientists. Darwin himself was a theology graduate and found it difficult to defend his theories in an atmosphere of complete religious inflexibility. Scientist had to accept that evolution might exist or no further work would have been completed. Now with the abundance of evidence in favour of evolution, it is difficult to see any other process that could form the diversity and complexity of interactions that we see on Earth today.

    In many countries the strength of religion is falling. In the UK the church used to have full power and it was compulsory for people to attend church every Sunday. Now that people have been liberated and can choose what they want to believe. But the system is balanced. Religon is studied in Religious classes and evolution in Biology classes. Neither side interferes with each other.
    If creation was taught in science classes then, being a religious tolerant country, the beginnings from all religions should be taught. From the dreamtime in the aboriginal culture to all the other major and minor religions. Creationism is not the only religious belief of how life started. And how can a country’s government state which should be taught over all the others.

  10. John Adolfi on April 18, 2006 at 6:16 am

    “Creationism is not the only religious belief of how life started.” Independant Thinker.

    True but why is evolution getting miffed at the claims of creationism exclusively. I do not see Native Americans or Hindus putting forth their scientific explanations on the geological column. Perhaps they have a position and I am misinformed. I see only two perhaps four positions vying to be the answer to the origins question. Three are various forms of evolution but the odd man out, standing alone, is creationism. Creationism ironically has stood tall in recorded history for 3,600 years and with all the efforts of “science” to date has not seemed to convince enough people to abandon the silly idea we were created man and woman in the image of God. From a non scienctific POV consider what you are giving up when settling in with evolution. “I came from a fish and there is no hope beyond the grave” Overstated simplification?

  11. six_ways on April 18, 2006 at 7:44 am

    The reason science is currently battling creationism is because creationism is the only camp trying in any major way to pervert science. As harsh as that may sound, this is exactly what things like ‘creation science’ are doing; they are trying to use pseudo-scientific methods to make it look like such ‘theories’ have been ‘proved’.

    This is an inherently dangerous thing because it is absolute anathema to science itself. It leads the public to see science as something which it is by definition not; religion is by its very nature unprovable and therefore science and religion have absolutely, categorically no overlap, and to use science to ‘prove’ religious beliefs is distorting the nature of science. Used in this way, science becomes as much of a belief as religion.

    In fact, use of science like this leads to the very flaws in science that JimSDA was talking about; ‘scientists’ stubbornly defending their theories as correct even when proved otherwise.

    So basically, I think scientists are extremely worried (and rightly so) that creation science and similar cases distort science in the public eye. You can preach creationism all you like, but don’t try to find ‘evidence’ for it, because even without any evidence you would defend it to the death, so what’s the point?

    The evidence doesn’t change your position or the validity of your position at all, since religious beliefs are by definition unprovable. All that you are accomplishing is leading the public astray in their view of what science and religion truly are.

  12. JimSDA on April 18, 2006 at 9:27 am

    To independent_lady_thinker: The reason that religion is loosing ground in many countries like in England is because of SECULARIZED SOCIETY and its SECULAR ENTERTAINMENT, not that science is more provable than religion! The people are sitting at their TV sets watching Monty Python reruns and “Footballers Wives” and the assorted crap that warps the mind and appeals to the lower instincts! The same is happening in America, but here there is a still a sizable portion of the society who wants to honor God and NOT watch either the hard-core porn or the soft-core porn of “Desperate Housewives” and “The OC” and the other low-morals TV programs or movies — the bulk of the people in all the countries around the world don’t give a hoot about the latest developments in science, unless it lets them download 1,000 idiotic songs into their I-Pods or onto their cell phones!

    Real science means NOTHING to most people — and if they are turning from religion, it’s because there are so many **FUN** things to do in the world nowadays, and nearly all of those things are not approved of by God!

    Jesus warned us that to even look upon a woman with lust in the heart was committing adultery with that woman and breaking the Ten Commandments — take a guess how many millions of people watch TV and movies lusting after actresses like Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct,” etc.!

    The Bible says not to drink alcohol because it leads to unsound thinking and unfortunate actions, but how many people insist to numb their brains by drinking wine, beer, liquor?

    This is why the Bible tells us that when Jesus returns at the 2nd Coming that it will be “like the days of Noah” — VERY FEW PEOPLE will be ready to meet the Lord in the air, and the bulk of mankind will have poluted their minds and bodies so much that there is NO WAY that they will be able to either perceive spiritual truth nor live up to the standards that God requires!

    And every belief system, like Darwinism, that has turned people away from believing in God and the Bible, will be clearly known at that time to be a demonic belief system!

    And it’s a real shame — because there would have been a way to teach evolution in science classes and still be in line with the Bible! Creationists have been teaching it for years now, and it teaches that God started it all and then the variations in the beaks of finches and all the other variations micro-evolved their changes into all the life forms — and when it comes to studying the fossils of ancient man, all the “odd-shaped” skulls and skeletons were the result of deformities and illnesses and the curse of sin upon mankind!

    No Creationist wants scientists to stop studying science and finding out how things work (unless it comes to using stem cells from viable fetuses maybe), but all the other sciences like astronomy and geology and chemistry are wide-open fields of study!

    Just don’t teach that “God doesn’t exist,” or that man came from apes — because that is WRONG!

    The science that Creationists are trying to put together is a science that can PROVE that God exists! All the “hints” of God are there in all the various fields of science, so let us keep doing the rest of the tests and research!

    The way the system works is first we prove that evolution is WRONG — then we work on proving that God is RIGHT! We’ve already proven it from a moral approach — and some day we hope to prove it from the scientific avenue, which I think that Dr. Bob Gentry has partially already done with his polonium halo work!

  13. six_ways on April 18, 2006 at 11:02 am

    Jim, your entire argument in that post relies upon us ALREADY believing god exists and that the bible is right! You can’t possibly use the argument that certain things are immoral to prove that god exists, because the belief that those things are immoral is based upon the belief that god exists! You are using an entirely circular, and therefore useless, argument.

    And to quote what you said:
    “The science that Creationists are trying to put together is a science that can PROVE that God exists!”
    This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post. By definition, god’s existence cannot be proven nor disproven. Besides which, if I took away ALL or your ‘evidence’, you would still say that god exists, so there is no science about it.

    NO science can prove nor disprove the existence of god, least of all creation science which is not in any way a science!

  14. six_ways on April 18, 2006 at 11:04 am

    Sorry, just to make a correction to my last post, in the second paragraph I meant to say ‘if I took away ALL of your evidence’ not ‘or your evidence’.

    And to further clarify, by saying if I took it all away, I just mean if it didn’t exist at all.

  15. Cy C. Lops on April 18, 2006 at 12:54 pm

    Just out of curiosity, if god were as cruel as you describe him, why would you want to believe in him? So if god made men and gave them the instinct to find women attractive, why would he get so mad when we look at a woman with lust? And if the Bible says drinking alcohol is wrong, then why did Jesus drink wine at the Last Supper, and why do Christians drink wine when remembering the Last Supper?

    Just to clear something up, human embryonic stem cells come from blastocyst stage in vitro fertilized embryos.

  16. JimSDA on April 18, 2006 at 7:40 pm

    God is not cruel, mankind broke God’s laws and deserves to pay the penalty — that’s the whole story of the Bible! God started out making man and woman PERFECT, we sinned, and we brought the curse onto ourselves! Fortunately, God enacted the Plan of Salvation so there is hope for us — IF people take advantage of it.

    Reagarding “wine,” the word “wine” in the Bible refers to BOTH grape juice and fermented grape juice! When you study it out, you find that God ONLY approved of unfermented grape juice!

    Luke 1:15 says, “Drink neither wine nor strong drink”!

    Proverbs 23:31-32 says, “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder”!

    It’s a shame that so many Christian denominations use the fermented/POISONED version of wine to represent the “sinless” blood of Jesus Christ in their communion services — the SDA church does not do this, we use common grape juice in our communion services.

    Regarding looking at women, one woman is suppoised to be enough for one man — if you start adding other women to you list of ladies, it is “cheating” on the one you are supposed to be focusing on and giving everything to, the woman who is your mate, the woman who is bearing your children, etc. Letting other women into the picture is “adulterating” the pureness of the bond between you and your loved one — and you never hear them referring to “my loved two” or “my loved three” or “my loved four”!

    It only works for “my loved one” for a reason!

  17. JimSDA on April 18, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    Six_Ways, the “moral” aspect of relating to God is being tested and lived every single day — and at this time of mankind it would be really stupid to pretend that all the different versions of religious teachings “don’t exist”! We MUST pay attention to them! So in this case, seeing that we live on a “round” world where “what goes around, comes around” and all that, I think that it’s an appropriate to use some appropriate “circular reasoning”!

    The world tested the idea that Baal was a god to be listened to, and people even thought it was right to sacrifice their babies to him!

    The entire Hindu and Buddhist cultures literally CRIPPLED all their people by believing their garbage version of reincarnation and how “people are being born into poverty because they deserve it” — which goes directly against the teachings of Christianity where we are to HELP people better themselves!

    “Communism” is also a belief system, one that tries to edit God out of the picture — and it lead to total cruelty, just like the Nazis did!

    We can easily see which belief systems promoted kindness, and which promoted evil results!

    The Ten Commandments tells me not to kill people, or steal their stuff, or try to seduce other men’s wives, to honor my parents, and not to tell lies about people!


    Compare it to Darwin’s “survival of the fitest” hogwash and how we’re all just “animals”!

    And since when are YOU right when you say that God will never be proven in the laboratory?

    Do YOU have perfect knowledge of everything?

    I seriously doubt it.

  18. six_ways on April 19, 2006 at 6:04 pm

    I’ll answer your post in chunks:
    “Six_Ways, the “moral” aspect of relating to God is being tested and lived every single day — and at this time of mankind it would be really stupid to pretend that all the different versions of religious teachings “don’t exist”! We MUST pay attention to them! So in this case, seeing that we live on a “round” world where “what goes around, comes around” and all that, I think that it’s an appropriate to use some appropriate “circular reasoning”!”
    This entire paragraph means nothing. You’ve not at all justified your circular reasoning, nor shown why it makes any difference to your argument. It’s no good giving me some half-assed pithy statement and expecting me to be flustered by it into forgetting my original opposition to your stance.

    “The entire Hindu and Buddhist cultures literally CRIPPLED all their people by believing their garbage version of reincarnation and how “people are being born into poverty because they deserve it” — which goes directly against the teachings of Christianity where we are to HELP people better themselves!”
    I’ve not said so far that christianity is any better or worse than any other belief system, i don’t know what point you’re trying to make here.

    “We can easily see which belief systems promoted kindness, and which promoted evil results!
    The Ten Commandments tells me not to kill people, or steal their stuff, or try to seduce other men’s wives, to honor my parents, and not to tell lies about people!
    Again, completely circular. They are good moral teachings in your view because you have been taught that they are good, because the rules state that they themselves are good. My idea of good morals may differ completely from these. As it happens, my idea of good morals tend to include those things, but that’s a coincidence, because I decided upon them myself.

    “Compare it to Darwin’s “survival of the fitest” hogwash and how we’re all just “animals”!”
    Darwin implied no morals from this. it’s up to you what morals emerge. As it happens, if you think logically, you get many of the same answers. As a quick example, it is easy to work out that being nice to each other in general is better than being nasty. If everyone is nasty to everyone else, a few people come out on top, having defeated everyone else. If everyone is nice to everyone else, the species as whole comes out on top, so evolutionarily, being good to people is morally right.

    “And since when are YOU right when you say that God will never be proven in the laboratory?
    Do YOU have perfect knowledge of everything?
    I seriously doubt it.”
    You miss my point entirely. Note that pretty much every time I’ve said that god cannot be proven, I’ve said BY DEFINITION. In other words, this is not up for debate. I’m not being arrogant here, it’s the facts. Like if I said to you that by definition roses had certain fetures, i.e. thorns, petals, whatever a rose had. If you then said ‘What if you found a rose with something which isnt listed in those features?’ the obvious and logically correct answer is, ‘Therefore that isn’t a rose at all’.

    In exactly the same way, if god can be proven, it is NO LONGER A GOD. I’ll explain.

    1) God is by definition omnipotent. Therefore he/she/it can do ANYTHING.
    2) Science is by definition based at its most fundamental level on maths.
    3) Maths is based upon unchanging rules. E.g. 1+1=2, 2×5=10 and so forth.
    4) Therefore, 2×5 will ALWAYS be 10. 1+1 will ALWAYS be 2. This is again by definition.
    5) Let’s say god (being omnipotent) suddenly decides to make, in one particular case, 1+1=6. The entire concept of maths has just been destroyed FOREVER. If 1+1=2 is not ALWAYS true, when can we expect it to be true? Maths can no longer be used as a tool to describe the universe, since it is no longer true in ALL cases.
    6) Extrapolating this reasoning quickly leads to the realization that you can never prove nor disprove god’s existence because ANY proof that he/she/it does/does not exist COULD JUST BE GOD HAVING A LAUGH. The whole concept of proof falls down immediately because nothing, NOTHING in the universe is constant anymore.

    Therefore the existence of any omnipotent being is by definition unprovable one way or the other. QED.

  19. JimSDA on April 19, 2006 at 10:22 pm

    One day it will be PROVEN that God exists!

    Maybe it will happen in the lab (with a science discovery like Dr. Gentry’s polonium halos in the granite rocks) — or it will be proven by taking a simple eye test!

    When will this “eye test” be taken?

    A few minutes after you die!

    Or at the 2nd Coming when we will ALL see Jesus returning in the clouds with millions of angels!

    Trust me, one way or another, you (and everybody else) ARE going to find out if God is real!

  20. six_ways on April 20, 2006 at 11:36 am

    Jim, did you just completely ignore my last post? If you’re not going to even properly read my point of view then what’s the point even saying anything? If god exists, proof becomes a meaningless concept, as explained above. So you cannot prove the existence of god. It doesn’t matter what ‘proof’ you get, proof does not exist.

  21. six_ways on April 20, 2006 at 11:42 am

    Also, I read up a bit on polonium halos; there are lots of arguments against Dr Gentry’s position on this phenomenon; it’s not even been fully proven that the halos are in fact formed with polonium. There are many factors which point to various other methods of formation, which end up looking a lot like polonium.

    Besides this, even if Dr Gentry is correct, nothing in the evidence points directly to a god. All it says is that we dont know as much as we thought. As with most ‘christian science’, it can only disprove other theories rather than prove that god exists. OK, so say the earth ws created very quickly. Why exactly do you think that the only option for an explanation is that god did it? It could just be a simple process we don’t know anything about yet.

  22. independent thinker on April 20, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    If God did exist, I think there is a very valid reason why no-one has seen him yet. He’s gone into hiding. Would you want to admit to releasing human’s onto the planet? Humans have done so much damage, most irreparable, to the earth and I doubt anyone would want to claim responsibility, especially if he looks like us – as the bible suggests.

    An eye test after you die – interesting concept! If we leave our physical form behind – does our soul have eyes?

    If the son/daughter of God arrived today and stated that they were the progeny of God, I believe they would be incarcerated for life in a mental institution and the second Mary would be explaining herself to Jerry Springer. The millions of angels would be shot down until only a few remained which would then be kept in zoo and pointed at by sticky fingered children.

    This is the modern world and events would occur so differently now than 2000 years ago. The second, third etc. comings might already have happened but these people are termed ‘MAD’, ‘IRRATIONAL’ and ‘DELUSIONAL’.

  23. JimSDA on April 21, 2006 at 11:42 am

    And you folks are perfectly fulfilling the Bible’s statement in 2nd Peter 3:3-9, “In the last days there will come scoffers, walking after their own lusts…”

    Oh well, we were forewarned about you folks, and how nothing we have to say to you will make any sense to you — we show you alternate interpretations of evolutionary theory, we show you how evolution completely fails to make logical scientific sense to lots of PhD scientists around the world, and you all say, “So what?” as if YOU are smarter than those PhDs!

    The Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God — He has “hidden” Himself from us for a reason, and it is so that each of us can be tested to see if we are observant enough to realize that He is there and has ALWAYS been there — God has backed off so that people can fully develop their fallen behaviors and live their fallen life styles to the max so that it will be very easy for God and the rest of the beings of God’s Universe to see fallen mankind’s evil behavior and understand exactly why these people are lost and end up being destroyed in the Lake of Fire!

    God has told us what the Truth is, and spiritual people wrote it in the 66 books that make up the Bible — and then God backed off and let people either BELIEVE those writings and let Him into their lives, or not look for Him!

    If you don’t accept Him on earth in this life (the only life you get), then He says that He won’t accept YOU in heaven!

    Sadly, the Bible tells is that the bulk of humanity won’t be in heaven — and that’s very unfortunate, because all you had to do was let God into your heart and He would have responded and answered a lot of your questions so that you would have no doubt that He exists, He would have given you another perspective on the whole Creation/Evolution issue . . .

    The RIGHT perspective, that God is real!

  24. six_ways on April 22, 2006 at 11:47 am

    Jim, you will not listen, will you? You are showing the fundamental hypocrisy of christian ‘science’. You’ve run out of reasonable things to say, you’ve run out of evidence, science has started disagreeing with you, so you fall back on ‘Well I was right before there was evidence anyway’.

    Whenever science seems to agree with religion, it’s right in your view. Whenever it disagrees with religion, it’s suddenly wrong. You CANNOT choose when to agree with science. You either accept science or you don’t. You may not always agree with other scientists, but you either take science or leave it. Anything other behaviour is inherently unscientific.

    So either take ALL science and argue around the EVIDENCE, or ignore it altogether and preach to us wholeheartedly.

    And how utterly, utterly arrogant of you to say ‘Oh well, we were warned about you folks and that you’d never understand’. Believe me when I say you understand nothing of the theory of evolution, or even science in general. You are absolutely unqualified to espouse your opinions on this subject, since you are not in posession of all the facts. Again, as soon as you get out of your depth you fall back on your idea that you’re right whether or not the evidence says so.

    Plus, I have not really argued for evolution much here, I have argued AGAINST creationism. As I have said time and time again, disproving evolution is not what you must do. You must PROVE CREATIONISM TO BE TRUE. Those PhDs never said anything about you being right, Jimmy boy!

    Do not condescend to me to tell me I am not as smart as those PhDs when you clearly are not in a position to make such a judgement. Especially since I am a Physics undergraduate and may well go on to do a PhD. You have shown on many occasions in this thread alone your ignorance and willingness to make snap judgements based upon assumptions.

    Finally, I would like to point out the single most important flaw in the whole cause you support. This is directed at you, too, Mr. Adolfi.

    You say that without faith there is no salvation, no way to please god.

    Why then do you aim to prove his existence? Surely you are pissing god off no end. With proof there can be no faith.

  25. JimSDA on April 22, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    OK Six_Ways, I want to know your credentials. Also tell us your age — I’m 55 and have spent over 20 years reading up on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate — how long have YOU been studying both sides of the issue? And, by the way, just studying the evolutionary side will not enable you to win this debate, you have to prove to us that you have paid attention to the opposition’s points of contention against Darwinism!

    I’ve outright posted on my website that I am not a scientist, I am a Christian illustrator/aritst/cartoonist (who just happened to have worked a bit for the late Carl Sagan in 1988 when I lived in D.C.) — so who are YOU, “Six_Ways”?

    You say that you haven’t argued must evolution here, you’ve just argued “against creationism,” and that the burden is on us to “prove that creationism is true” — and I proclaim that all we have to really do is do as YOU are doing, all we have to do is DISPROVE EVOLUTION and we have thus PROVEN Creationism!

    The #1 easiest way to disprove evolution is to study the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Energy Decay! This one scientific fact has by itself turned many scientists away from believing in evolution — the entire Universe is running down, there is NO WAY that galaxies and solar systems “neatly organized” themselves after a “Big Bang”! Nothing but UTTER CHAOS would be the universal result of a “Big Bang” — and yet evolution teaches that we should IGNORE “entropy” and instead we should credit that on billions of occasions over millions of years “chance evolution” just LUCKED OUT and managed to put together highly complex living organisms without any intelligent input whatsoever into the design!

    Wow, and then those infinitely clever protozoans boosted themselves up the evolutionary ladder and became Metazoan Invertebrates, then a million years later they became Vertebrate Fishes, then Amphibians, then Reptiles, then Birds, then Fur-bearing Quadrupeds, then Apes . . . and then MAN!

    Ya-bi-dab-ba-do!!! (Quoting Fred Flintstone)

    All that amazing progression without even one tiny amount of intelligent input from a Creator!!


    “Stupid” really wins the day in the field of evolutionary thought! Completely ignorant molecules and atoms and quarks manage to BRILLIANTLY self-organize themselves into thousands of different Life Forms!

    By the definition of “evolution” we ought to never send ANY of our children to school ever — being “intelligent” obviously has nothing to do whatsoever with surviving as a viable Life Form on this planet!

    All that we need is to be **STUPID** and let chance events just take over and guide us down the road to our next big evolutionary change!

    Six_Ways, how would you like to be one of the pioneers of this next step in human evolution? Here’s what you do: Expose yourself to NEW THINGS, like jumping into a vat of corrosive chemicals! Or maybe try “experimental mating” with animals to try to get their DNA to interact successfully with your DNA (and forget about doing this in a lab, because NONE of the animals that have “evolved” on this planet ever did it in the lab, they all did it “the old-fashioned way”)! Or get to work evolving the ability to FLY that we know that every boy who ever read a Superman comic wanted to do by jumping off the roof of his house! JUMP, Six_Ways! JUMP!

    Come on, Six_Ways, don’t be shy — if you REALLY believe in evolution, GET TO IT! Prove it can evolve YOU!

    Are you married?

    Hey, be sure to expose yourself and your wife to high levels of radioactivity — after all, you think that MUTATIONS are evolution’s way of making things really great, right??

    GO FOR IT, start having those deformed babies today! Maybe you can win yourself and your wife a Nobel Prize in science by giving birth to a bright and shining one-eyed bouncing baby boy who can become the first of a new kind of human being!

    Go for it, Six_Ways!

    Then you can “evolve” your name to “Seven_Ways” . . . and then maybe “Eight_Ways” . . .

  26. Cy C. Lops on April 23, 2006 at 12:41 am

    Not to attack you Jim, but I must say that your last post was about the most ignorant thing I’ve ever read.

    “all we have to do is DISPROVE EVOLUTION and we have thus PROVEN Creationism!”

    This statement is a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. Here’s a simple example to show how this is wrong: all I have to do is disprove that you are black and I have proven that you are white. See the problem?

    Your discussion of the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows a fundamental misunderstanding of it. The 2nd law states that no process can result in the conversion of heat entirely into work (this is Lord Kelvin’s statement). From this one can define a state function called entropy and prove that the entropy of THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE always increases. The entropy of a system, however, clearly can decrease. Life would not exist otherwise. I don’t know the exact value, but the replication of DNA must have a very large negative delta S since it takes a bunch of nucleotide triphosphates floating around in solution and combines them to make one huge molecule. Your view of the Big Bang also seems flawed, but I’ll leave that.

    Finally, your view of evolution is (and I’m putting this nicely) completely idiotic. You seem to think that individual organisms direct there own evolution. Like six_ways could somehow evolve himself into a superhuman or a paramecium could somehow evolve itself into a fish. This is the problem I have with Creationists. They use slick “arguments” like this that impressionable lay people are swayed by because they are humorous. Evolution does not promote stupidity. It promotes the exact opposite. A stupid animal would be less fit to survive. Also, although random mutation is the ultimate source of evolution, there are many mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, bottlenecks, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.). Also note that some of the preceding mechanisms are not chance. Finally, jumping into a vat a corrosive chemicals would kill you and therefore could not produce mutations for evolution, and mating with other animals most likely wouldn’t work due to a mismatch of chromosomes, and even if it did the progeny would probably be sterile (e.g. mules).

  27. JimSDA on April 23, 2006 at 9:42 am

    CyClops, I’m a cartoonist whose mind often works in the same way that sarcastic political cartoonists’ minds work, so my “examples” of what I suggested to Six/Seven/Eight_Ways was a combination of humor and seriousness! Although I AM serious about wanting to know how old he/she is and what degrees he/she has —

    Regarding your comment on “all I have to do is prove I’m not black and then it proves I’m white” is a logical argument — but there are no other alternative ideas for how the Universe could have come into existence, even though you may like the idea at the end of the 1st MEN IN BLACK movie of aliens playing dice with our galaxy-marble!

    Creationists have also dealt with the idea that maybe “aliens” seeded our world with life — but that would mean that those aliens would have had to “evolve” from some planet’s slime pools also by “blind chance evolution ala mutation,” and that is a process that has been scientifically proven to be TOO COMPLEX to happen **ANYWHERE** in the Universe!

    Without intelligent input, there is NO WAY that any life originates by itself!!

    Evolution is a supposed “intelligent” idea, but it’s main focus is MINDLESS CHANCE and therefore “STUPID ACCOMPLISHMENT” over billions of years, as if the extended time period actually “helps” life develop (it really makes it all that much harder for life to exist because of the hugely loooooooooooong period of time that the animals have to survive to reach the point where they “mutate” something beneficial and this increases the odds that they would all just DIE OFF) — and what the Creationists are saying is to accomplish something really brilliant like the creation of all the matter in the Universe takes AN INTELLIGENT AND VERY POWERFUL BEING, so that Being is referred to as “God”!

    You believe in a “dumbed down” Universe putting it all together, and we believe in a “super-intelligence” that put it all together (and did so quickly) — it’s “BRILLIANCE vs. DUMB” — and for you folks to keep trying to congratulate “DUMB” for being what got us all here is . . . uh . . . not very bright!

    What’s your problem?

    Why are you so scared to admit that there could be a GOD out there??

  28. six_ways on April 23, 2006 at 9:58 am

    Cy C. Lops has said just about everything I was going to say, Jim, so I wont bother much with refuting your fairly stupid arguments.

    I will answer your questions though. I am 19, nearly 20. I may not be 55, but I still have massively, massively more scientific understanding than you. Experience doesn’t factor into it because science has proved time and time again that the universe does not hold to the laws we intuitively think it does. For instance, there is no way you can intuitively work out that when you travel fast, time slows down. So the fact that you have seen more of the world than me means nothing, since you have seen it through the tunnel vision that arises from a lack of understanding of science.

    As for your comment about me having to prove I’ve listened to your contentions against Darwinism – no, not really. As I said, I am NOT arguing evolution. I am arguing against creationism. And those points I HAVE considered. But as it happens, I do know a fair amount about the opposition to evolution too. The thing is, any person can fully understand the creationist point of view. However, you must have scientific understanding to fully comprehend the evolution side.

    Because again, much of evolution is slightly counter-intuitive, but is perfectly logically correct.

    For instance, the one argument of yours I will address is your big bang entropy argument.

    Your argument shows a complete lack of REAL logical thinking and abounds in ‘intuitive’ thinking, which is not what science is about.

    There is a fundamental misconception in many people’s ideas of randomness and chaos. People often think they are the same thing. They are not. Chaotic systems DO HAVE PATTERNS, and are fundamentally predictable, although due to the amount of information involved it would be very difficult to predict them. Random systems have no patterns, because to be random something cannot be causal.

    The point is this: Randomness does not exist on a large scale in the universe. It may exist in quantum mechanics but no-one really knows yet. My point is, from the chaotic big bang, it is perfectly possible that ordered, structured patterns emerge on a large scale.

    This has been proven in many ways. Primarily, you can look up “The Game of Life” here: which is a system based on simple rules (like the universe) which shows the emergence of highly complex and ordered, LIFE-LIKE patterns on a large scale. It has been mathematically proven in multiple ways, but the point is this:

    When you have a large amount of chaotic systems, or simple systems, or in fact anything except random systems, complex, ordered structures emerge.

    “Chance evolution” is not an issue. Again you make the assumption that the system is random, which it is not. The idea of evolution is that the most likely thing to happen usually does. And that’s an obvious mathematical truth. So if an animal is likely to live, due to its random mutations, it will. Therefore it will reproduce. The fact that it has survived means its children are likely to survive. Etc etc etc.

  29. six_ways on April 23, 2006 at 10:06 am

    Since I started writing that post before your latest one arrived Jim, I’l also reply to that.

    Again, your assertion that life cannot emerge without intelligence (and your misguided belief that it has been scientifically proven as being so) is false. Again, I highlight this:
    In fact, it has been scientifically proven that life CAN and usually WILL emerge without intelligeence driving it, by the methods described on this page and otherwise. Please point me to your scientific proof that life cannot emerge from nature.

    And I don’t know who you’re trying to fool with your comment about there being no other theories.

    a) There are other theories, you obviously are not as well read as you think.
    b) You still have not proven ANYTHING of creationism if you disprove evolution.

  30. JimSDA on April 24, 2006 at 8:56 pm

    Guys, God obviously created the Universe because He wanted to — for the same reason a singer sings, or an artist draws — and maybe God did not like the idea of spending Eternity without something like the Universe happening!

    The bulk of the Universe is pre-programed, robotic — which is why God made mankind with “free will,” because God wanted to spend time with beings that had the freedom to make their own decisions.

    Six_Ways, you’re an intelligent 19-year old — you’re able to read and learn and gain “knowledge,” but that is not the same thing as WISDOM!

    As the years pass and you have a chance to encounter more of life’s experiences and meet more people, hopefully you will be running into more and more people who can tell you THEIR life’s experiences wherein they know that God is real!

    If you think that you’ve learned “all there is to know” in 19 short years, let me tell you that you haven’t — and all I’m going to do is warn you against having the type of “tunnel vision” that only sees science-answers to everything!

    Hey, science is great stuff!

    God created science!

    And He put together a Universe where we are the ants who get to run around thinking that we are oh-so-great and the ol’ cat’s meow, but we are merely beginning to learn all the things that God has in store for us to learn!

    I think you guys really need to think about true CHAOS — AND YOU NEED TO QUIT DOING IT IN AN “ORDERLY” FASHION!!! Go for it — TRUE CHAOS — and see how it would rip apart every atom in the Universe!!

    You guys are looking at the END RESULT of God’s creativity, and thinking “Oooooooooh, what a neat result of chaos!”

    If chaos was really real, your brain would have NEVER formed a single logical thought about it — because CHAOS would have ripped all your brain cells apart, and all the complex parts of the very first cell that supposedly formed in that heavenly slime pool that you think fathered all life on earth! You guys have no knowledge of true CHAOS!

    God is the only Being who is holding it all together so that it won’t all just come apart at the seams!


  31. six_ways on April 25, 2006 at 7:24 am

    Jim, you are resolute in ignoring everything we say. I am only going to make two main points here, because the rest of what you said is completely based on faith, and as such has nothing to do with science. That’s not to say that it’s right, just that it makes absolutely no difference either way to my argument or yours, since it cannot be proven, mathematically shown, or otherwise used in a scientific way.

    The points I’m going to make are:
    1) I do not think I’ve learned all there is to know. Once again, you are showing that you have completely the wrong idea of science.

    Science is all about saying “I know nothing, I am willing to learn”. Religion is all about saying “God has already told me everything there is to know, I must fit the universe around those ‘facts'”. I do not think I know all there is to know. In fact, the only thing I KNOW is the scientific method. That is the main thing I have learned in my 19 years.

    Facts do not matter, only the ability to use facts to work out other facts in a logical, fair and mathematical sense. That to me seems to be of far better wisdom than blindly trusting everything that has been said in a book.

    My other point is that you cannot treat chaos that way. I have already shown you mathematical proof, as has Cy C. Lops, that chaos, true mathematical real-life chaos, leads to patterns. If you are just going to ignore that proof and keep proclaiming that you know better than us despite your lack of evidence, then you have no place in a scientific discussion.

    If you are going to consistently ignore the evidence that does not support your case, you must ignore all evidence. Because ignorance of any evidence is unscientific, and I don’t think it’s even worth arguing against someone who will always ignore whatever mathematical proof you put in front of their face.

    Plus, you haven’t answered one of my main questions in a previous post: Why are you trying to prove god’s existence if god requires you to have faith?

  32. JimSDA on April 25, 2006 at 9:26 am

    You wrote, “Religion is all about saying “God has already told me everything there is to know, I must fit the universe around those ‘facts’” — a statement that reflects that you really ARE only 19 years old!

    No person who believes in God has ever been told “everything that there is to know”!

    What those people have found is that God has shown them enough for those people to know that God is real and God can be believed in and trusted!

    All the belief systems around the world are in the process of “testing” their connection to whatever version of God they think is out there — you may be too young to understand this, but there’s a Hindu version of a god out there, and a Moslem version of a god, and the “Greek gods” versions of gods, and communist version of “no-god” out there, and a New Age version of “I’m-god” out there, and the American Indian version of “tree-and-water-and-mountain spirit gods” out there, and there’s the Jewish-Christian version of God!

    The Bible contains many things that no other religions have — a sound and logical version of God! It contains the most brilliant counsel ever given to any culture on the planet (you didn’t think that the Mayans had it right with their human sacrifice religion, did you?) — the Bible contains prophecies that were written down thousands of years ago that are just now coming true, because they were meant for humanity to read and understand down here at the End of Time — God also warned us about the false belief system of evolution, because He saw it all was to happen!

    Most religions on this planet DESERVE to be scoffed at — but not the one that is **right**!

    The Bible tells the ultimate “STAR WARS” story — angels and human beings turning to the “dark side,” wars in heaven, wars on earth for men’s souls!

    Six_Ways, people have been talking and arguing about religion for thousands of years — so there will always be something to “argue” about — but the thing you need to focus on is the fact that all those billions of people on this planet recognize that there *IS* a God of some sort out there!

    You probably don’t go to church, you probably don’t spend much time talking with those people who do belive in God — so again I tell you that “science” is NEVER going to answer all of your questions, and you need to get a more “balanced” view of Life, which takes time and involvement with people!

    I suggest that you seriously put the thought into your mind that you WANT to know if God is real — you can “challenge” Him in any way you wish, but just tell him that you want Him to prove to you that He is real!

    Then wait and see what happens . . .

    In my mind ALL science shows the evidence of God, because I know that without Him NOTHING WOULD EXIST! All I’m trying to do is trying to coach you to see it from my perspective (and the perspectives of lots of PhDs who also believe in God)!

  33. six_ways on April 28, 2006 at 10:07 am

    So let’s be clear about this; the whole ‘proving god’s existence with science’ thing is a sham which is based upon you already believing in god?

    Because let’s face it, your attempts at arguing scientifically have gone out the window. Now you’re just falling back on your stance of telling me I should believe in christianity because the bible tells me so. You consistently ignore the scientific arguments we are puttin forth and instead choose to talk about what you believe, evidence or no.

    I tell you again, there is NO ‘logical’ god. I’ve already proved that but you’ve not even addressed what I said. So christianity is no different to any other religion.

    And your assertion that all religions except christianity DESERVE to be scoffed at just shows the amazing underlying arrogance of all religions.

    ALL RELIGIONS THINK ALL OTHER RELIGIONS SHOULD BE SCOFFED AT. So what makes you different? There is nothing to PROVE that your idea of god is right, even if you do prove that there is a god, yet you look down upon others who don’t have exactly the same opinion as you. Frankly, this is disgusting, and is exactly what leads to persecution, prejudice and discrimination.

    As for the prophesies that are coming true; do you believe in astrology? Because that works in exactly the same way. Vague predictions are made so that it’s easy to connect something that happens in your life to what was predicted.

    Nostradamus and countless others have also made predictions which have come true, yet you would label this ‘witchcraft’.

    And I ask you for the third time:

    Why do you seek to prove the existence of god if he requires you to have faith in him?

  34. six_ways on April 28, 2006 at 5:40 pm

    Yes, but he heavily implied that his was one of very, very few religions that does not.

  35. John Adolfi on April 28, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    “Why do you seek to prove the existence of god if he requires you to have faith in him?”

    “Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not yet seen.”

    And yet the proof is all around you and I. The plants, planets, fossils in the earth, science, the Bible, prophecy, the Gospel, reason, conscienceness, smiles and goodness, laws and hope, the want to live forever, the complexity of organisms, order, patterns, variety, the sound of a waterfall. Can science explain the human experience? Can it tell why one wants God in their life and one rejects His very existence?

    Sould any human ultimately fail of “believing” my understanding is it will be shown in the judgement the nature of our specific rejection of truth. You speak very firmly. Very loudly from a position of logic and apparent strength. Please reconsider your position, please forgive the poor representation of Christianity that may have given you the wrong impression all these years.

  36. six_ways on April 29, 2006 at 7:08 am

    You’re trying to fob me off with more mumbo-jumbo. That first paragraph does not on any way show why it is not a contradiction to be searching for proof of your god.

    And no, John, as I have said before, that “proof” is NOT proof. In no way does any of it logically point to the existence of an omnipotent being. I’ve argued this in many ways over the previous posts, and I would prefer that you actually attempt to give real reasoning rather than just blankly saying I’m wrong.

    Science can explain all those things. The brain is just a set of electrical conductors and works analogously to any other electric circuit. It is a highly advanced computer, and as such is finite and therefore scientifically calculable.

    And you seem to scorn my approach of logic. Are you not trying to use logic to promote your beliefs? Are you not using logic when you start up your computer and type in a reply to this thread? You have a fairly fundamental misconception about the universe. The source of chaos is not a lack of a god, it is a lack of logic. Without logic, how would we think? Without logic, nothing leads on to anything else. Without logic, every single possible outcome to a situation is equally likely, which is quite obviously not true.

    I want to make this clear. I have no problems with you believing in god, and you should have no problems with my lack of belief. What I have a problem with is your perversion of science. Science cannot exist without logic, and you are trying to promote some bizarre form of ‘science’ which either works without logic, or uses logic when you feel it backs you up.

    For everyone’s sake, please stop. This is not science. Call it anything you like and preach it to anyone you like, but NOT under the guise of science.

  37. John Adolfi on April 29, 2006 at 7:33 am

    My past includes a non believing agnostic world view. Because I believe in this other Christian world view my wish is that others can see some of the “logic” or proofs that lead me to conclude otherwise. Some consider that our mission to conlcude Genesis is really the dumbing down of the enlightenment that science and technology has brought us. I guess we all have a choise to make. Our mission here and the museum is to give our best at showing the consistancy of Genesis with hard evidence. Most of the public have not been exposed to both sides of the issue at hand. Let’s educate the public. Let’s let evolution and creationism stand side by side and let the individual think for themselves. If evolution makes more sense then fine. I just want an people to hear it for themselves and make their own decission. Experts on either side are and will not make their decission for them. Time will tell if we are successfull.

  38. JimSDA on April 29, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    Six_Ways, I want you to consider this question — take your time thinking about it — actually, think about it for the rest of your life, it’s that deep a question:

    Your body is comprised of something like 60 TRILLION INDIVIDUAL CELLS —

    So how is it that you think of yourself as being just “one” person?

  39. six_ways on April 29, 2006 at 8:29 pm

    Who said I did?

    Besides which, what’s your point? Are you saying that without the idea of a soul we can’t really think of ourselves as individual people? Because I don’t really have a problem with that. I don’t mind if you call me a person or a bundle of cells which happen to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit, as long as you treat me the same either way.

  40. JimSDA on April 30, 2006 at 10:34 am

    Six_Ways, I’m asking you to THINK about how you can be a collection of trillions of individual cells, yet still be walking around thinking “singular thoughts” and thinking that you are only ONE person!

    All of us are like this —

    Sit down and REALLY THINK ABOUT IT — think of what “evolution” is all about — it’s about all the trillions of cells in your body supposedly “evolving you” into the being/creature that you and I currently are, right?

    Creationists say that God put us all together all at once, and gave us the breath of Life and we became living souls — you on the other hand want to say we took the long hard route of “mutating” and “evolving” each and every single step of our development so that every single new cell that was added to our bodies grew at a pace over millions and millions of years —

    And what is “evolution” about?

    The dominance of the most powerful!

    The survival of the fitest cell over the weaker cells!

    So, if evolution was true, then we are the end result of trillions of individual cells that “evolved” and vied for dominence amidst a “chaos-filled” Universe, right?



    Think about it, Six_Ways!

    Evolution is a system wherein each cell just looks out for ITSELF — there would be no cooperation, the cell would always feel that it had to DOMINATE its neighbor cell, especially if that cell was a “different” cell!

    The cells on the outside of my stomach are different from the cells of the other organs that it is up against — AS FAR AS THOSE CELLS KNOW, THOSE OTHER CELLS ARE THE “ENEMY” AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE DOMINATED!


    The directive of “chance evolution” would cause all these different cells to attack and destroy each other — unless a Creator programed them to know that they were all a part of a much larger single entity, and unless they all cooperated, the entity (and themselves) would DIE!

    Which brings us back to the very strange idea that if our bodies are made of trillions of individual cells (and billions of them are brain cells), THEN HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN THINK THAT WE ARE ONLY “ONE” PERSON??

    If evolution was true, we would constantly have trillions of ideas imputting into our brains all the time — but we don’t!

    On the outside of our bodies we have 2 hands, and 2 legs, and 2 eyes, and 2 ears, and 2 feet — yet we think that we are just “one” person!

    Because God made us to think this way and operate this way!

    If we were really the result of the evolution of trillions of different living parts, all those parts would be talking via their little electrical impulses all the time and all at once!


    Instead of just having 10-15 different personalities inside us, we’d all have 60 trillion voices in our heads!!!

    But God created us in a way that filtered all that “noise” out, so we have brains that keep our bodies running internally without us having to think conscious thoughts about breathing or pumping our blood or digesting our food, etc., etc. — and our minds are free to think SINGULAR THOUGHTS and we are able to think that we are just ONE PERSON!

    Remember, you say that evolution has no intelligence, therefore no way to “design” anything or control how we are made — so there’s NO WAY that our trillions of cells are communicating with the rest of the trillions of cells to “cooperate”!

    The entire premise of evolution is intellectually absurd and IMPOSSIBLE!

  41. John Adolfi on April 30, 2006 at 10:55 am

    I have to agree with JimSDA. With given the two possibilities side by side I do not for the life of me see how it is unreasonable to see ID or creationism as a not a viable conclusion to what JimSDA just outlined. Even if I agreeded totally with Evolution, to be intellectually honest I would have to tip my hat to ID for its attempts to answer the deep and incredible questions that evolution attempts to answer.
    But all I see from Evolutionists is venom and arrogance. Very few are calm and considerate. Even fewer will acknowledge any logic in any of the ID or creationist theories. “Fairy Tales” is the repeatable mantra. Why?

  42. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 11:04 am

    Ok, there’s a lot to answer here. I’ll start with John’s response.

    To answer the last part of your post – I’ve already shown, just a few minutes ago, why there is no logic in ID and/or creationism. God is a fundamentally illogical, in fact anti-logical concept.

    This is not arrogance. It is a definition.

    And Jim’s post just further highlights your misunderstanding of evolution. You seem to think that everything at the most fundamental level actively fights everything else. The answer to your problem here is deceptively simple.

    Those cells which DID fight all other cells died. Those cells which cooperated lived. QED.

    Furthermore, since cells which cooperate survive, each subsequent generation is more and more likely to cooperate. Therefore you gradually get cooperation in larger and larger amounts, leading to larger and more complicated structures, from plants to animals and finally to humans.

    All of your arguments above have been answered in those two paragraphs, and again this is not arrogance, it is more of a definition. This is the basic concept of evolution, expanded to a particular case, which happens to be cooperation between cells.

  43. John Adolfi on April 30, 2006 at 11:17 am

    Please don’t missunderstand me. I’m not saying you’re arrogant my experience with those who generally share the same data as you, are. Since we both have all heard the arguements before and we are all still not convienced otherwise then I will bow out and go back to my creationist laboratory, to resurface soon.

  44. JimSDA on April 30, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Six_Ways, your answer is a simplistic acceptance of evolution being your substitute for God, and totally ignores all the facts of the needed complexity in Life that would have NEVER HAPPENED without God organizing and creating Life!

    To have literally millions of separate and mindless “dumb” cells choose to “cooperate” with each other is the equivalent of believing that a cow can jump over the moon!

    Scientists are STUPID if they think that the very first single cell life form ever managed to “put itself together” in such a way that numerous individual parts magically “came together” and finally figured out how to do all their separate jobs so that the overall cell could survive!

    Project back to that step, open your brain cells and really try to visualize that event — and realize that the cell that tried to do this would be **DEAD** inside of an instant!

    You ASSUME that it happened this way because you see that “we’re all here and alive” — and I’m telling you that the ONLY reason we are here is because an awesome Intelligent Designer made it happen!

    By DISPROVING evolution, we PROVE that Creationism is true!

    Whether you like it or not.

  45. TwoD on April 30, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    JimSDA, you’re skipping a central part of evolution.
    Namely that nothing happens because it “should”, but because it “could”.

    If two or more atoms (for example) can join together, they will, if given the opportunity.
    The same thing works on all levels, a creature doesn’t survive or die because it “should”, even if it has a specific behaviour or genetical mutation. As long as the mutation/behaviour doesn’t hinder it, it will live. (Unless eaten by somehting else, but that’s another story.)
    If the creature survives long enough to reproduce, and it has that ability, it will pass on the genetic material and most likely teach the offspring to behave in a similar manner.

    So as long as nothing hinders a few atoms from grouping together and eventually form amino acids and DNA, it will most likely happen.
    At which point this entity can be considered alive is another debate though.

    If two ore more cells live together and it does them no harm, or they even benefit from it, it’s likely that the next generation of cells will do the same thing. The “old” version with one cell will still coexist and reproduce, but maybe not as fast as the new version. Eventually, the new version will dominate the population. Unless of course predators find that new version extra tasty…

    By disproving evolution, one disproves evolution, nothing else.
    By disproving creationism, one disproves creationism, nothing else.

    Assuming theory B is correct because theory A was disproved is a proof of bad logic.

    Nobody is assumed guilty before being proven guilty, and nothing is assumed to be correct before proving to be correct. Allthough people tend to forget that…

  46. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    Jim, whatever. You wont listen to me anyway, unlike John at least, and all you do is insist I’m wrong even when I have proven to anyone else reading the post that you are simply misguided in your beliefs of how evolution works.

    My answer is not simplistic; your constant and rarely backed-up assertion that evolution does not make scientific sense is the simplistic one. As is your frankly baffling belief that disproving evolution proves creationism, which is just bizarre.

    I’ll spell it out.

    You know nothing of maths.
    You know nothing of the physical systems of chaos and chance.
    You know nothing of the basic ideas around which evolution is based.
    You know nothing of scientific proof.
    You know nothing of the scientific method.

    Arguing with you is like repeatedly slamming into a brick wall of ignorance.

    Regardless of what anyone might say of opinions being equal, you are not qualified to talk about this subject. It doesn’t matter if I’m 19 and you’re 55, your experience in life does not make up for the astoundingly large hole in your understanding of science.

    Whether you like it or not yourself.

  47. six_ways on April 30, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    One more point: Your intuition tells you evolution can’t be true.

    That same intuition would tell you that relativity is not correct. It would tell you that quantum mechanics is not correct. It frequently tries to tell me the same thing, and I understand them a hell of a lot better than you.

    Yet without them, GPS would not work, calculations of space flight would not work, atomic clocks would not work, quantum computing would not work. They are evidently correct. Both your intuition and mine is ENTIRELY useless in understanding the fundamental nature of the universe.

    So please open up YOUR mind for once and realise that not only do you not have the answers, but that you, nor probably I, would even be able to physically comprehend the answers.

  48. JimSDA on May 1, 2006 at 9:15 pm

    I never said that I had all the answers — just BETTER ones than you!

    You think I know “nothing” — that’s your priviledge, you can think all the spacey “abstract” thoughts you wish!

    I happen to know differently — and I know that God is real, and I know that your love of no-God and evolution-as-God is a totally bankrupt theory!

    And one of these days we will see who’s right, my friend!

  49. John Adolfi on May 1, 2006 at 9:22 pm

    “To answer the last part of your post – I’ve already shown, just a few minutes ago, why there is no logic in ID and/or creationism. God is a fundamentally illogical, in fact anti-logical concept.”

    If that is so and you really are defending what is the closest thing to truth, then why do 40-60% of all americans believe in a God creating this world and the people in it some 10,000 years ago?
    How do YOU see this majority as? Misinformed? Uneducated? Stupid?

  50. six_ways on May 2, 2006 at 6:54 am

    Majorities mean nothing John. Besides which it may not be a majority.

    And it doesn’t matter how I see them, just that I see things differently. How could I possibly judge all of them at once simply on the information of a few creationists?

    And again both of you seem to be missing the point that I am NOT arguing against the existence of a god, or even creationism, simply that neither can be proven through science.

    And Jim, shut up. All you have ever been to anyone opposing your opinion on this site is derisive and derogatory. Without anyone using my ‘spacey abstract logic’ as you so utterly condescendingly put it, the TVs, VCRs and everything else you hold so dear would not have been theorised, let alone invented, so you can take your pride in your ignorance and shove it.

    John, surely you can see that Jim is not helping your cause here; I’ve been reasonable and have calmly defended my point of view with logic and reasoning, whether or not you agree with it, and all Jim has done is push me to breaking point with condescension and an arrogant dismissal of all my points. You have listened to my points and argued reasonably against them, but Jim has just been straight-out pig-headed, and I’ve tried to put up with it, but I’ve had enough of it.

  51. John Adolfi on May 2, 2006 at 7:07 am

    Six Ways, You have been a great witness to your philosophy.
    You have been calm and have done your best to put up with opposition and I thank you. As a Christian I can assure that this type of treatment you have received and much more is how I’m treated with the current skeptic, evolutionary folks I discuss things with. It’s not fun or funny. Thank you for reminding me how I need to further conduct myself. I cannot speak for Jim. His cartoons are a way to communicate thoughts to others and we appreciate his artistic skills and reasonable logic. Please stay tuned we appreciate you and all the others with apposing views who are watching our best attempts to share evidence and ideas on this hot topic.

  52. independent thinker on May 3, 2006 at 11:51 am

    Also in reference to Jim’s comment from 30th April, your biological concepts are all wrong. Each individual cell is NOT a single entity. Each cell has a nucleus (apart from red blood cells) and each nucleus contains the exact same genetic code; down to the last base. This is why forensic science is so good at identifying people. So each cell is the same thing but have different sections turned on or off, to code for different proteins. So each cell does not compete with its neighbours because they are the same entity. Thus if they did compete the only loss would be to that genetic entity and would not be selected for as those genes would be eliminated.

    Evolution is selection at the level of the genes.

    If you wish to ‘prove’ scientists wrong Jim, you must listen to what they are saying (as six_ways says).
    Cultural evolution has led to the belief in religion. Mayans, pagans and other religions (too numerous to mention) all existed before christianity, so if God created the world why didn’t he let these people know that they were destined for eternal damnation.

    Culture spreads in a population as humans have an affinity to conform. In-comers will often adopt the culture (language and religion) of the population that they migrate to. In simple terms they are rewarded for adopting a similar lifestyle and punished for acting uniquely (as they are not accepted). This is how culture spreads and why so many individuals in a country believe the dominant religion in that country.

    Just look at how catholicism took over many central and south American countries when they where invaded and controlled by Spain.

    Religion does not cross borders of different cultures but science does, due to its logical reasoning that all cultures understand.

  53. John Adolfi on May 4, 2006 at 10:24 am

    May I take acception to the idea of religion spreading through an entire populas due to pride, force or other cultural forces, as if they alone ARE the motive force. What about islands where missionaries have given their lives for the cause of a type of Christianity that does not force but reasons from cause to affect. Where the the doctrines resounded in the Native’s mind and heart and an entire village are converted. Again can we possily consider that the weight of evidence, the power of the concepts and the self sacrificing love on the part of the missionary is the driving force to the conversion of many? And I have not evey mentioned the Holy Spirit. It seems here that both creationists and evolutionists need to familiarize themselves better with each others theories and information.
    I truly doubt anyone studying anthropology has done extensive studies in the lives of gentle reformers and missionariesof the ages but have lumped all efforts to evangelize in with the wars and force we have seen through the churches spotted history.

  54. JimSDA on May 5, 2006 at 9:23 am

    My, my, my . . .

    When talking about “conflicting” fields of thought, the key word there is “conflicting” — I have a firm opinion about evolution and Creationism, and my opinions are not going to be “luke warm” —

    If you guys recall from looking at my website, back in the 1980s I did cartoons for Carl Sagan’s SPACEWATCH newsletter when I lived in D.C. — and I published my DINO/Creationism book in 1997 and other books that have sold way over a quarter of a million copies (391,000 to be exact) — so what have YOU GUYS published?

    If you really, really believe in your opinions, then publish them! Gain some credibility! The biblical archaeological discoveries I show on my website are being seen by millions of people around the world — so, as far as I see it, I’ve EARNED the priviledge of speaking my opinions!

    Six_Ways, don’t tell me to “shut up” — I have every right to speak, and I am undoubtably speaking to a much larger world-wide audience than YOU are!

    You are nothing more than a bothersome gnat buzzing around my head who’s just being irritating — oh, and seeing that you probably believe in the evolution idea of all life having a “common ancestor,” I guess you’re also related to gnats, right? On which side of the family, your mom’s or your dad’s side? . . .

  55. six_ways on May 5, 2006 at 9:52 am

    Jim, I only told you to shut up because you’re doing as much to me, only not in the same words. I was not the one who stopped being civil.

  56. JimSDA on May 6, 2006 at 8:48 am

    OK, Cy says he’s 24, and Six-Ways says he’s 19 — and I happen to know that science says that your brains won’t really “mature” until you guys are in your late 20s!

    I believe that I mentioned somewhere on this forum that it that’s TIME to gain life experiences and to see how God fits into it all — you have to give yourself enough TIME to have the experiences that will show you that God is real and come to a proper and fully “mature” world view of science and God!

    It may take the death of a family member to do it, or someone close to you having a major car accident, or you living in a really bad situation where a solution comes in such a miraculous manner that your brain finally figures out that “something is out there that cares about me”!

    TIME, guys, is what shows that God is there to us —

    Young people go around thinking they are indestructable and that they know it all — and older people know they aren’t going to live forever and that they acknowledge a Higher Power that is out there who knows LOTS more than they do!

    Right now you guys are just involved in finding “knowledge” — later on you can “find God,” because He’s most definitely out there!

  57. TwoD on May 6, 2006 at 3:25 pm

    JimSDA, you may have thousands and even millions of readers, but that does not prove you right or wrong. Credibility isn’t determined by the number of readers one has. It’s all about how serious the writer is, and how he/she puts forward ideas. But also how he/she treats other ideas and arguments that conflicts with thier own. (Not the actual definition, but it’s how I’ve heard many use the word) And so far, I think more people than I find you a bit too stubborn when it comes to dealing with those arguments.
    All you’ve managed to prove so far is that you are completely single-tracked when someone puts forward their theory about whatever. You keep telling people you actually know the truth, yet you have nothing but words in a book, and a feeling that a “Higher Power” exists out there, to back it up with.
    Science on the other hand has had many years to test, document, and gain knowledge about the world it studies.

    I’ve lost both close friends and family members, and I’ve been close to losing more due to major car accidents (other people did die in those accidents). I’ve had plenty of time already to think about life, death and the world around me.
    Someone does care about me out there. But it’s not a higher power, it’s my family and close friends. There’s no need for a god to blame what you can’t understand on.

    I’m 20 and from Sweden btw.

  58. six_ways on May 6, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    Jim, as I’ve said before, I’m not trying to argue against the existence of god. That may or may not take life experience.

    What I am doing is arguing that science cannot be used to support or disprove the existence of god as you are trying to do, and that does not take life experience – it takes a knowledge and understanding of science, which I have and you do not, regardless of age and experience.

  59. independent thinker on May 7, 2006 at 5:03 am

    I am 23 and about to graduate in evolutionary and environmental biology. In these 23 years I have lost friends to cancer and recently in a car accident. I have lost family members also but none of these traumatic events have led to me ‘finding’ god.
    Infact it is the opposite, people who ‘find’ god in these situations are those unable to let go and say goodbye. It is a much nicer thought to believe that you will see them again just as they always were. However, the knowledge of science has allowed me to say goodbye to those people without clinging to a vague un-proved notion that I will see them again. Of course I grieved for their suffering and more selfishly because I will miss them.

    If god only enters people’s lives in traumatic situations, when people are emotionly vulnerable, than they are just trying to make a bad situation better and removing the feeling of loss.

    I dare say that as you are over twice my age you have seen more stuff but not always. It depends what kind of life you have, personally I do a lot of travelling and try to visit places and people far removed from my own life. This broadens the mind no matter how old you are. Age is not a good indicator of experience and neither is having something published an indicator of being right. I would prefer to have one peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal than a book of my own thoughts, which anyone could write.

  60. snafubar on June 1, 2006 at 10:08 pm

    I find this site very embarrassing. Every single member of this site who supports it, is bent on assailing evolutionists. The fundamental distortion of logic that you foment – that the existence of a mutation which proves fatal therefore eliminates any possibility of any beneficial mutation should make you ashamed. Cy is dead for a reason, because his mutation did not promote survival on this planet. Cats with normal features survive for a reason.

    You cite Cy as an example of why you believe evolution must be a fraud, but you never address why this loving God who does all for good has sought to torture this poor creature. Was it all his idea of a publicity stunt? Did God need Cy to make a point?

    But I expect that I will not change a single mind on this site by making _any_ argument about evolution., because there simply are none that any of you would accept. And that is why you should all be ashamed – to believe that any society will survive when no dissent is allowed is an idea that has yet to succeed anywhere in human history.

    The dogma that the churches of our past and present have used to crush the open minds of our world is shameful enough; to know that the great astronomers of the world from Galileo to Copernicus, Brahe, and Keppler were all condemned by the religious leaders of their time for discoveries that anyone today who suggested is false would be laughed out of the room.

    And yet, unlike the Amish, most all of you live your lives quite comfortably with all that scientific innovation, exploration, experimentation, and investigation has brought to your lives while disparaging the very rigors of science that made it all possible. Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

    I support your freedom to dismiss evolution, and for that matter to ignore and refute all discoveries that the “godless” scientists have brought to the people of the world. But to benefit from those discoveries and advances while utterly dismissing the foundations of scientific thought they are based on is hypocritical to a point that God will have much to ask you about when you go to face him.

    Put down your computer, throw away your modern appliances, sell your car, and forego any further medical treatment and I will regain my respect for your faith. Otherwise, every time you assail scientists for discoveries you don’t like but still accept the ones you find favorable reveals to all the worst in human behavior. If you really want to stand on principles, stand on all of them, please.

    I expect the next set of comments will be to attack me and not my arguments. Have at it – I will be watching the Science Channel.

  61. John Adolfi on June 3, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    I enjoy the benefits of technology in good conscience as a creationist. However if I ever see any technology that resulted from the branch of science that dates rocks or creates theories of how a fin made it to an arm, I’ll make sure to not use the benefits of that technology and thus avoid being a hypocrite. Thanks.

  62. snafubar on June 5, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    To John Adolfi:

    You have seen technology that has resulted from that “branch of science” – Darwin did not use rules or logic unique to paleontology. The scientific method of acceptable theories until they are disproven is applied in all disciplines. It is the rigors of science that apply to all branches that allow meaningful and legitimate progression from primitive (and incorrect) assumptions to ones that work. “Dating rocks” is foolish to you because you want it to be foolish; study some for a while and you admit to yourself that playing the lottery would have better chances of success; taking the one exception in ten million doesn’t yield so much.

    Be honest with me – do you distrust carbon dating because you have read shelves full of scientific journals and have found copious evidence that the data just isn’t there, or did your pastor throw out a sermon one sunday that said it can’t be so? Yes, carbon dating has an error of +/- a few thousand years when talking on the scale of a few billion. That is 1/1000, or .001 or 0.1%. If you really wish to disparage something with accuacy that good, I would stay off the highway and the phone for both have higher failure rates.

    If you really do believe the science is bad and that they are willing to lie to you about carbon dating it’s likely that everything else you rely on is a fraud as well. If not, then why is carbon dating the one thing that gets under your skin so badly?

    Easy answer: it’s one scientific field of thought you can abandon without giving up all of the other things that you count on, despite the fact the rigors of scientific theory and testing that arrived at both conclusions was the same.

    Would you convict a criminal based on DNA evidence? The science that says ‘a fin made it to an arm’ says that you have more DNA in common with an ape (not monkeys) than any other species. It was the same DNA marking that allowed transplant surgery to become as effective as it has, and if you are willing to read your history book back far enough the church first banned blood transfusions and then transplants.

    All I am asking for is consistency. If you truly have so much contempt for the scientific method, then you cannot use the benefits of technology in good conscience. You would not call someone a Christian who picked and chose what Bible verses he would adhere to and dismiss the rest, as you should not with science.

  63. John Adolfi on June 5, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    Darwin was a theology student washout not a scientist but besides that let me say that I am interested in the scientific method. Anything that can be observed and tested with a great degree of repeatability in the lab is of interest to me. Anything believed that cannot be repeated in the lab is religion.

  64. snafubar on June 5, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    I thought about this site some more, and had another thought. It is a sad oversimplification to say that evolutionists ever claimed that “all life is the result of millions of beneficial chance mutations” that happened over millions of years — yeah, those mutations really worked well for Cy Kitty!”

    If I summed up the Bible by saying, “Jews used to be God’s favorite, but when they killed Jesus he turned on them. You should follow Jesus” you’d righfully say I left out a few important details. Like it’s billions of years, not just millions. You don’t just follow evolutions back to apes and give up; the DNA is there all the way back to single-cell organisms and the protiens and amino acids that they are made up with. And if you want to say “That’s not life”, then you should back off insisting that two cells in a womb are.

    Mutations do happen. Spend some time in the neo-natal ward to watch babies born with defective heart valves, cleft palates, and other deformities and you will realize that children with those conditions like that don’t survive or suffer greatly unless humans intervene. To say that all mutations are beneficial is rediculous; In a random sequence, there will be many more mistakes than improvements. Try to spill alphabet soup on the floor and see how many cans you have to empty to spell something coherent. But when a mutation occurs that proves helpful – like a fish with longer fins than others that allow it to move better on land than those who have short fins – dozens of generations later there are fish with longer fins. Those mutaitons lead to life that survives, prospers, and creates more copies with that mutation – how a fin becomes an arm.

    I really think the problem is time scale, one that will never be appreciated if you think the world is 6000 years old. Mutations don’t happen so that the grandfather can see the results in the grandchild. There was not an ape who went to sleep one night and woke up human.

    But this discussion, and Cy, is about mutations.

    Even if you want to believe that God created the mutation, that it was not random, the mortality of those that don’t work and the success of those which do still proves that God follows Darwin’s logic.

    When a mutation occurs that hinders the survival of the being that carries it – like being born with no nose and one eye, chances are not good that individual will survive, and creatures that do not live long produce few offspring to carry on the trait, which is exactly what happened in Cy’s case. Cy’s mutation, as tragic as it was, did not improve his life and it is no surprise that Cy did not survive. Nothing for Darwin to apologize for.

    If it were a beneficial mutation, Cy would live a healthy life, and mate with another cat to pass the gene on to more little cats with one eye and no nose.

    My question to you is: Did your loving god who cherishes all life create Cy simply so you could watch the animal die and drag him around to disparage evolutionists? Are all birth defects an attempt by God to prove his omnipotence? And if that is so, should we keep our surgeons away from them and let them die to show our respect for God’s purpose?

    Here’s a question to all those who believe Terry Schiavo was “killed” by a judge or her husband: Terry Schiavo fell into a coma which required human medical intervention to be fed intravenously and stay alive. If everything is God’s will, then should we have not recognized her siezure as a sign that god wished her to die and let her go? It was the doctors who saved her in the first place, for otherwise her siezure would have been fatal.

    I do respect your right to keep mistating the theory of evolution and making fun of scientists. But I would like to see how far you would get insisting that Darwin must be wrong by filling a museum with human babies that did not live because they were born with deformities, and that proves it was God’s will and not evolution.

  65. snafubar on June 5, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    So Darwin was a washout, and therefore his theory is junk? Einstien was a poor student who’s professors thought he would never succeed; do you believe that invalidates his discoveries as well?

  66. six_ways on June 7, 2006 at 10:12 am

    Snafubar, I’d just like to say that your posts thus far seem to be excellently thought out, and you’ve raised a couple of points that are new to me.

    I would however say that John at least is more accepting of the possible validity of the evolutionist point of view, and seems to accept the true meaning of proof – in that disproving evolution does not mean proving creationism.