While one may correctly say that evolution is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in†Creation as it is literally set forth in Genesis.
The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.
Evolution is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Creationist spouts.
Sean O’leary
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
I’m not a biologist so most of that means little or nothing to me, but
”I will tell you like C.S. Lewis did about our thoughts coming from Chemicals.
If that is true, then we have no reason to trust our thoughts, since they are unreliablly solely chemical processes derived from the mind. And if that be true, then we have no trusting that they are unreliable chemical processes in the first place.”
.
.
.
To me this is the same as saying that because a car engine runs on a purely chemical process, it cannot be relied upon.
.
Also i think what maxwell is saying is that science cannot disprove philosophy?
I mean science cannot possibly prove that the universe wasn’t created last Thursday in the exact form it holds now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dr. michael martin
.
in fact, the fact that we descended from a common ancestor makes perfect sense. our ‘myth’ is based on the dreaded e-word, evidence. we have found countless numbers of fossils that are of ‘different’ human species that are much more primitive than us. we have even found their tools. you don’t accept it because it’s not as beautiful as the adam and eve story.
.
there is no magic to evolution, just science.
.
i think you just don’t want to accept it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You think real debate is about thought?
WOWWWW!!! now, call me captain obvious here…thats certainly begging the question if I’ve ever heard it before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dr. michael martin
.
in fact, the fact that we descended from a common ancestor makes perfect sense. our ‘myth’ is based on the dreaded e-word, evidence. we have found countless numbers of fossils that are of ‘different’ human species that are much more primitive than us. we have even found their tools. you don’t accept it because it’s not as beautiful as the adam and eve story.
.
there is no magic to evolution, just science.
.
i think you just don’t want to accept it.
Except for the magic pond scum that we came from…right?
Where’s that common ancestor? Please don’t tell me Lucy…cause I’m gonna start bawling with laughter on the floor if you do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re darn right I don’t want to accept it. Its a lie!
Tell me what YECS is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
in fact, the fact that we descended from a common ancestor makes perfect sense. our ‘myth’ is based on the dreaded e-word, evidence. we have found countless numbers of fossils that are of ‘different’ human species that are much more primitive than us. we have even found their tools. you don’t accept it because it’s not as beautiful as the adam and eve story.
I suppose that “this fact” would make perfect sense….from the worldview that says that its a FACT!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quote from our good Dr.
“So if Evolution is a fraud, then Creation Science is not a fraud, and by default, it becomes correct.”
.
anyone wanna take that or is it just to easy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Transitional fossils….
Argument: The fossil record supports evolution
Evolutionists say, ‘Paleontologists have found many examples of transitional fossils for creatures such as birds, whales, and horses.’
This chapter discusses the fossil record, how interpretations are strongly influenced by one’s assumptions, how it lacks the transitional forms evolution predicts, and discusses in detail some of the common evolutionary claims.
The fossil record: prediction of evolution?
Scientific American claims that the placement of fossils in the geologic record was predicted by evolution and is strong evidence for it. But it can’t even keep the ‘facts’ straight.
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
Of course I don’t believe the millions of years in the first place (see The Young Earth1 for some reasons), but I know enough to know that Scientific American made a blooper even under its own perspective. Evolutionists assign the date of 65 Ma to the K–T (Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary), not to the Jurassic period. Instead, the Jurassic is dated after 208–144 Ma. After I first posted a rebuttal on our website, Scientific American corrected their error on the web version of the article.
Actually, even if they found human fossils deeply buried in the earth that contradicted their assumptions about the geologic column and the fossil record, evolutionists could easily accommodate such ‘out of place fossils,’ as they have with living specimens of the ‘ancient’ Coelacanth fish and ‘dinosaur era’ Wollemi pine. These recent finds are just as sensational—from an evolutionary paleontologist’s perspective—as finding a living dinosaur. Since the materialistic paradigm (interpretive framework) is all important, evolutionists would be able to explain an ‘old’ human fossil by ‘reworking’ (displacing from the initial burial depth), or maybe even reassigning such bones to another creature, since after all ‘we know’ that humans can’t be that deep in the fossil record!
A good example of reworking is the famous fossil footprints at Laetoli, Africa, of an upright walking biped—the University of Chicago’s Dr Russell Tuttle has shown that these are the same sorts of prints as made by habitually barefoot humans. But since they are dated at millions of years prior to when evolutionists believe modern humans arrived, they are regarded as australopithecine prints, by definition, even though australopithecine foot bones are substantially different from human ones. And then in an amazing twist, the same prints are held up as evidence that australopithecines walked upright like humans—regardless of the fact that other aspects of their anatomy indicate otherwise.
In spite of evolutionists’ assumptions to the contrary, the fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which actually avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view.3 The ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood.
Multitudes of transitional fossils exist?
Evolutionists recognize a serious threat to their whole argument—evolution predicts innumerable transitional forms, yet all they have are a handful of debatable ones. Yet they are unwilling to admit to the magnitude of the problem. Scientific American states the problem in this way, and it answers with an unsupportable claim that there are numerous intermediate fossils.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups.
Actually, Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
More recently, Gould said:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
But modern evolutionists, including Gould, have asserted that there are nevertheless some transitional forms, but they always seem to name the same handful of disputable ones, instead of the many that Darwin hoped for. It’s the same with Scientific American below.
Bird evolution
One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs.
The fossil bird known as Archaeopteryx is among the most prized relics in the world.
This hardly qualifies for a fossil ‘intermediate in form’; it is more like a mosaic or chimera like the platypus. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, says:
Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.
Archaeopteryx had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings.7 Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status—a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.8 Finally, Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e., at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This in turn indicates that the unique avian lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird.
Scientific American hurls more elephants without examples.
A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found.
But our website has documented that two famous alleged feathered dinosaurs are ‘dated’ younger than their supposed descendant, Archaeopteryx, and more likely to be flightless birds (Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx). Another famous example, Archaeoraptor, was a fake.
Horse evolution
The horse sequence is another popular evidence of a fairly complete series of transitional fossils. Scientific American boldly claims:
A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus.
Like the Archaeopteryx, however, this doesn’t hold up. Even informed evolutionists regard horse evolution as a bush rather than a sequence. But the so-called Eohippus is properly called Hyracotherium, and has little that could connect it with horses at all. The other animals in the ‘sequence’ actually show hardly any more variation between them than that within horses today. One non-horse and many varieties of the true horse kind does not a sequence make.
Mollusks
Scientific American makes another false claim:
Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years.
Again, what does this mean? One must wonder if the author of the article believes the old Ostrea/Gryphaea story, i.e., that a flat oyster evolved into more and more coiled forms till it coiled itself shut. Once this was regarded as a key proof of an evolutionary lineage in the fossil record. But now it seems that the coiling was the oyster’s built-in programming to respond to the environment, or ecophenotypic change.11 So the anti-creationist neo-catastrophist geologist Derek Ager wrote:
It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked.’ Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.
Scientific American closes its argument about transitional fossils with these mocking words about their demands for a truly transitional fossil:
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group.
Actually, as stated, of the few transitional forms usually touted, most are actually chimeras. No, creationists have long simply requested a sequence of creatures with certain characteristics consistently following a series, e.g., 100% leg/0% wing → 90% leg/10% wing → … 50% leg/50% wing … → 10% leg/90% wing → 0%leg/100% wing.
Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. [SA 83]
First, this again charges creationists with believing in fixity of species, which is rather a belief held by compromisers like Hugh Ross. Instead, creationists ask for transitions between major categories, such as between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.
Second, this is hardly a new charge when made of fossils transitional between two phyla, for example, and it is hardly unreasonable for creationists to point out that there are still two large gaps rather than one even larger gap.13
Whale evolution?
Whale evolution is a topic that deserves special attention. Scientific American claims:
Pakicetus: ‘evidence’ for whale evolution?
Left: Gingerich’s Pakicetus reconstruction.
[J. Gingerich, Geol. Educ. 31:140–144, 1983]
Right: Actual bones found (stippled). Note nothing below skull.
[Gingerich et al., Science 220:403–6, 1983]
Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see ‘The Mammals That Conquered the Seas,’ by Kate Wong, Scientific American, May]. [SA 83]
Here is an especially serious example of ‘hurling elephants’ by completely ignoring the fragmentary nature of the evidence.
This was a tricky problem for Darwin, but nevertheless he still had faith that whales evolved from land mammals. The paleontologist Phil Gingerich of the University of Michigan has publicly said, ‘It’s a real puzzle how whales originally evolved.’ But on the PBS Evolution series, he gives the impression that his fossil finds have gone a long way toward solving this puzzle.
Gingerich discovered in Pakistan a few skull fragments of a wolf-like creature that allegedly had an inner ear like a whale’s. But this is far from conclusive. There wasn’t any post-cranial skeleton found, so we haven’t the faintest idea how it moved. However, this didn’t stop Gingerich from writing an article for schoolteachers with an illustration of an animal that had splashed into the sea and was swimming and catching fish, and looking convincingly like an intermediate between land animals and whales. He also claimed, ‘In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales.’14 The diagram right shows the glaring contrast between reconstruction and reality.
New research since the PBS series was produced has blown away this reconstruction. This demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one’s axioms. Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional, as with Gingerich, and is also prevalent in ape-man claims. But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. It’s also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized.
Pakicetus
[Illustration: Carl Buell, ]
A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.15 The commentary on this paper in the same issue says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground’ (see illustration left).16 This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a ‘terrestrial cetacean’ and saying, ‘The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.’ But the term ‘whale’ becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.
Also, ‘solid anatomical data’ contradict previous theories of whale ancestry. A Reuters news article reported in September 2001:
Until now paleontologists thought whales had evolved from mesonychians, an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores, while molecular scientists studying DNA were convinced they descended from artiodactyls [even-toed ungulates].17
‘The paleontologists, and I am one of them, were wrong,’ Gingerich said.
Ambulocetus: missing link?
Top: Ambulocetus skeleton, as drawn in Miller’s book.
Middle: Ambulocetus reconstruction, as drawn in Miller’s book.
Bottom: Actual bones found (shaded). Note missing pelvic girdle.
Such candor is commendable, and it shows the fallacy of trusting alleged ‘proofs’ of evolution. Pity that Gingerich is still committed to materialistic evolutionism.
Ambulocetus
Ambulocetus is another popular example of a ‘missing link,’ featured prominently in anti-creationist propaganda, such as the book Finding Darwin’s God, by Kenneth Miller—the ‘Christian evolutionist’ who starred in PBS 1. In his book, Miller claimed, ‘the animal could move easily both on land and in water,’ and presented a drawing of a complete skeleton and a reconstructed animal.18 But this is misleading, bordering on deceitful, and indicative of Miller’s unreliability, because there was no indication of the fact that far fewer bones were actually found than appear in his diagram. Crucially, the all-important pelvic girdle was not found (see diagram at right). Without this, it’s presumptuous for Miller to make that proclamation. His fellow evolutionist, Annalisa Berta, pointed out:
… since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.19
Basilosaurus
This serpentine and fully aquatic mammal has been known since the 19th century, but Gingerich discovered something new in some specimens in the Sahara. The PBS narrator pointed out that this desert area was under water once, and he described a 100-mile stretch of layered sandstone called the ‘valley of the whales’ allegedly 40 million years old. The narrator theorizes that this valley was once a protected bay where whales came to give birth and to die. Here Gingerich discovered what he alleged were a pelvis, leg bones, and a knee cap, so he said they were evidence of ‘functioning legs’ and ‘dramatic proof that whales were once fully four-legged mammals.’
But this contradicts other evolutionists, including Gingerich himself! For example, the National Academy of Science’s Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science claimed, ‘they were thought to be non-functional’ (p. 18), and Gingerich himself said elsewhere ‘it seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper.’20 So these bones can be explained as a design feature, while the interpretation as ‘legs’ reflects evolutionary wishful thinking.21
Whale evolutionary sequence?
Alleged sequence of land mammal to whale transition
[From Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science]
The PBS program claims that there is a series including Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, etc., where the nostrils supposedly migrate to the back of the head. Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science contains a diagram (see right) on page 18. But when the mammal-to-whale series is examined, the sequence is not as smooth as they imply. For instance, this diagram failed to indicate that Basilosaurus is actually about ten times longer than Ambulocetus (and the fragmentary nature of the remains has been discussed already).
Another problem is that Basilosaurus has a number of features that mean it could not possibly have been ancestral to modern whales, e.g., body shape, skull structure, and tooth shape.
There is certainly no support for the program’s claim, ‘front legs became fins, rear legs disappeared, bodies lost fur and took on their familiar streamlined shape.’ Waving the magic wand of mutation/selection is hardly sufficient without an observable mechanism that would effect these changes.
Recently, John Woodmorappe analyzed the alleged transitions and found that their various characteristics did not change in a consistent direction. Rather, they are chimeras—non-whales with a few minor cetacean ‘modules,’ inconsistent with the evolutionary prediction of a nested hierarchy but consistent with a common Designer.22
Locomotion
PBS 2 also claims support for a transition from the way the mammal-to-whale fossil links moved. Marine mammals move through the water with vertical undulating movements of the spine, just as many fast-running mammals do on land. Fish move with sideways undulations instead. But this could be another common design feature of mammals, like milk or hair. It’s also doubtful whether this is a unique prediction of evolution; if whales used side-to-side movements, evolutionists could presumably have ‘predicted’ this because the tails of land animals also swish sideways.
My book, Refuting Evolution, written to rebut Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, has a chapter on alleged whale evolution that covers all this section in more detail, with full documentation. It is also available on the Creation CD-ROM produced in answer to the PBS series.
Tetrapod evolution?
Tetrapods are animals with four limbs, i.e., amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In 1995, Niel Shubin and Edward Daeschler found in Pennsylvanian cliffs a shoulder bone of a tetrapod allegedly 370 million years old.
Cambridge University paleontologist Jenny Clack found an early tetrapod hand in Greenland, called Acanthostega. Supposedly, this creature had gills, a fish-like tail, paddle-shaped fins, and a hand with fingers.
On PBS 2, Clack said this refuted the usual textbook theory that fish evolved limbs for a selective advantage because they were being stranded in drying pools. Rather, the limbs evolved before they crawled on the land, while they were still aquatic. The selective advantage was the ability to escape the weird and wonderful predatory fish that lived during this time (called the Devonian Period).
Shubin stressed that ‘evolution wasn’t trying to do this,’ and later the PBS program claimed, ‘we’re here through chance coincidences.’ This should make it clear that evolution, as believed by evolutionists, is not ‘progressive’ and shows no sign of a divine guiding hand.
Shubin also highlighted the common limb pattern between tetrapods, illustrated by fish and humans having the sequence one bone/two bones/small bones/rods (digits). But this fails to explain the totally different developmental sequence, as previously explained (chapter 6).
Cambrian explosion
During his appearance on PBS 2, Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris explained that the Cambrian explosion was ‘one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of life.’ Essentially all the different animal phyla (major groups) appeared abruptly, without any known transitional forms preceding them. According to evolutionary dating methods, this was about 500 million years ago. Morris acknowledged that Darwin recognized this as a problem for his theory, with animals appearing out of nowhere. Morris said, ‘To a certain extent that is still a mystery.’ Darwin predicted that animals diverged gradually from a common pattern, so there should be fossil examples of this divergence, while instead we see that the major differences arose abruptly at the beginning. Again, this is according to the evolutionary time frame; biblical creationists see the fossil record not as a time sequence but a sequence of burial by Noah’s flood and its after-effects.
Then the PBS program shifted to the Burgess Shale, with lots of bizarre creatures, e.g., one with five eyes, another worm-like creature with large spines, and still another with prongs around its mouth. But none of this showed what the Cambrian animals could have evolved from. Supposedly the evidence shows that evolution tinkered with a few basic body plans, but provides no evidence for their origins.
It should also be noted that, when geologists say life appeared suddenly during the Cambrian explosion without transitional forms, they’re making a backhand admission of the paucity of transitional fossils.
Extinction!
The whole emphasis on extinction, such as PBS 3 on ‘Extinction!’ is rather strange. It hardly tells us anything to prove evolution per se. Rather, it says a lot about species dying out, which is hardly news to anyone, but it doesn’t itself shed any light on how species arose in the first place. The PBS program makes plenty of assertions about new species diversifying to take the place of the old ones, but it offers no evidence of any mechanism by which this could occur. It’s just another example of how vacuous words can become when survivors of extinctions are called ‘evolution’s big winners.’ How exactly does the word ‘evolution’ explain anything here? The only purpose seems to be to further the indoctrination of the public with the idea that it does. But really, saying ‘history’s big winners’ or ‘winners of the lottery of life’ would be just as informative.
Have most species become extinct?
PBS 3 repeated the common claim that 95–99 percent of species have become extinct. However, the known record of extinct and extant species does not support this. The number of fossil species actually found is estimated to be about 250,000, while there are about three million living ‘species,’ or even more, depending on who’s telling the story. But if this >95% claim were correct, we would expect many more fossil species than living ones.
The only plausible explanation is evolutionary bias. For evolution to be true, there would have been innumerable transitional forms between different types of creatures. Therefore, for every known fossil species, many more must have existed to connect it to its ancestors and descendents. This is yet another example of evolutionary conclusions coming before the evidence. Really, the claim is an implicit admission that large numbers of transitional forms are predicted, which heightens the difficulty for evolutionists, given how few there are that even they could begin to claim were candidates.
Mass extinctions
Supposedly there were five mass extinctions in earth’s history, caused by planet-wide catastrophes. The greatest was the Permian extinction about 250 million years ago, where 90 percent of species became extinct. The period allegedly represented by rock layers above the Permian, the Triassic, was almost void of life. But later, in the upper Triassic, the dinosaurs supposedly evolved. Alongside them were the mammal-like reptiles that supposedly evolved into mammals.
The best-known extinction was alleged to be that of the dinosaurs, at the end of the Cretaceous, dated at 65 million years ago. Supposedly the small mammals, who kept out of sight when dinosaurs were around, managed to survive the catastrophe by hiding in burrows, while dinosaurs couldn’t hide or protect their eggs. In the next period, the Tertiary, mammals are supposed to have diversified and filled the vacant niches.
The PBS program presents the usual meteorite impact theory as fact, i.e., a chunk of rock the size of Mt Everest hit earth at 25,000 mph. The many problems with this idea are ignored. For example:
The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the geological record). But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s flood.
Light-sensitive species survived.
Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates, even given evolutionary dating assumptions.
Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop.
The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed.
Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ crater on the Yucatán peninsula in southeast Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater.
It seems that some scientists didn’t speak out against the idea for fear of undermining the ‘nuclear winter’ idea, and being grouped with ‘nuclear warmongers.’23
In general, mass extinctions are explained as a house of cards collapsing, where each card represents a species. One species may collapse, but then all other species that depend on it, either directly or indirectly, will also collapse. Even without a catastrophe, there are many factors that can cause a ‘bottom card’ species to die out, e.g., a new predator or climatic change.
Why bother preserving species?
All of this talk about fossils and extinctions causes a problem for evolutionists who are also rabid environmental extremists. The PBS episode on extinction exposes this problem: first, it asserts that humans are just another species, then it insists that extinction is simply part of earth’s history, and finally it moralizes that humans should try to preserve other species. The narrator says that humans ‘may be the asteroid that brings about the next mass extinction,’ and that we ‘competed with other species and won.’
But if we’re just another species, then why shouldn’t we act like one? Why should we aid our competitors for survival, when other species act in self-interest? The only reason might be a practical one, that we might lose some species that are beneficial to us. But this is very different from a moral obligation to care for them. If we are all rearranged pond scum, then talk of moral obligation is meaningless. Under a consistent evolutionary worldview, our moral sentiments are merely chemical motions in the brain that happened to confer a survival advantage in our alleged ape-like ancestors.
Creationist explanation
As elaborated earlier, the Bible teaches that death is the ‘last enemy,’ the result of Adam’s sin, and is an intruder into God’s very good creation. This is a problem for those who want to add millions of years to the Bible, and this program demonstrated just how much death is entailed by millions-of-years belief, because of the record of death (and disease, violence, etc.) the fossils portray.
Biblical creationists would explain much of the fossil record by the global flood of Noah’s day. However, this didn’t directly cause any land vertebrates to become extinct, because each kind was represented on the ark.24 But many became extinct in subsequent centuries, because of factors already well known to conservationists.25 But the Flood probably did cause many marine species to become extinct.
Creationists and evolutionists interpret the geological layers differently because of our different axioms. Evolutionists interpret the sequence of layers as a sequence of ages with different types of creatures; creationists interpret them as a sequence of burial by a global flood and its after-effects. This makes better sense of phenomena such as ‘living fossils’ and finding creatures such as the coelacanth, which isn’t found in rocks ‘dated’ younger than 70 million years.
Or maybe, Bions and Ligers and Drears oh MY! (hahahaha).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The good Doctor is an pseudointellectual ass. And boring. Why not come back when you have an argument?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
C.S. Lewis and Karl Marx. Seems that you rely heavily on others’ work. And, I do too. I didn’t create carbon dating, but I rely on it’s contributions to science. I am not the father of chemistry, but I do rely on chemists to do experiments. It almost sounds like you are refuting all of knowledge gained thru science. This is typical of christians. If you don’t like what the evidence says, you scoff at it. If C.S. Lewis told you that we are not the sum of our chemical and biological processes, you can believe him if you wish, but explain why we are NOT. Tell me, oh well-read one, why we are not. Tell me that god gave us some capacity to function outside of ourselves. Tell me that we have a soul, given to us by god. It is the left bower, Doctor. I hold the right. PROVE IT. Also, schizophrenics are not the sum of their brain chemistry? Have they been smited by god? Posessed by demons perhaps? Placed here as red herrings? Cut-n-paste technical “facts” as a response if you’d like. I challenge you to a disucssion of ideas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quote from our good Dr.
“So if Evolution is a fraud, then Creation Science is not a fraud, and by default, it becomes correct.â€
.
anyone wanna take that or is it just to easy?
Evolution…Creation Science. As this is a disjunctive syllogism, it is a valid argument. But it cannot be over-emphasised that validity and truth are not the same—this argument is not sound! Many evolutionists starting with Darwin have used this reasoning. This also demonstrates the atheistic bigotry behind much evolutionist thinking. Of course, creationists can use the equally valid argument:
C v E; ~E; ∴ C.
I.e. evidence against evolution is automatically evidence for creation. This is both valid and sound.
Many evolutionary propagandists dispute this reasoning when creationists use it, on the grounds that creation and evolution are not the only alternatives. Creationists are thus accused of the fallacy of false alternatives, that is, the disjunctive premise leaves out a possible alternative. But as shown, many evolutionists agree there are only two, so there are double standards at work.26 This can be shown by the Law of Excluded Middle: either things were made (creation) or they weren’t (evolution). It is true that biblical creation is not the only alternative, so it is not proven by disproof of evolution. Biblical creation is certainly consistent with disproof of evolution, unlike atheism.
A genuine example of the fallacy of false alternatives is the following ‘proof’ of the punctuated equilibria version of evolution:
1) Life must have evolved either gradualistically or via punctuated equilibria;
2) There are major problems with gradualism (absence of fossil intermediates, and inability to construct a functional series);
∴ Life must have evolved via punctuated equilibria.
This is basically the form of argument used by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in their seminal paper,27 as pointed out by creationists.28
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My mom says I have to eat dinner now. I will be back after my bath to DEBATE!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
C.S. Lewis and Karl Marx. Seems that you rely heavily on others’ work. And, I do too. I didn’t create carbon dating, but I rely on it’s contributions to science. I am not the father of chemistry, but I do rely on chemists to do experiments. It almost sounds like you are refuting all of knowledge gained thru science. This is typical of christians. If you don’t like what the evidence says, you scoff at it. (No, if the evidence is not correct, we scoff at it. Nice strawman…goods for burning (if you only had a brain). If C.S. Lewis told you that we are not the sum of our chemical and biological processes, you can believe him if you wish, but explain why we are NOT. (Its not a matter of whether or not C.S. Lewis states this or not. Its a matter that if you assert that it is, then its self defeating.)Tell me, oh well-read one, why we are not. (Because your explanation is not adequate, and its self defeating and false). Tell me that god gave us some capacity to function outside of ourselves. (Sounds a bit bizarre for my taste). Tell me that we have a soul, given to us by god. (ParaPsychology has demonstrated this). It is the left bower, Doctor. I hold the right. PROVE IT. (Did it done it…great :)) Also, schizophrenics are not the sum of their brain chemistry? (Logical fallacy contributes to this, we have shown this as well). Have they been smited by god? (No goofball). Posessed by demons perhaps? (Maybe so.) Placed here as red herrings? (No, but perhaps your argument is a red herring…sure does seem it to me). Cut-n-paste technical “facts†as a response if you’d like. (No thanks, don’t need to). I challenge you to a disucssion of ideas. (Good, thats where I specialize).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And we have plenty of evidential support pointing out that a gentleman by the name of Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and performed many miracles.”
.
Which support is that? Still your book of Christian cruelties? Sorry mate, give us some true evidential support. Your attempts to make God a logic issue are kind of sweet… but you are facing people on this website who do use their brains. ‘Cogito ergo sum’, I agree with that. ‘I’m thinking, therefore God exists’ is ridiculous.
And could you pass me the pasta please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By the way, which websites do you copy and paste your wisdom off? We don’t want you to get in trouble with the copyrights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are also obfuscating that the mind and the brain are the same thing. This is not the case. The Scientific community at large has given up on trying to derive what the mind is in fact. The brain has no control over our thoughts. The mind rather would have control over the brain. There is a necessary dichotomy. This in fact has led many Materialists to the same conclusion as the Monists. To assert that their mind isn’t really their mind, which uses the mind to refute the mind. This is intrinsic nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘damn right i don’t accept evolution, it’s a lie’
.
wow, you are incredibly ignorant. the mainstream science community accepts evolution. and the mainstream scientific community knows what it’s doing. they’ve already observed evolution. i guess the good folks in the field of biology, chemistry, and even physics are all liars, right. i guess carl sagan was a liar, right.
.
and yes, Lucy is a perfect example of our common ancestor. go ahead, start laughing. i don’t care. after all, i’m just a poor sinner going to hell for having common sense. i prefer real science, not pseudoscience. and yes, i have to say it, creationism is a pseudoscience because it is based around the idea of an invisible man in the sky creating the world in 6 days, almost like chance. maybe it was the FSM.
.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“And we have plenty of evidential support pointing out that a gentleman by the name of Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and performed many miracles.â€
.
Which support is that? Still your book of Christian cruelties? Sorry mate, give us some true evidential support. Your attempts to make God a logic issue are kind of sweet… but you are facing people on this website who do use their brains. ‘Cogito ergo sum’, I agree with that. ‘I’m thinking, therefore God exists’ is ridiculous.
And could you pass me the pasta please. – prove that statement first. Otherwise, you have no means to be able to communicate your intentions that I need provide any further evidence, and your statement fails. Thus, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“many evolutionists agree there are only two”.
.
Maybe evidence against evolution is not evidence for Creationism but FSMism? Or scientology. or maybe we just spontaneously appeared one day. who knows but evidence against one is not evidence for the other. Creationism should have to stand on it’s own, not be bolstered by failures of others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Thus, I have no idea what you’re talking about. ”
.
I couldn’t agree with you more. You have no idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh I don’t know…..Josephus, “Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”
Cornelius Tacitus: “But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We’ve found the cross…and the empty tomb.
We’ve perhaps found the Shroud of Jesus.
We’ve found inscriptions with his name on them.
And to top it all off, we have a guy by the name of Luke, who wrote these things in all intents and purposes to provide a “most excellent account” for Theophilus, a Roman governor (who would have been most happy to kill him, if he messed up in the very least). Yet, Luke, a doctor, accepts the virginal birth, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“many evolutionists agree there are only twoâ€.
.
Maybe evidence against evolution is not evidence for Creationism but FSMism? Or scientology. or maybe we just spontaneously appeared one day. who knows but evidence against one is not evidence for the other. Creationism should have to stand on it’s own, not be bolstered by failures of others.
And this violates the law of excluded middle. You have a reductio ad absurdum on your hands, a false conclusion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Michael Martin
.
There is only two reasons you would not know evolution as fact,
1) You are uneducated in the biology
2) You are stupid and have ignored all the evidence
.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it covers several scientific feilds, all of which agree that it explains almost everything. Next you’ll be telling me that you think the earth is only 6000 years old.
.
If you need convincing about evolution over ID then it is the “fuckups” in evolution that help convince most people. The blind spot in the our eyes, note an octupus has a similar eye to us but no blind spot because of the we they evolved. Hip bones in whales, snakes with tiny useless claws.
.
Almost forgot, the human tail and appendix are two other examples. Now as a 10 year old that evidence was enough to convince me of evolution, if you can’t see it then it just shows atheists truely are more intelligent than the average theist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Thus, I have no idea what you’re talking about. â€
.
I couldn’t agree with you more. You have no idea.
Nice circumstantial Ad Hominem attack :). Thats not going to impress me very much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh for FSM sake, why do you bother arguing with this deranged idiot?
.
.
.
.
Nothing you say, no matter how his crap arguments fail on all levels or how clearly you demonstrate his follies will he ever except whats true over what he believes (belief being the key word)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmm… a cross… an empty tomb… perhaps a shroud… inscriptions… Luke.
.
We have much more evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle
The law of excluded middle: ‘Everything must either be or not be.’
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
The following dialogue is an example of reductio ad absurdum:
A — All beliefs are of equal validity and cannot be denied.
B — If that’s the case, then C is correct in his belief, even though C believes something that is considered to be wrong by most people, such as that the Earth is flat.
A — True.
B — Then some beliefs can be denied.
.
Please explain again how a ran afoul of either of these, by saying creationism should stand on it’s own, and not be bolstered by failures of others? Show me how there can be only 2 possibilities, our minds have a hard time imagining all possibilities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dr. Michael Martin
.
There is only two reasons you would not know evolution as fact,
1) You are uneducated in the biology
2) You are stupid and have ignored all the evidence
That would be a bifurcation fallacy. You have left out other options. For instance, I know a ton of Evolutionists who have converted over to Young Earth Creation Science after reviewing evidence for both here.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it covers several scientific feilds, all of which agree that it explains almost everything. Next you’ll be telling me that you think the earth is only 6000 years old.
.
No No, the evidence for Microbiology, Natural Selection, Variation and Speciation is overwhelming. Evolution is a farce. And if I do think the earth is only 6000 years old, what of it? I have plenty of evidence to back that up too.
If you need convincing about evolution over ID then it is the “fuckups†in evolution that help convince most people. The blind spot in the our eyes, note an octupus has a similar eye to us but no blind spot because of the we they evolved. Hip bones in whales, snakes with tiny useless claws.
.
No..actually I think both Evolution and ID are wrong. Thats why I’m a YECS. Thanks though :).
Almost forgot, the human tail and appendix are two other examples. Now as a 10 year old that evidence was enough to convince me of evolution, if you can’t see it then it just shows atheists truely are more intelligent than the average theist.
Well, I think you’re jumping to a conclusion, because it doesn’t tell us whether or not the Atheistic belief is true or not. Concerning your evidence old hat.
Octopus Eyes: First, Lerner claims that the eye evolved:
‘… an eye need not be as sophisticated as a human eye to be useful to its owner. The skins of most animals are sensitive to infrared (heat) radiation. Now consider an animal whose skin has one or more light-sensitive spots — a very modest shift in wavelength response. The animal cannot see images, but can distinguish light from dark and might well detect the shadow of a predator and escape. One of its descendants might possess a similar light-sensitive spot located in a pit, which would serve to concentrate the light and increase sensitivity. If the pit happened to contain water functioning as a lens, it might do even better. Subcutaneous nerves might evolve to serve the spot better, and more sensitive pigments as well. And so on.’
However, this is just hand-waving, with no experimental evidence — notice the words ‘might well detect’, ‘might possess’, ‘happened to contain’, ‘might evolve’. There are several flaws:
It is inexcusable for a condensed matter physicist to claim that a very modest shift in wavelength response will transform an infrared-sensitive spot to a light sensitive spot, because the responses are completely different. Infrared rays cause transitions in molecular vibrational quantum states, which is why it is ‘heat radiation’. Visible light causes transitions in electronic quantum states.
His descriptions of ‘light sensitive spots’, ‘pit’, subcutaneous nerves, etc. sound simple, but they are really biochemically very complex. See At the bottom of Mount Improbable? Eye evolution, a case study for a detailed refutation of Dawkins’ far more sophisticated argument for eye evolution.
After this, Lerner claims:
‘Could the vertebrate eye have been designed by an Intelligent Designer? If so, the designer might have been a flunk-out from engineering school. Why, for instance, would a designer locate the efferent nerves that serve the retina in front of the light-sensitive cells, where they obscure some of the incoming light? Well, perhaps the mammal was a first try; the designer got it right in the octopus eye, where the nerves lie logically behind the light-sensitive cells.’
This is merely parroted from the likes of the atheist Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller, a modernist Roman Catholic who has a long history of teaming up with leading humanists against biblical creation (and who fails to explain adequately why ‘bad design’ doesn’t argue equally against ‘God used evolution’ and ‘God designed directly’). And this is not really an argument for evolution per se at all — because they present no step-by-step way for the structure to have evolved — but it is purely an attack on a designer. So much for Lerner’s claim that he is not trying to ‘attack religion’. Darwin also used this tactic frequently. It’s also ironic that such argumentation tacitly concedes the creationist claim that creation and evolution are the only two possibilities — most evolutionists airily dismiss this claim when it suits them.
However, it would be nice if anti-creationists actually learnt something about the eye before making such claims, or even showed that the eye didn’t function properly as a result. In fact, any engineer who designed something remotely as good as the eye would probably win a Nobel Prize! If Lerner or his mentors disagree, then I challenge them to design a better eye with all the versatility of the vertebrate eye (colour perception, resolution, coping with range of light intensity, night vision as well as day vision, etc.)! And this must be done under the constraints of embryonic development.
The retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity! More than that, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons. Modern photographic film has an dynamic range of only 1000 to one. Even specialist equipment hasn’t anywhere near the dynamic range of the eye, and I have considerable experience in state-of-the-art supersensitive photomultipliers. My Ph.D. thesis and published papers in secular journals largely involve a technique called Raman spectroscopy, which analyses extremely weak scattering at a slightly different frequency from that of the incident laser radiation. The major equipment hazard for Raman spectroscopists is scanning at the incident frequency — the still weak Rayleigh scattering at the same frequency would blow the photomultiplier (the newer ones have an automatic shut-off). I managed to safely scan the Rayleigh line (for calibration) only by using filters to attenuate the intensity of light entering the photomultiplier by a factor of 10–7–10–8. But having to take such an extreme safety precaution made me envious and admiring of the way the eye is so brilliantly designed to cope with a far wider range of intensities.
Another amazing design feature of the retina is the signal processing that occurs even before the information is transmitted to the brain. For example, a process called edge extraction enhances the recognition of edges of objects. Dr John Stevens, an associate professor of physiology and biomedical engineering, pointed out that it would take ‘a minimum of a hundred years of Cray [supercomputer] time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times each second.’ [Byte, April 1985]. And the retina’s analog computing needs far less power than the digital supercomputers and is elegant in its simplicity. Once again, the eye outstrips any human technology, this time in another area.
Someone who does know about eye design is the ophthalmologist Dr George Marshall, who said:
‘The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.’
Whale hip bones: Hip bones in whales
Some evolutionists claim that these bones show that whales evolved from land animals. However, Bergman and Howe point out that they are different in male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help with reproduction (copulation).
Human appendix: The human appendix
It is now known that the human appendix contains lymphatic tissue and helps control bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the upper end of the alimentary canal, which are known to fight throat infections. Tonsils also were once thought to be useless organs.
Human tail: From whales to human tails
Even if these poorly documented accounts are true, a fist-sized bump on the side of a whale, with bony tissue inside, bears little resemblance to the report by the popular evolutionist Bakker, quoted earlier. Sadly, many people are being given the idea that there is good scientific evidence of modern whales being born with complete legs dangling from their sides! It seems as if this particular ‘evidence’ for evolution is about the same as that of the occasional human babies which are born with an abnormal lump of fat close to the base of the spine. In spite of the fact that these lumps have no tail-like structures in them, and are often not even on the mid-line, they are still frequently claimed to be ‘throw-backs’ to an alleged evolutionary ancestor with a tail!
The changes required in the evolutionary belief system for a land animal to become a whale are incredibly complex and far reaching. Evolutionist Anthony Martin explains:
‘Principally it meant developing a new mode of locomotion (from walking to swimming), a physiology to cope with a dense medium (water rather than air), new methods of detecting and catching prey, and a means of breathing efficiently at the sea surface.
‘This adaptation was achieved by changing every part of the body, particularly the head … As well as changes to the head, adaptation to an aquatic way of life brought about fundamental alterations to the rest of the body.’3
By contrast, there is nothing about the anatomy of modern whales, including the occasional minor abnormalities, which is difficult to incorporate into a creationist understanding of their origins. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator-made-flesh, indicated in Mark 10:6 that people were made ‘from the beginning of the creation’ (not billions of years after the beginning). Whales, along with other creatures of the sea, were made just one day earlier.4 The same God Who is able to raise a person from the dead was easily able to accomplish this.
Lets just knock all this other junk out too: Ligers and wholphins? What next?
Crazy mixed-up animals … what do they tell us? They seem to defy man-made classification systems — but what about the created ‘kinds’ in Genesis?
by Don Batten
If we can cross-breed a zebra and a horse (to produce a ‘zorse’), a lion and a tiger (a liger or tigon), or a (false) killer whale and a dolphin (a wholphin), what does this tell us about the original kinds of animals that God created?
The Bible tells us in Genesis chapter 1 that God created plants to produce seed ‘after their kind’ (vv. 11, 12). God also created the animals to reproduce ‘after their kind’ (vv. 20, 24, 25). ‘After their/its kind’ is repeated ten times in Genesis 1, giving emphasis to the principle. And we take it for granted. When we plant a tomato seed, we don’t expect to see a geranium pop up out of the ground. Nor do we expect that our dog will give birth to kittens or that Aunt Betty, who is expecting, will bring home a chimpanzee baby from hospital! Our everyday experience confirms the truth of the Bible that things produce offspring true to their kind.
But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept. (See aside below .)
Finding the created kinds
From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. Linnaeus recognised this, but named many species2 without any breeding experiments, on the basis of such things as flower characteristics. In his mature years he did extensive hybridization (cross-breeding) experiments and realised that his ‘species’ concept was too narrow for the species to be considered as created kinds; he thought that the genus perhaps corresponded better with the created kind.3,4
Even today, creationists are often misrepresented as believing that God created all the species we have today, just like they are today, in the beginning. This is called ‘fixity of species’. The Bible does not teach this. Nevertheless, university professors often show students that a new ‘species’ has arisen in ferment flies, for example, and then claim that this disproves the Genesis account of creation. Darwin made this very mistake when he studied the finches and tortoises on the Galapagos islands. (He also erred in assuming that creation implied that each organism was made where it is now found; but from the Bible it is clear that today’s land-dwelling vertebrates migrated to their present locations after the Flood.)
If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species!
In the case of three species, A, B and C, if A and B can each hybridize with C, then it suggests that all three are of the same created kind — whether or not A and B can hybridize with each other. Breeding barriers can arise through such things as mutations. For example, two forms of ferment flies (Drosophila) produced offspring that could not breed with the parent species.5 That is, they were a new biological ‘species’. This was due to a slight chromosomal rearrangement, not any new genetic information. The new ‘species’ was indistinguishable from the parents and obviously the same kind as the parents, since it came from them.
Following are some examples of hybrids that show that the created kind is often at a higher level than the species, or even the genus, named by taxonomists.
Mules, zeedonks and zorses
Zonkeys are the result of a cross between a Zebra and a Donkey (left above). ‘Tigger’ (above ), belongs to Camilla Maluotoga, from New Mexico in the USA, and is the name she gave to this cross between a Horse and a Zebra, known as a Zorse.
Crossing a male ass (donkey — Equus asinus) and a horse (Equus caballus) produces a mule (the reverse is called a hinny). Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also readily occur.
Some creationists have reasoned that because these hybrids are sterile, the horse, ass and zebra must be separate created kinds. However, not only does this go beyond the biblical text, it is overwhelmingly likely that horses, asses and zebras (six species of Equus) are the descendants of the one created kind which left the Ark. Hybridization itself suggests this, not whether the offspring are fertile or not. Infertility in offspring can be due to rearrangements of chromosomes in the different species — changes such that the various species have the same DNA information but the chromosomes of the different species no longer match up properly to allow the offspring to be fertile. Such (non-evolutionary) changes within a kind can cause sterility in hybrids.
Ligers
The Created Cat Kind
Possible history of cats since Creation. Speciation (based on pre-existing created genetic information) probably occurred faster after the Flood due to greater environmental pressures, isolation due to migration of small populations, and many unoccupied ecological niches.
A male African lion (Panthera leo) and a female tiger (Panthera tigris) can mate to produce a liger. The reverse cross produces a tigon. Such crossing does not normally happen in the wild because most lions live in Africa and most tigers live in Asia. Also, lions and tigers just don’t mix; they are enemies in the wild. However, the Institute of Greatly Endangered and Rare Species, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (USA), raised a lion and a tigress together. Arthur, the lion, and Ayla, the tigress, became good friends and bred to produce Samson and Sudan, two huge male ligers. Samson stands 3.7 m (12 feet) tall on his hind legs, weighs 500 kg (1,100 lbs) and can run at 80 km/hr (50 mph).
Lions and tigers belong to the same genus, Panthera, along with the jaguar, leopard and snow leopard, in the subfamily Felinae. This subfamily also contains the genus Felis, which includes the mountain lion and numerous species of smaller cats, including the domestic cat. The cheetah, genus Acinonyx, belongs to a different subfamily.6 Thus the genera Panthera, Felis and Acinonyx may represent descendants of three original created cat kinds, or maybe two: Panthera-Felis and Acinonyx, or even one cat kind. The extinct sabre-tooth tiger may have been a different created kind (see diagram at right).
The Panthera cats lack a hyoid bone at the back of the tongue, compared to Felis. Acinonyx has the hyoid, but lacks the ability to retract its claws. So the differences between the cats could have arisen through loss of genetic information due to mutations (loss of the bone; loss of claw retraction). Note that this has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, which requires the addition of new information, not loss of information (which is to be expected in a fallen world as things tend to ‘fall apart’).
Kekaimalu the wholphin
In 1985, Hawaii’s Sea Life Park reported the birth of a baby from the mating of a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) — see photo below.7 The birth surprised the park staff, as the parents are rather different in appearance. Here we have a hybrid between different genera in the same family, Delphinidae (dolphins and killer whales).8 Since the offspring in this case are fertile (Kekaimalu has since given birth to a baby wholphin), these two genera are really, by definition, a single polytypic biological species.2 Other genera in the group are much more alike than the two that produced the offspring in Hawaii, which suggests that the 12 living genera might have all descended from the original created kind.
Rama the cama
Veterinarians in the United Arab Emirates successfully cross-bred a camel and a llama. The ‘cama’, named ‘Rama’, has the cloven hooves of a llama and the short ears and tail of a camel. The scientists hope to combine the best qualities of both into the one animal — the superior fleece and calmer temperament of the llama with the larger size of the camel.
‘Genae’ the snake — the live, healthy offspring of snakes from two different genera (see main text).
Genae the hybrid snake
‘Genae’ (pictured right) resulted from a cross between an albino corn snake (Elaphe guttata) and an albino king snake (Lampropeltis triangulum) in a reptile park in California.9 Apparently, this particular intergeneric hybrid is fertile. Genae is almost four years old and already 1.4 m (4½ ft) long. The parent snakes belong to the same snake family, Colubridae; the success of this hybrid suggests that the many species and genera of snakes in this family today could have all originally come from the same created kind.
Other hybrids
With the cattle kind, seven species of the genus Bos hybridize, but so also does the North American buffalo, Bison bison, with Bos, to produce a ‘cattalo’. Here the whole family of cattle-type creatures, Bovidae, probably came from an original created cattle kind which was on the Ark.10
Plant breeders have bred some agriculturally important plants by hybridizing different species and even genera. For example, triticale, a grain crop, came from a cross of wheat (Triticum) and rye(Secale), another fertile hybrid between genera.
During my years as a research scientist for the government in Australia, I helped create a hybrid of the delicious fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), which both belong to the same family.11 I also studied the hybrids of six species of the custard apple family, Annonaceae. Each of these two family groupings, recognised by botanists today, probably represents the original created kinds.
The delicious fruit species, lychee (left) and longan (right) hybridize, despite being different genera.
God created all kinds, or basic types, of creatures and plants with the ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in the beginning, through the marvellous reproductive method created by God. Since the Fall (Genesis 3), some variations also occurred through degenerative changes caused by mutations (e.g. loss of wing size in the cormorants of the Galápagos Islands).
The variations allow for the descendants of the created kinds to adapt to different environments and ‘fill the earth’, as God commanded. If genera represent the created kinds, then Noah took less than 20,000 land animals on the Ark; far fewer if kinds occasionally gave rise to families. From these kinds came many ‘daughter species’, which generally each have less information (and are thus more specialized) than the parent population on the Ark. Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information) does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates ‘evolution happening’, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.
Understanding what God has told us in Genesis provides a sound foundation for thinking about the classification of living things, as Linnaeus found, and how the great diversity we see today has come about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh for FSM sake, why do you bother arguing with this deranged idiot?
.
.
.
.
Nothing you say, no matter how his crap arguments fail on all levels or how clearly you demonstrate his follies will he ever except whats true over what he believes (belief being the key word)
No, if you can prove your position true…I’ll consider it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmm… a cross… an empty tomb… perhaps a shroud… inscriptions… Luke.
.
We have much more evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yeah, lets just ignore all of that Historical testimony (which would pass in a court of law) and all of Archeaology, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmm… a cross… an empty tomb… perhaps a shroud… inscriptions… Luke.
.
We have much more evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Yeah, lets just ignore all of that Historical testimony (which would pass in a court of law) and all of Archeaology, right? For that matter, lets just ignore all of Modern Day Science while we’re at it too, since it requires WORDS to demonstrate what the facts are, (do fossils speak?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If your talking about the shroud of Turin how is that proof? you find a old shroud claim it is Jesus’s and whoopy its suddenly proof.
We have found inscriptions with names of hundreds of mythic heros from Greek empire claiming great deeds, so what?
Again a cross and an empty toom? OMFSM really crosses in roman times well I never! and an empty tome well suddenly all the evidence is stacked against me. This is proof of nothing.
.
Some fool called Luke manages to either lie or get fooled and you are suddenly convinced Jesus did exist. So how did this Luke know Mary was a virgin? did he ask her?
.
If this is all the proof you require for Jesus Christ then I’d love to be a conman around your area. I’d try to sell you a piece of the “true cross”. Honestly you should read that back to yourself, as it has to be a joke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why stop there…Lets just ignore the purpose and value of life in itself. Why do we do the things we do, and can’t seem to think of otherwise why we’d do them. Morality? Where does that come from?
Let me give you a hint, its not the individual or sociocultural factors!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If your talking about the shroud of Turin how is that proof? you find a old shroud claim it is Jesus’s and whoopy its suddenly proof.
We have found inscriptions with names of hundreds of mythic heros from Greek empire claiming great deeds, so what?
Again a cross and an empty toom? OMFSM really crosses in roman times well I never! and an empty tome well suddenly all the evidence is stacked against me. This is proof of nothing.
.
Some fool called Luke manages to either lie or get fooled and you are suddenly convinced Jesus did exist. So how did this Luke know Mary was a virgin? did he ask her?
.
If this is all the proof you require for Jesus Christ then I’d love to be a conman around your area. I’d try to sell you a piece of the “true crossâ€. Honestly you should read that back to yourself, as it has to be a joke.
Okay, using this logic, you find an old fossil, and try to test its DNA through a test tube, how is that evidence?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If your talking about the shroud of Turin how is that proof? you find a old shroud claim it is Jesus’s and whoopy its suddenly proof.
We have found inscriptions with names of hundreds of mythic heros from Greek empire claiming great deeds, so what?
Again a cross and an empty toom? OMFSM really crosses in roman times well I never! and an empty tome well suddenly all the evidence is stacked against me. This is proof of nothing.
.
Some fool called Luke manages to either lie or get fooled and you are suddenly convinced Jesus did exist. So how did this Luke know Mary was a virgin? did he ask her?
.
If this is all the proof you require for Jesus Christ then I’d love to be a conman around your area. I’d try to sell you a piece of the “true crossâ€. Honestly you should read that back to yourself, as it has to be a joke.
Okay, using this logic, you find an old fossil, and try to test its DNA and C-14 through a test tube, how is that evidence?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I give, it’s wearing me out. He seems to be a member of the camp of “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with TONS of bulls**t”.
.
Besides the pages takes forever to load now..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An empty tomb would pass in a court of law to prove that someone has risen from the dead? Please keep on writing (or rather copying and pasting), you ARE entertaining.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An empty tomb would pass in a court of law to prove that someone has risen from the dead? Please keep on writing (or rather copying and pasting), you ARE entertaining.
No, but 11 people dying for a known lie would not occur. And they had opportunities to not do it as well.
Not to mention, Luke would have been crucified by the Romans for telling a lie, and he died in Ancient Greece.
Furthermore, the final problem with this is that if this had been a lie, no one would have had any reason to become a part of it. Just parade the body throughout Rome for everyone to see. No body, but many people changed their lives, (Including Saul, who once tortured and killed Christians for fun, became a Christian himself).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I give, it’s wearing me out. He seems to be a member of the camp of “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with TONS of bulls**tâ€. (speaking of which…had time to look in the mirror lately?)
.
Besides the pages takes forever to load now..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My first obsavation when I heard news of the shroud of Turin, it shows a man who is around 6 foot or slightly over. Now if Jesus was 6 foot why the hell would Judas need to kiss him, so the Romans would know who he was? He could have just said “He’s the bastard about a foot taller than every other fucker!”
.
the earth 6000 years old, lol you moron lol. Honestly I am sat behind my computer laughing my head off at you! Only a complete fool could believe this. Seriously get a clue, even if carbon dating is proven to be false, we have serveral other dating techniques, but lets say that all of them do prove to be fake. Well we still have Geology to back us up, you have heard that certain land masses was once a huge land mass and has split, now if the earth was only 6000 years old they’d have had to move at a great speed to get into the present position.
.
There is NO evidence that states the world is only 6000 years old, only a few morons who don’t have a clue it is as simple as that. It is not even a point scientist bother arguing about.
.
I have to say that you must be the most very foolish if you actually believe the world is only 6000 years old.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“An empty tomb would pass in a court of law to prove that someone has risen from the dead?”
.
Fuck me I’d hate to go to any court of law where that passes off as proof.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My first obsavation when I heard news of the shroud of Turin, it shows a man who is around 6 foot or slightly over. Now if Jesus was 6 foot why the hell would Judas need to kiss him, so the Romans would know who he was? He could have just said “He’s the bastard about a foot taller than every other fucker!†(This is a complete red herring, how tall were people in the middle ages? OH WAIT, you don’t know.)
.
the earth 6000 years old, lol you moron lol. Honestly I am sat behind my computer laughing my head off at you! Only a complete fool could believe this. Seriously get a clue, even if carbon dating is proven to be false, we have serveral other dating techniques, but lets say that all of them do prove to be fake. Well we still have Geology to back us up, you have heard that certain land masses was once a huge land mass and has split, now if the earth was only 6000 years old they’d have had to move at a great speed to get into the present position.
.
There is NO evidence that states the world is only 6000 years old, only a few morons who don’t have a clue it is as simple as that. It is not even a point scientist bother arguing about.
.
I have to say that you must be the most very foolish if you actually believe the world is only 6000 years old.
Okay, where’s the evidence that its older? Mind you, I’ve debunked your dating methods to where at max, they can find evidence for perhaps….11,530 years back. And you’re still using circular reasoning with Evolution to prove Evolution.
By the way, if Evolution is true, how come language is more complex from ancient times, than it is today.
And what do you make of the 2nd law of thermodynamics being violated? Or is this okay too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(speaking of which…had time to look in the mirror lately?)
.
Nope to busy wading through that pile of crap you posted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“An empty tomb would pass in a court of law to prove that someone has risen from the dead?â€
.
Fuck me I’d hate to go to any court of law where that passes off as proof.
Well lets see here. I think this sounds like a Pharisee objection (found in the Bible). So was the body stolen? No, too many Roman guards around the tomb.
Or perhaps, Jesus was a Liar, Lunatic or Lord? Would you like to go there with me….cause I’d highly doubt you’d want to mess with me here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(speaking of which…had time to look in the mirror lately?)
.
Nope to busy wading through that pile of crap you posted.
I’d say, unless you wish to be ostracized, to keep your pile of crap to yourself unless you have something useful to add here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Furthermore, the final problem with this is that if this had been a lie, no one would have had any reason to become a part of it.”
.
There are lots of reasons to become part of a lie. Especially when the most powerful people of the era have been part of this lie too.
It’s sad but true that millions of people have been dying for lies – and they still do today. If you are gasping for evidence/examples again, use Iraq.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Okay, using this logic, you find an old fossil, and try to test its DNA and C-14 through a test tube, how is that evidence? ”
.
You are right this alone is not enough, that is why the have geologists to age the rocks around them. They also use fossils found in the ice, and you know that they can tell the age of the ice through various methods.
.
Now if all these different methods match up then they have effectively aged the fossil. But if just one of the above (and more which I am unsure of) is out then a question mark is put on the evidence. Science is obsessive about testing results using several methods, religion fails to use any.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Legal Historical proof is strong enough to assert that Jesus did what was claimed that he did do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d say, unless you wish to be ostracized, to keep your pile of crap to yourself unless you have something useful to add here.
.
Bite me you little twit..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0