"Yet another red herring argument Dan."

Not at all, nor have you demonstrated such. A world view which is inconsistant with itself cannot be true. This is logical thinking....


"Not surprising in the least - especially when you consider the degree of myopia you've exhibited towards every argument that's been set before you re. evolution."

Since you have been on this particular tribe, which has not been long at all, no arguments for evolution have been advanced that I am aware of. btw, I am farsighted.

"Your intellectually bankrupt and superstitious/mythological belief system as an explanation for a concept that you've not grasp of has become nothing less than a parody of intellectual integrity."

I hope you are not kidding yourself here into believing that you actually stated something meaningful here. Creation is a rational belief based upon observations of the physical world and human experience. That you believe the bible to be superstition doesn't make it so in the least. Nor does it comport to known archeological evidence. It is just a prejudice of your own without merit. I could easily straighten you out here, but I fear you are incapable of learning.

"That you continually buttress your positions on faith as a substitute for 'proof' makes further attempts at real dialogue and substantive disagreement impossible."

I am not buttressing anything here on faith. I have made no attempt to hide the fact that I believe in biblical creation. But I don't no consider my faith evidence of its worthiness. Yes, the bible is true, but I don't expect you to believe it because I say so. I do expect a rational person to understand sound logic and set aside their foolish prejudices to embrace it.

"Your crippled approach in discussion the intricacies and nuances of evolution are probably best expressed here:

preview.tinyurl.com/lao59s"

I am not interested in your link crutches, I am interested in your ability to advance an argument, or at least a rebuttal. So far, all you have offered here on this tribe is attacks and a few cheers for my opponents. Lay down your pom poms and lets talk. Refute my argument that evolutionists borrow from biblical creation, if you can.

"If one substitutes the word 'supernatural' with the words 'God' or 'Creationism' I believe that one would be hard pressed to find a discernible distinction between your agonizingly faulty logic and the examples set forth in the video."

again, I am not the least bit interested in your video. Watch it, and see if you can advance an argument from having listened to it, then offer it up in your own words. I am beginning to feel you cannot think for yourself.

Grim: --> There are series of transitional fossils. More transitional fossils are found now and then, leaving a larger number of smaller gaps every time. The series leading to the first horse is well established. Another fossil demonstrating the needed physiology to transfer from water to land was found a while back. If you demand a sample from every generation, that series will never be found, but if you accept gradual changes, then there are a number of different series already. Without stating this criteria, the claim that there are, or are not, transitional fossils becomes vague. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tran...nal_fossil


you say you believe in "peer review", then you cite wikipedia for support. Amazing. Your statement above demonstrates the circular reasoning of evolutionism. "if you accept gradual changes, then there are a number of different series already". The horse series is a perfect case in point. The horse series was constructed from fossils found in many different parts of the world, and nowhere does this "succession" occur in one location.

The number of ribs varies within the series, up and down, between 15, 19, and 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six.

There is no consensus on horse ancestry among palaeontologists, and more than a dozen different family trees have been proposed, indicating that the whole thing is only guesswork.

Furthermore, Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska USA*, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other. *National Geographic, January 1981, p. 74.

Grim: There are information gaining mutations. The most obvious single step mutation is the inclusion of a set of information from another genetic source. Bacteria do this all the time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hori...e_transfer

You would do well to learn to distinguish between observational evidence for evolution and the presupposition of evolution masquarading as evidence. There is no observational evidence provided here in wikipedia...

Grim: We are coming to find that the Cambrian explosion, was not. As more Ediacaran/Vendian fossil biota are being discovered and studied, we realize that while the Cambrian may have been a period of great growth, it actually had it's start before that. Some creatures flourished before, and died out during the Cambrian. Some changed and flourished. Most finds are comparatively recent, and therefore comparatively less well researched than Cambrian finds, which also benefit from higher quality finds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendian.


The term "cambrian explosion" was a term coined by evolutionists to describe this amazing phenomena Grim. What makes it so amazing is that every known phyla are represented during this period! This means the effectively, all major evolution occurred here. In addition, there are no transitional forms leading up to any of these major phyla, none!. It is not enough to find that a few so-called "precambrian" fossils have been found. Simply finding an organism beneath this explosion does not prove descent and these organisms are unique in and of themselves! Nor does the excuse work that transitions didn't fossilize as we have many fossil representatives of soft bodied animals! The only reason for removing the term "explosion" is the concern that this term gives creationists a powerful argument against evolution nonsense. But putting lip stick on a pig changes nothing....

"I believe that your logic claim is best explained by the anthropic principle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anth..._principle "

Actually, no. The argument I am advancing is that since evolution and creation are world views they must be self consistent logically. Evolution doesn't pass the logic test because if evolution is true, we cannot know anything at all! The reason is that we must rely upon our 5 senses to know things and evolution posits a creation comprised of random mutations. Our brains are a compiliation of mistakes! Only biblical creation explains logic, an orderly comprehensible universe etc.. So when an evolutionist argues for descent with modification, he must argue against himself since he must borrow from the creation world view to advance his own. This is self refuting. It gets worse however, more later...

"If this argument were valid, it would lead to endless regress; assuming "God" is some kind of orderly system that "makes sense" we must then assume only a "thinking rational being" could be responsible for such a system."

You are avoiding the point Rene. You have no reason to know anything at all if you assume evolution. You are the product of blind chance mistakes and thus all of science would be called into question, the very foundations of which assume an orderly knowable logical universe. On the other hand, a logical orderly universe is predicted ONLY by the biblical creation world view. So, in conclusion, the evolution world view is inconsistent and self contradictory, therefore it must be wrong.

"Your characterization of evolution as nothing but "blind chance" shows a deep misunderstanding of the processes being invoked. Evolution uses variation initiated by random events to optimize organisms to changing environments."

random and blind chance are essentially the same thing. At the root of evolution is chance, random mutations. This is generally agreed upon and has been stated many times, even by yourself above. (btw, variation does not move evolution, it cannot. The only thing which can move fish to philosopher evolution are random information gaining mutations.)

"One could view this process as the environment designing the organism, and the environment is not a result of blind chance, but rather the end result of many deterministic processes."

there is no proof or evidence in nature that natural laws will invariably lead to evolution of life on earth. The opposite is the case. Evolution is a known violation of numerous laws of science. The view that the biosphere was self created by a "forces of nature" is unproven and unprovable. You simply believe it, in spite of the evidence.


"The funny part from my view is that you do understand that organisms adapt to their environments, unlike earlier creationists (how could you not, as the evidence is for this is everywhere) but claim these adaptions could not lead to diversification of "types", although you cannot explain how such changes could fail to produce diversification of "types". Note I said "types"; this is of course because the diversification of new species has been observed and thus "knowledgeable" creationists must fall back to the idea of original, immutable "types", that can change, but only to some limited degree."

I am not aware of any "earlier creationists" who didn't recognize that organisms change Rene. Some earlier creationships denied speciation and a few still do, but this "concession" is not really problematic at all since no one really knows what a "species is". Birds which are found in different locations, are completely interbreadable, are often called different species. So the term is someone useless.

But I think you misunderstand the creationist position. Creationists accept the biblical narrative which states that there were original "kinds" (or "types" as you call it). From these kinds all species we see today descended. Changes most definitely have occured and as you say, are obvious. We can replicate similar rapid changes in the field of genetics. These descendants have not gained anything new over their predecessors. But they have lost information along the way.

It is not hard to see that while the "original immutable types" can vary, that variation is governed by the limits of their genome. Thus dogs coyotes wolves etc are all from the same created type, but there is no relation between the dog kind and the cat kind. That a Loving wise God would create organism with the ability to adapt is predicted. He commanded them to multiply and fill all available niches. Change would therefore be necessary.

What you have done here Rene is to confirm that creationists, when confronted with factual observational evidence, embrace it! Which of course they do, because they are scientists! Because they are also committed to biblical truth, they seek to see how observations in nature can compliment scripture, and they are happy to see that they compliment each other nicely.

The problem is that the evolution model goes way beyond observational evidence to conclude things which cannot be observed at all. What can be observed squares nicely with the creation model, but is at odds with evolution models (despite the fact the evolution models are also in conflict with one another. Some state no transistions exist and others that an abundance of transitions exists. Obviously they cannot both be correct.)

"What could limit the changes is never explained"

actually, what limits them is genetics. Genetic information does not create itself. In fact, information of anykind does not create itself. Your absure model of deterministic evolution is nothing but a 'fig nuten' of your imagination. In the real world, information is ALWAYS created by intelligence, always.

"it seems that creationists just feel this is what the bible tells them, but the fact is the bible has nothing to offer on this. Likewise the bible offers us nothing about the history of the earth and is not actually in conflict in any way with the "historical" science of geology or the theory of evolution."

so says Rene, but Rene would be quite incorrect here. The biblical narrative offers a fiat creation with all living things created in full form in 6 24 hour time periods. Jesus states that "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female". This statement proves that proper biblical interpretation demands a recent creation since it places man right at the beginning of time, not at the 11th hour of earth history as all college courses now teach.


"Creationism is not only bad science it is also bad religion failing to offer any reasonable explanations for what we observe in the natural world and failing to offer a meaningful and relevant picture of God, if such an entity exists."

this is not true. What you really mean is that it contradicts your interpretation of the natural world. There are no observations of the natural world which are necessarily in conflict with creationism. There are many which are in hopeless conflict with evolutionism. Neither is completely scientific, both are world views. Both are held to with ardor or faith.

Yet Creationism trumps evolutionism in that it is ultimately proven by logic. A world view cannot be in conflict with itself. Evolutionism is. A world view cannot borrow from a competing world view to support itself and use this information to attempt to defeat the competing world view. Evolution does this. All of this discussion is a waste of time because you cannot know anything at all if evolution is true. You would not be able to trust your own senses. The very foundations of science would be destroyed. This is why modern science arose in the historical heyday of Christianity, and why founders of nearly every branch of science were professing bible believing Christians. It was logical that this would be the case. Logic demands a Creator of a creation.

<ppffffttttttt....>

"The evolutionary world view is devoid of any basis for morality. Rene likes to talk about a morality which doen't hurt anyone and is best for all people. But this doesn't make any sense and is arbitrary. Moral precepts like, don't steal, don't lie, don't murder, and don't committ adultry, are meaningless to the evoutionist because evolution offers no morality. It is survival of the most fit, dog eat dog, kill or be killed. It is not immoral to be a tyrant or a killer, it is a good thing! This explains why the worlds most notorious tyrants were atheist evolutionists (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong etc.). To be moral, and of course many evolutionists and atheists are, they MUST borrow their morality from biblical Christianity. Thus the evolution world view leads to ignorance, illogic and immorality. It cannot be true."

Why do you keep referring to evolution as a way of life, it isnt. the only purpose evolution has ever had is its a scientific theory to help explain our origins, nothing else.

I love how every (& i mean EVERY) creationist calls Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong atheists. Hitler was a Roman Catholic which had a warped view of the world & had no influence from religion or science. Stalin & Mao of course were atheists but they didnt do the things they did in the name of Science (was mainly for Influence & resources) & kim jong-il & Kim Il-sung think they are gods.