Literal Genesis Trial Scam

I am grateful to Michael Zimmerman and others who have pointed out that the $10,000 prize offered to someone who proves evolution before a judge is (1) just the same guy who has made this offer in the past, (2) an offer from someone who does not understand what evolution is, (3) an offer that he backtracks on, and (3) the guy seems to be completely out of his mind.

Click through to read Michael Zimmerman’s Huffington Post article about his attempt to pursue the prize some years ago to learn more.

  • Brant Clements

    Thank you for this.

    I appreciated items 3 and 3 most of all. :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Pieret/100000023960330 John Pieret

    Heh!

    “Evolutionist hallucinators so out of touch with reality are psychotic by medical dictionary definition, and therefore not mentally competent to contend for the Life Science Prize.”

    So, basically, no matter how qualified you are in the science of evolution, if you accept evolution, you are not qualified to demonstrate that evolution is scientific. Well, running in such tight circles explains how his head wound up so high in his … um … nether regions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Babu-G-Ranganathan/1326164630 Babu G. Ranganathan

    ONLY LIMITED EVOLUTION POSSIBLE IN NATURE

    All real evolution in nature is within limits. The genes already exist for micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats,
    horses, cows, etc.), but not for macro-evolution (variations across
    biological kinds such as from sea sponge to human). The unthinking
    environment has no ability to design or program entirely new genes. Only
    variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. A dog
    will always be a dog no matter how many varieties come into being.

    Evolutionists hope and assume that, over millions of years, random mutations (accidental changes) in the genetic code caused by radiation from the environment will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits in species for natural selection to use, so that macro-evolution occurs. It’s much like hoping that, if given enough time, randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cook book will turn the book into a romance novel, or a book on astronomy!

    Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the
    fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A
    partially evolved trait or organ that is not complete and fully
    functioning from the start will be a liability to a species, not a
    survival asset. Plants and animals in the process of macro-evolution
    would be unfit for survival.

    Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the
    fins evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can’t use
    either fins or feet efficiently. These fish exist only on automobile
    bumper stickers!

    In fact, how could species have survived at all while their vital
    organs were supposedly evolving? Survival of the fittest (aka natural
    selection) may explain how species survive, due to minor variations and
    adaptations to the environment, but not how they originated. Natural
    selection doesn’t produce biological traits or variations. It can only
    “select” from biological variations that are possible. The real issue is
    what biological variations are possible, not natural selection.

    Genetic and biological similarities between species are no proof of common ancestry. Such similarities are better and more logically explained due to a common
    Genetic Engineer or Designer (yes, God) who designed similar functions
    for similar purposes in various species. Genetic information, like other
    forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it’s more rational to
    believe that DNA or genetic similarities between species are due to
    intelligent design.

    What about “Junk” DNA? The latest science shows that “Junk DNA” isn’t
    junk after all! It’s we who were ignorant of how useful these segments
    of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific
    journals such as Nature and RNA has revealed that the “non-coding”
    segments of DNA are essential in regulating gene expression (i.e. how,
    when, and where genes are expressed in the body).

    All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have
    ultimately been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not
    human and non-human.

    All species in the fossil record and living are complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. There’s no macro-evolution in nature.

    Visit my newest Internet sites, THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION and WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS (2nd Edition)

    Sincerely,
    Babu G. Ranganathan
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)

    Author of the popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition
    of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and
    science.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      re:
      Only variations of already existing genes and traits are possible.

      -=-=-=-

      there is at best minimal value in replying to such cut&paste spam, but to those who are interested in the biology, syncytin and several other co-opted viral genes are excellent counterexamples to this type of nonsense.

      horizontally transferred virus dna which has incorporated itself into another often a vertebrate genome, then being used to create another gene that in this case does something rather similar the the original viral protein. pretty cool. there is supposed to be a viral insertion backwards (5` switched with 3`) in the mammalian genome that was co-opted but i’ve never found a paper on it.

      the other word to use as a counter example is frameshift mutation.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I am very sorry to hear not only that you are gullible enough to believe things that charlatans post on the internet about evolution, but that you were also gullible enough to be taken in by a Who’s Who scam as well.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/09/beware-of-whos-who-scams.html

    • Ian

      Who on earth issues B.A. degrees in Bible/Biology?

      • Ian

        Bob Jones University, apparently. Figures.

      • rmwilliamsjr

        lol

        i graduated from ucsd, i have a ba in biology because my minor was hebrew literature-the Bible. just a fluke. if i had listed my other minor chem first it would have been a bs. my son did something similar at the uofa, majored in engineering but a 2nd major in fine arts so he got a ba rather than a bs.

        • Ian

          I stand corrected! So Baba did a couple of modules of biology in a religion degree, presumably.

    • Mary

      “Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the
      fins evolving into feet. Where’s the survival advantage? It can’t use
      either fins or feet efficiently”

      It is all about the environment they are in:

      “From these finds, it now appears that the four legs common to land animals today really evolved for another purpose: navigating swampy wetlands, not as a means of moving to land. But once on land, the animals found their limbs a survival advantage there, too. Evolution frequently produces adaptations that come to be useful in the future for a different purpose.”

      More info;

      “Fish with FingersPaleontologist Jenny Clack thought the textbook story of tetrapod evolution was implausible: How could fishlike creatures, stranded on land, somehow evolve limbs and survive to become the first tetrapods? The search for an answer took her to Greenland, where she found one of the earliest known tetrapods, called Acanthostega. With its fishlike tail and gills, it was certainly adapted to an aquatic environment, but its paddle-shaped fins end in tiny fingers. Vertebrates, it turns out, grew fingers before they left the sea. From Evolution: “Great Transformations”

      “The move to land was a very gradual process, and the evolution of limbs wasn’t a simple adaptation resulting from animals crawling onto the shore and never looking back. In fact, the new picture of this transition shows that most of the changes needed for life on dry land happened in creatures that were still living in the water. Some fishlike vertebrates had already begun to evolve limbs by around 400 million years ago: They were called “lobe-fins,” with fins that looked like fleshy paddles, and they had lungs as well as gills.”

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/1_034_03.html

    • Nick Gotts

      Imagine an evolving fish having part fins and part feet, with the
      fins evolving into feet.

      *sigh*
      It seems a shame to spoil such pristine ignorance, but you don’t need to imagine one, or even examine fossils from the Devonian period: Just take a gander at the mudskipper.

  • Tim

    It seems to me that those who have a belief in Evolution go to great lengths to avoid having to try and prove it is scientific. Should be an easy 10 Grand for some here.

    • rmwilliamsjr

      just as an intellectual exercise, explain how science can “prove” anything is true.

      • Tim

        I frankly do not think “science” can. What is truth?

    • Ian

      Cute, but there already was a trial, in front of a judge. Where plenty of evolutionary biologists testified. And evolution was ruled to be science, and creationism / ID to be religious pseudo-science. But as far as I know science never got its 10 grand.

      It must be nice to be living in your own fantasy world, Tim. Back in the reality-based community, the issue has long been settled.

      • http://www.facebook.com/misterthe Joe Das
        • Ian

          No, why?

          My books are far more niche and nerdy, unfortunately. Ian Stewart is pretty well known in popular science circles.

      • Tom

        Is there a link to this earlier trial? I want to retrieve it so I can get Creationists out of my face about how evolution is not true.

      • Tim

        “the issue has long been settled”
        Do you really think so?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          It has, because the evidence for evolution is so clear, and denied only by charlatans and those who do not know the relevant evidence well enough not to be deceived by them.

          • Tim

            No, James, it is so clear from your perspective. But from mine the evidence points to Creation, Fall and Flood. From my perspective the “charlatans” if you will are those who would preach Evolution.

            • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              Tim, the evidence does not point to a flood. You can claim it does all you want, and you can call those who are honest about the evidence all you want, but it does not change the facts. Why not stop with the namecalling and talk about the evidence?

              • Tim

                The evidence for a global flood does not point to a global flood to you because you have dismissed the fact that there was a global flood. Therefore, the evidence has to point to other reasons why we see what we see. It’s a matter of belief, James.

                • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  No, the evidence from geology simply doesn’t fit a global flood, and perhaps you do not understand enough geology to grasp why. So let’s discuss specifics. How were the famous White Cliffs of Dover formed, from your perspective?

                  • Tim

                    The evidence does fit a global flood, James.

                    Re: how the White Cliffs of Dover, I do not think that anyone knows for sure how they were formed. Do you? Were you there when they formed? Have you read anyone’s account who was there when they did?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      The rocks cry out. Creation itself testifies, but so,e stubbornly resist its testimony.

                      Let me see if I can figure out whether you are a troll or just someone who doesn’t think about the implications of what he writes.

                      Do the Gospels contain any factual information? How do you know?

                    • Tim

                      What do you means “the rocks cry out”? What are they crying to you?
                      What do you mean by “Creation”?
                      Who resists “it”‘s testimony?
                      I will ignore another degrading remark from you and attempt to answer your questions re: the Gospels, but before I can do this I need to know what you consider to be “factual information” and how you believe anyone can be sure that the “information” which he hears or reads is “factual”.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      You resist the testimony. We know what chalk is made from, and the evidence from huge chalk beds such as the Dover cliffs has clear and obvious significance, but you do not care enough about the Creator to treat the Creator as honest and study the Creator’s handiwork.

                      I asked what your view is on the factuality of information in the Gospels. Say what your view is, and how your conclusion is reached. Then I will gladly say more about my own if you wish me to.

                    • Cdbren

                      Chalk Cliffs again James? They were probably formed when millions of coccoliths died in the worldwide flood. Which also probably pushed up the ocean floor temporarily and made conditions right for coccolith production. (Superplume event?)

                      The flood (according to the Bible) lasted nearly an entire year. Plenty of time and the right conditions for “blooms” of coccoliths to be produced. The purity of the chalk also points to rapid formation. Plus the fact that we can find fossils in the highest chalk layers pointing to rapid death/burial of those fossilized creatures.

                      It is quite clear it was not and did not take place millions of years ago.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      You seem not to be interested in the biological or geological processes involved. The number of microorganisms that would be needed in this short period of time would require a miraculous action, as would their being all gathered together in one place and put under extreme pressure. All of this in a manner that exactly replicates what we would expect to find if the rock was produced over long periods of time through natural processes.

                      Why do you continue to reject the Biblical teaching that God is true and trustworthy, and instead make him in your own image as one who is as dishonest as you have been exposed to be on this blog in the past? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/12/more-evidence-that-creationists-are-charlatans.html

                    • Cdbren

                      I don’t reject anything in the Bible. Namely that God created everything in six days and that there was a Biblical flood. Written originally as recored history, not poetry or anything else.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      You treat the symbolic as literal and in the process deny the honesty and trustworthiness of the Creator. You can say that you don’t reject anything in the Bible, but that doesn’t make it true. I bet that even within Genesis 1 you reject the existence of a dome over the Earth. I bet you reject a literal understanding of Paul’s references to the heart as the location of human thought. Does your dishonesty know no bounds? If honesty is not central to your view of what it means to be a Christian, then what is? Why call yourself that, rather than inventing a new term like “liar for literalism” rather than demeaning Jesus by associating your dishonesty with his name?

                    • Ian

                      Oh look a testable prediction – one that can be done simply with raw materials from a regular biological stockist, and a domestic pressure cooker and stove. You can buy E huxleyi in bulk pretty cheaply, and it is easy to make nutrient and sediment rich brine in your kitchen.

                      So go ahead and generate a 320 foot column of chalk in one year, either as a whole, or find a combination of conditions that can generate 10 inches of chalk stone per day. You’re often telling scientists they need to replicate their claims. So you’re going to replicate yours?

                      It would cause quite a stir. Since there is no known mechanism that could do that, you’d have a bona fide scientific breakthrough on your hands, and rewrite the science of chalk deposits at the same time.

                      Go on cdbren, you can do it. Show us how science is supposed to be done!

                    • Cdbren

                      I believe I already explained it as happening in the worldwide flood. Now since we can’t recreate that event, nor witness it, nor test it, it is historical science. Same as looking at the cliff’s and saying it happened over millions of years.

                      Only difference is that one has some eyewitness historical backup while the other does not.

                      So your request of “Show us how real science is supposed to be done” is quite idiotic. Historical science does not fall under operational science which can easily be tested, repeated and observed.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      No, sorry, that’s absolute bunk. You can calculate all the depth of water you want to specify that there could have been, and anything else you care to, and see whether those conditions would produce chalk beds of the depth we find in various places around the world.

                      I’m curious whether your last paragraph, when taken together with your dismissals of evolution as “historical science,” indicate that flood geology is appropriately dismissed in the same manner?

                    • decathelite

                      I take it you have no problem asserting the miracles in the Quran, since someone was actually there to see Mohammed fly from Mecca to Jerusalem on a winged horse and thus it is historical science?

                    • cdbren

                      That was written by one man and not substantiated by anyone else.

                      The KJ Bible has many books by different authors, hundreds of years apart that substantiate the evidence as well as Jesus confirming that Moses’ writings were from God and that the events did happen.

                      Please don’t be naive.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      I am pretty sure that decathelite was trying to expose your inconsistency on this matter, which he or she accomplished beautifully. How do you know the books (in the KJ Bible? Really?!) were written hundreds of years apart? How do you know that one man wrote the Qur’an? Both claims involve historical reasoning that you reject whenever it suits you to do so.

                    • decathelite

                      So if only one person was there to see it, and no one else can substantiate it, it doesn’t count. Let’s scratch out Paul’s vision of Jesus on the Road to Damascus then, since no one else was there to see it. Paul also said 500 people saw Jesus resurrected, but can anyone else verify that claim? How about the earthquakes that resulted when Jesus was resurrected and the dead that roamed the street? Can any other author substantiate that?

                      The standard you use in judging will be the standard by which you will be judged. Matt 7:2

                      Best not to have a double standard, then.

                    • Ian

                      Nonsense, if chalk can form that fast, show us! Clearly if it takes millions of years, you can’t do it in a lab, but you say it takes just one year. So what is stopping you replicating it? Of course you won’t prove how the white cliffs of Dover formed, but I’m saying your mechanism is plain *impossible* – it could never work, your answer couldn’t *possibly* be correct, because it contradicts the laws of chemistry. The reasons why that explanation is simply *incompatible* with the evidence.

                      You claim, against the scientific consensus, that 300+ feet of chalk stone *can* form from a rich coccolith sea in a year. That claim is perfectly testable. So do it!

                      This isn’t historical science. You are claiming *it is possible* for chalk to form that fast. So show us!

                    • cdbren

                      I thought you were smarter than that Ian. How could the elements of a worldwide flood, along with subduction, be replicated? How can conditions in the past that we can’t know about be replicated?

                      You seem to have a poor understanding of science or you are in denial that a worldwide flood did and can happen. The real reason scientists claim it isn’t possible is because they do not believe the historical flood account and also discount the scientific left over evidence that it happened.

                      A worldwide flood that deposited sediment and fossils rapidly, raised the ocean floor temporarily, deposited chalk cliffs, and broke up continents does not contradict modern chemistry.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      What a despicable person you are, engaging in this level of dishonesty! What Ian asked you for is evidence of how, within the period of a year that is the maximum length of the alleged global flood, the large number of microorganisms could have been produced, gathered in one place, and compressed into rock.

                      And while you deny that you can answer such questions about the past (simply because, although the answer can be given, you don’t like the answer that results), you continue to make claims about a global flood even while saying that such deductions about the past are impossible.

                      Why are you so determined to discredit the Christian faith? What will it take to get you to stop?

                    • Ian

                      I’m not asking you to replicate the conditions of a worldwide flood. I’m asking you to demonstrate that chalk rock can form as quickly as you claim it can. That’s all.

                      You can claim otherwise, but scientists think that forming 300ft of chalk stone in a year does contradict modern chemistry. Perhaps they’re wrong, perhaps it is their anti-God bias that is causing them to believe such stuff.

                      Which is why I’m asking you to do the chemical experiment to show *it is possible*. Not to show it actually happened, just show us it is possible. That’s all. Simple. You can do it at home, can’t you? What’s stopping you?

        • Ian

          Yes – the specific issue in the Original post has been settled – the questions were put before a judge and the verdict was made that evolution was a science and ID/creationism was not.

          Of course there are plenty of people who do not agree with that verdict. There are plenty of people who deny all kinds of things: the holocaust, the 9/11 attacks, the nationality of Obama, the moon landings, and so on. I couldn’t care less if you want to deny any of those things.

          You seem to be making rather a feature of denying easily checkable reality here.

          • Tim

            By the way, I do not consider Evolution or Creationism to be “science”. They are Beliefs about the past and how all things came into being. One Belief does not need God and the other does. I believe in the God of Genesis, because I believe in Jesus who saved me.
            Do you believe in Jesus as your Savior, Ian. I have asked others here who do not like such a personal question. But it is a very relevant question in this discussion and to one who believes he should be ready at a given moment to confess his/her faith.
            How Bout you, Ian?

            Please tell me what is “easily checkable reality’?

            • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              Tim, since you have already acknowledged that you are determined to make assertions without showing the least interest in studying the evidence (e.g. The evidence of chalk beds like the White Cliffs of Dover) I can only treat your last comment as further evidence that you are a troll. You have been directed to evidence and indicated that you do not care.

              If you wish to be unbanned, you will need to contact me and provide some evidencethat your trollish behavior is going to stop. But until then, I will not allow you to simply waste the time of my very patient and well-informed blog readers.

              Should you be interested, here is my brief treatment of how Jesus understood Genesis 2: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/08/did-jesus-understand-genesis-2-literally.html

              Of course, if you do not accept that evidence in the present can tell us about the past, then you have no way of knowing whether Jesus said anything on the subject or not. Your views are at odds with the very core of Christianity, as well as science and history.

              • cdbren

                Tim, historical written evidence is far different than trying to determine past environmental conditions.

                I am sure you are aware of coccolithophore blooms which can produce a thousand billion, billion coccoliths rather than the normal millions. Also that certain conditions can rapidly calcify coccoliths and that about 80% dissolve before forming into sediments under normal conditions.

                http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/biogeochemistry.html

                • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  Again, be consistent please. Either one can do studies of coccoliths and show that huge chalk deposits such as we find on our planet could have been produced by a global flood, or one cannot. Either the results of such studies, which indicate that the White Cliffs of Dover would not be produced by a year-long global flood, should shape our viewpoint, or they should not. But citing scientific studies as though they do not undermine your viewpoint is just more dishonesty. How long will you keep this up? If you jettison the Bible’s teaching on truthfulness in order to defend what you think it says about creation, it is self-defeating.

            • decathelite

              What is missing in your analysis is your misconception that evolution does not require God. Evolution is a mechanism that describes the process by which life has differentiated itself on Earth. Evolution is an answer to question “How did God make life on Earth?”. Another answer is “Magic”. Which of those answers has better explanatory power?

              If you were to ask, “How does a watch tell time?”, which of these is a better answer?

              1. The hands on the watch are connected to gears, each of which have a specific number of cogs that are bound to a coiled spring that, when wound, releases its stored potential energy at regular intervals so as to move gears, and thus the hands of the watch, to the numbers around the face of the watch at regular intervals.

              2. The watch tells time due to a supernatural being exerting a mystical force on it.

              The first answer is a more useful explanation that says nothing about the existence or non existence of a supernatural being. The second answer lacks a mechanism and is thus not very useful in understanding how a watch works.

              It’s been said before (on this blog, no less) that creationism undermines Christianity by saying, “it’s not enough to believe that Jesus was God and died for your sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day. You must eschew evolution and declare that the process of how God made us will forever be a mystery in order for you to be truly saved.”

              • Tim

                The god who “creates” by Evolution is not the God Almighty of Scripture at all. It is another god altogether.

                • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  What a bizarre statement. First, if you are a monotheist, there is no other god. Second, to say that an almighty God cannot have created a particular way is to attempt to constrain the Almighty. Third, if one is a literalist then God is not consistently depicted as almighty in Scripture. Why create in six days if you can do it instantaneously? Why tell the earth and sea to bring forth living things? Why unleash chaos in a flood to punish humans when you could just will them out of existence?

                  I am happy to let you post again, having unbanned you, but I really do expect you to (1) think about what you write, and (2) justify your claims rather than offering mere assertions.

                  • Tim

                    1. You are wrong about those who believe in one god worshiping the same. For one, Muslims do not worship Jesus Christ as God.
                    2. It is God Almighty who said how He created. And I believe what He said.
                    3. I do not know why He created in six days, or whay He spoke forth living things from the water and earth, or why He destroyed the earth by water, but that is what He said He did, and what was confirmed by Jesus and the apostles.
                    James, I really did not expect to post here again and I do not like showing any disrespect towards you or anyone else here. But I believe that you and others have shown disrespect to me. Even for you to suggest I am not thinking about what I write is quite disrespectful. I have thought long and hard on these things for many years and so have others who agree with me. If you want to ban me, call me a troll, that is up to you. It is your blog. But if I am given a chance I want to proclaim the truth of God’s Word and Jesus Christ.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      If you wanted to proclaim Jesus Christ, then you would not be constantly promoting teachings that can only be maintained through dishonesty and ignorance.

                      You claim that God Almighty said how he created. You presumably mean by this that you are treating ancient human writings as though they were written not by human beings but by God. And yet you refuse to accept the evidence from what God has created. And so I am sorry, but your claim to want to proclaim the truth of God’s Word is simply false, even though you may sincerely believe that that is what you are doing. If you say that the Bible rather than Christ is the Word of God, if you deny the clear teaching of Scripture that creation testifies accurately about God, and if you drive a wedge between Christian faith and the study of the natural world, you are a heretic and an apostate, and should not insist that your view should even count as a Christian view, never mind the Christian view.

                    • mroge

                      With all do respect Dr. McGrath, while I agree that creationists are wrong in their views, but to say that they are not Christians I think is going a bit far. Most of them are ignorant and many are guilty of lying, but the majority I think are well-meaning. I do share with you your disgust at people like Ken Ham, who knowingly spreads falsehood, but not every creationist fits that catagory. I think most of them simply can’t reconcile their belief in an inerrant bible, which they see as a requirement of their faith, with the testimony of science. I knew someone once who told me point blank that he could not see how a Christian could believe in evolution. I have no doubt that he was a sincere Christian.

                      As far as Tim is concerned, he is acting a bit trollish since he does not want to engage in a rational conversation about this, but to call him a heretic and apostate I think is wrong. I think he sincerely believes he is right. Only God can judge our hearts.

                      I do like your posts and I am an avid follower but I think sometimes you could be a bit more gentle in your approach. Of course I have found it difficult myself many times as well because I want to knock some sense into some people.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Unfortunately, young-earthy creationists tend to interpret gentleness as a sign of lack of conviction. And so as much as I detest interacting in this way, it seems to be a necessary sort of cross-cultural communication to reach those who mistake conviction for truth and the feeling of certainty for certainty justified by evidence.

                    • mroge

                      Dr. McGrath, I am sorry that I have to disagree on this point. I understand that you need to be firm about this. My problem is that it is not up to you to determine who is a Christian or not. My 85 year old dad is a wonderful example of a Christian. He is not very vocal about it and he lives his faith in a quiet way without fanfare. He does accept the evidence of an old earth, however he does not accept evolution. He misinterprets the second law of thermodynamics so he does not think it is possible. Since he is not pushy about his beliefs, I simply let him be.

                      I do get it that you are dealing with pushy people here, however taking a firm stand is not what I am objecting to. You are implying that someone like my dad is not a Christian by virtue of not accepting evolution. Maybe I am getting this wrong, but that is the impression I get from you.

                      I do however think that Tim is overstepping his bounds here because he is implying that you are not a Christian too. I don’t think it is appropriate to evangelize here. So I am not defending his behavior. It is annoying and rude.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Well, I was afraid that talking about what I am doing might undermine the point I was trying to make, but since I inadvertently insulted your father, let me come right out and say it: I don’t actually think that one cannot be a Christian and a young-earth creationist. In fact, I was in both categories. What I am really trying to do is see if I can get across to young-earth creationists that one could make the same sorts of claims about and to them that they make about and to others.

                      But it may be that I’ve taken it too far…

                    • mroge

                      Thanks for the clarification. I don’t want to be sounding like I am telling you what to do, but I want to point out that your plan can backfire with certain people like Tim. He buys into the infamous Christian martyr complex where he thinks that if he is insulted, then he is doing the work of God. I am not quite sure how to deal with people like that, but I have never succeeded in changing anyone who has that attitude. Just giving you a little food for thought..

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      When appeals to Scripture, reason, science, and morality all fail, one is dealing with a truly stiff-necked individual. The problem with the stiff-necked who also possess Scripture is that they rarely think that they are the sort of people that the Scriptural passages are warning about.

                    • mroge

                      I agree with you on that one. I feel like I am bashing my head on a brick wall when trying to deal with people like that. As far as I can tell Tim has not even looked at any of the references you and others have provided. Denialism at it’s worst! Creationists whine about how no one takes them seriously and yet they refuse to engage in any serious discussion. Tim has a very similiar attitude as the infamous “Dr.” T. If you want to ban Tim again I won’t object.

                    • Tim

                      James,
                      Yes, without apology I believe what is written in Genesis 1 about how created all things over a period of six days and that was even written on stone by His own finger as we read in Exodus. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” Yes, I believe that “all Scripture is inspired by God (lit. God breathed) and profitable…” 2 Tim 3:16. Jesus believed the Scriptures too, as did His apostles. Now, it seems to me that one who refuses to believe the Scriptures is out of step with God.
                      And as I look at the evidence, as you say, of all He has created it only confirms to me what is written in Genesis 1-11 concerning Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Confusion of tongues. So, I am well aware of the “evidence”. It is just that you interpret it all according to your religion and I according to Scripture and Jesus, the Word of God.
                      Call me an heretic and an apostate, if you will, for that has not been an uncommon charge brought against godly men in the history of the church. If believing Jesus and the Scriptures as authoritative on all matters about which they speak means I am an heretic then I am most glad to be one. All glory to Jesus and His Word. “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” Isa 40:8

                    • Beau Quilter

                      Tim,

                      You keep referring to Jesus AND the “Word of God”. Are you aware that, according to scripture, Jesus is the “Word”, not the Bible?

                      Are you aware that the Bible is never referred to as “the Word” or “the Word of God” in scriptures?

                    • mroge

                      Good point. Also the Bible as a collection of books didn’t even exist until the 4th century. Furthermore a lot of books were left out, including parts of the Torah as well. What we consider to be the scriptures in the OT is not the same as what the Jews considered to be scripture. Plus the gospel writers often mistranslated the Torah in order to fit their agenda. The famous prophecy that Jesus would be born from a virgin is a classic example. The word used does not mean “virgin’. It means “young woman” and it was a prophecy pertaining to a situation that existed at that time, not hundreds of years in the future.In Paul’s writings it is very clear that he did not consider his writings to be scripture. He said many times that he was not speaking for God. He was giving advice to a fledging church. The same is true about other letters in the NT. They did not think that their words were the words of God. When people think that one part of the bible refers to another they forget that all of these books were written by different authors and at different points in history over thousands of years and they do not all say the same thing. One of the favorite tactics is to take a verse in Revelation warning about changing the content of that particular book and then applying it to the whole Bible when the Bible didn’t exist yet!. It is a warning to scribes who copied the text to not change anything. And Revelation almost didn’t even make it into the Bible because it was so controversal. In fact we have vey good evidence that this book was not written by the same person that wrote the other books supposedly written by John. The style is too different and the comprehension of the Greek language is different as well.

                      Another problem with the Bible is changing and inconsistent moral values so it is obvious that either God has multiple personality disorder or that in fact these people were not speaking for God. I choose the latter.

                    • Tim

                      Oh, BQ, yes I am well aware that Jesus is the Word of God.
                      But how do you know that He is?

                    • Beau Quilter

                      You misread me, Tim. I didn’t say that I knew that Jesus is the Word of God. I said that NT scriptures say that Jesus is the Word of God. Not the same thing.

                      Your posts, on the other hand, seem to imply that the Bible is the Word of God.

                    • Tim

                      BQ, I am sorry I misread you. I think what I have insisted and will continue to do so is that all Scripture is inspired by God.

                    • Beau Quilter

                      Why do you believe that all scripture is inspired by God, and what do you mean by inspired?

                    • Tim

                      1. First and foremost, because I believe in Jesus. If I did not the rest would not mean anything to me.
                      2. The testimony of Scripture.
                      3. The testimony of Jesus.
                      4. The testimony of the apostles.

                    • Beau Quilter

                      But even if you believe Jesus (and believe that the Bible records exactly what he said), Jesus did not say that the Bible is inspired by God. Neither did the apostles. Neither does the bible itself.

                      Where do you get this belief that God inspired the bible?

                    • Tim

                      As I said before, I get it from the Scriptures, Jesus and his apostles. I will leave it up to you to see what I mean by searching yourself, if you would really like to know.

                    • Beau Quilter

                      Actually, Tim this is a search I’ve already made. Jesus, the apostles, and the bible itself never makes the claim that it is the Word of God.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Unless you are of the view that all who are called heretics are defenders of the truth, then taking comfort in that seems rather silly.

                      You reject what Genesis 1 says about the dome over the Earth with lights fixed into it. And you reject the testimony of the cosmos which Scripture says was created through the Word of God. And so the fact that you have persuaded yourself that you believe the Word of God is just evidence of the extent to which human beings are capable of deluding themselves, of believing the Devil because he cites Scripture.

                    • Tim

                      Oh, James, I do believe that God made the expanse and called it heaven on the 2nd day. Do you not? He said He did. And I do believe He made greater and lesser lights and the stars on the 4th day. Do you not? He said He did. I did not have to persuade myself to believe this at all. Faith in Him and His word is a gift, for which I am eternally grateful.
                      Do you believe in Him and His Word? I keep wondering why you will not answer this simple question.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      No, you believe what an ancient author wrote and which you keep insisting is to be identified with what “He said” without explaining why you think that or how it makes sense.

                    • Tim

                      Yes, I DO believe what an “ancient author” wrote and that what he wrote was truthful about what God did and what Jesus and the apostles believed He did too. I believe Genesis because I believe in Jesus. Why do you not believe what Genesis said and what God wrote on stone tablets about the span of time in which He created?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Where and when did he write this on stone tablets, and how do you know that? How do you know what Jesus and the apostles believed, apart from what human beings like you and me wrote about them?

                    • Tim

                      Because, James, I believe in Jesus. I did not use to believe the Scriptures until I met Jesus and then they began to make sense. It is only he who is spiritual who understands the things of the Spirit of God, which the Scriptures are, as they are inspired by God. If and when you meet Jesus you will understand what I am talking about. I do hope you come to know Him.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      I’m a born again Christian. That doesn’t make me infallible. It doesn’t mean that I can assume I am right. Your using of your faith as an excuse for your arrogance is despicable. Peter had met Jesus far more literally than you have, and yet he was fallible, was he not?

                      If you actually read the Scriptures and grasped their meaning, this arrogance of yours would cause you to feel ashamed.

                    • Tim

                      I will ignore another disrespectful comment from you about my intelligence.
                      But let me ask you, if indeed you are a “born again Christian” that would mean at the very basic you believed you were a sinner for whom Jesus Christ died and then rose again to give you life? Is this correct?

                    • Tim

                      By the way, James, I do not believe YOU are ignorant. Deluded, but not ignorant at all.

                    • Tim

                      Since you insist the Hebrew word (transliterated as raqia) means “dome” I have copied nearly every occurrence of this word and replaced “expanse” with DOME. Does DOME seem to be the best translation of this word to the discerning reader?

                      Then God said, “Let there be a DOME in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
                      Gen 1:6

                      Then God said, “Let there be lights in the DOME of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
                      Gen 1:14

                      and let them be for lights in the DOME of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
                      Gen 1:15

                      Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open DOME of the heavens.”
                      Gen 1:20

                      The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their DOME is declaring the work of His hands.
                      Psa 19:1

                      Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary; Praise Him in His mighty DOME.
                      Psa 150:1
                      Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an DOME, like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads. Under the DOME their wings were stretched out straight, one toward the other; each one also had two wings covering its body on the one side and on the other.

                      Then I looked, and behold, in the DOME that was over the heads of the cherubim something like a sapphire stone, in appearance resembling a throne, appeared above them.
                      Eze 10:1

                      “Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the DOME of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
                      Dan 12:3

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      In some cases you need to translate the Hebrew more literally in surrounding words for it to make sense – such as when birds are literally said to fly across the face of the dome, not “in” the dome.

                      But yes, this is how ancient people saw the world.

                    • Tim

                      I am aware of no credible translation of the Scriptures that uses “dome” instead of expanse or other word.
                      How do you know how ancient people saw the world?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      The NRSV, the NAB revised edition, the Common English Bible, the Complete Jewish Bible – I take it none of these are on your radar, or are viewed as “not credible” by you?

                      I know how ancient people saw the world only through what they wrote, studying the meaning of words as indicated by those texts. Sometimes they have left behind art and other things as well. But the short answer is: by examining the evidence.

                      UPDATE: Here is an article you may find useful: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/seely-firmament-wtj.pdf

                    • Tim

                      How about that. I was not aware of those translations and am not that familiar with them as to their credibility.

                      I think your point is this, James, but correct me if I am wrong. We can’t believe Genesis 1 because it describes the world in a way that it just is not by what we know today. Am I correct?

                      If I am understanding you then tell me what we are to believe in Genesis that is true and historical as to what really happened.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      My view is that Genesis offers a radically different theological message in the context of its time, proposing that creation be attributed to one God who is without rival, partner, or equal. It does so by depicting that creation in terms that mirror what we find in other ancient texts, because its aim is not to reveal new information about the natural world (think of all the many things we now know about that are never mentioned), but to challenge ways of thinking about the divine and propose something else as better. That seems to me to account best for why Genesis 1 differs from the Mesopotamian creation epic the Enuma Elish in the number of deities and other such details, but not in the physical description of the dome or the waters above and below.

                    • Tim

                      Thanks for sharing your view. We obviously see Genesis differently and will not convince each other to do otherwise.

                    • Tim

                      James,
                      Let me add this, if the best translation of ragia in Genesis 1 is “dome” then I will have to say that I believe that that is what God did on the 2nd day of history. I have no problem with that.

                    • Beau Quilter

                      Tim, all translators take liberties in translation. If you don’t believe James, then at least take the trouble to ask another scholar of ancient Hebrew if James is correct.

                    • Tim

                      I do know that BQ. It is not new to me at all.
                      But do see my last reply to James. I believe that on Day 2 of history that God made the “ragia”.

                    • Beau Quilter

                      Yes, I understand what you are saying. You believe words you find in any of the texts that 4th century christians assigned to the canon that we now call the bible, even when you don’t know what the words mean.

                    • Tim

                      OK, BQ, whatever you think I am doing you are free to believe. You are I assume quite content in what you believe and I am as well.

                    • Beau Quilter

                      Well, that sounds just fine. So if we’re all content with what we believe here, why are you even arguing on this site?

                    • Tim

                      Very good question, BQ, and that is why I am just going to bow out of this discussion. I realize that all are “choir members” here and that you speak to one another what you want to hear. That’s fine. I do the same.

                    • Beau Quilter

                      If you think that all are “choir members”, then it is clear that you haven not paid attention to anyone’s point of view but your own. There is huge diversity of opinion among the voices you’ve been debating here.

                    • Tim

                      James,
                      Can I ask you a simple questions about Jesus Christ? I realize that you have found such questions too personal to respond to in the past, so I realize you may find this one in the same category. But let me try.
                      Do you believe that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, was buried and then rose again in three days and is now seated at the right hand of God?

                    • Tim

                      James,
                      Why will you not answer this?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      I’ve addressed these things before, just as I’ve also addressed the other topics about which you continue to ask the same questions over and over again. If you begin to show evidence of taking the discussion seriously and caring enough to ask serious questions about your assumptions, perhaps that will free up enough time for me to answer these same questions that you asked me before yet once more.

                    • Tim

                      I do not recall you ever saying that you were a “born again Christian” in all of our communications. Please excuse me if my memory has failed me.

                • decathelite

                  Then you worship a God of magic?

                  • Tim

                    You really do not know the God I worship, sir.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      Perhaps you should actually read Zimmerman’s article. He tried pursuing the matter and it turns out that the guy is – in addition to being off his rocker, and not just in the typical way that all young-earth creationists might seem to be – unwilling to accept the scientific definition of evolution. What would the point be of a scientist going to court to prove that a mistaken young-earth creationist notion of what evolution is is in fact correct?!

    • M

      Yeah, all those biologists like Richard Dawkins are really unscientific.

      Evolution is a scientific theory. Darwin was a naturalist. Evolution has made scientific predictions and continues to do so. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

      • Tim

        “Evolution has made scientific predictions and continues to do so.”
        Yes, the religion of Evolution does do this, but it does not mean that the predictions are true. Time will tell, will it not?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          The reference is not to predictions about the future where time will tell. It is to predictions which can then be researched and either turn up supporting evidence or disconfirming evidence or lack of evidence. Examples such as Tiktaalik, or DNA itself.

          • Tim

            By definition a prediction is a statement of what will be or a forecast. The so-called predictions of Evolution are based on what may have happened in the far distant past by chance which have never been observed to what may happen in the far distant future when none of us will be around to see whether the forecast is true. In other words, it is fantasy, or science fiction, if you will. Example: No one has ever seen an ape become a man, or anything other than an ape. Now, perhaps an ape can become one someday, but who of us will be around to see it happen?

            • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

              No one saw God create – does that mean one cannot argue that it was so? No one alive today saw Jesus live – does that mean that we can know nothing about him?

              Either you are actually an atheist trying to undermine the Christian faith, or you have not given even a moment’s thoughts to the nonsense you spout.

              • Tim

                James,
                I think you are finally getting my point. Evolution is true to you because you believe it to be true, not because it has been proven to be true.

                “Nonsense” is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? What seems nonsense to you may be totally logical to another. Because you believe Evolution to be true then any other consideration is nonsense to you.

                • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  No, I do not accept your premise that we cannot figure things out about the past based on evidence. I am not a relativist of the sort you are showing yourself to be.

                  • Tim

                    But you will never know for sure if your belief about the past is true.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      That’s why we have phrases like “beyond reasonable doubt.” There is nothing that someone somewhere will not try to deny. One needs to be committed to following evidence where it leads, and open to revising one’s conclusions if new evidence comes to light.

                    • Tim

                      Your method of determining truth by following where the “evidence leads” you will never allow you be sure of what is true.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      It allows one to be as certain as a human being can be. Those who desire more certainty than evidence allows are the sort that end up following cult leaders and flying buildings into planes, so great is their sense of certainty even where certainty is not attainable nor justified.

                    • Ian

                      Since when has “being sure of what is true” been a good indicator of what is actually true? History is littered with people who were absolutely, totally, 100% convinced they knew the truth, but who were just plain wrong.

                      Members of every religion you disagree with believe they have the truth and are damn sure of it. Even to the point of martyrdom. But I’m sure we agree they are wrong.

                      The degree that one is sure of the truth, in my experience, inversely correlated with the likelihood of being correct. Judging truth firstly on whether you can be sure of it, seems a good recipe for condemning yourself to wallow in ignorance.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      I have banned Tim, since anyone who has been reading this blog for a while will know that he has led the same regular commenters as well as myself along the same conversational paths before, always preferring to change the topic or make baseless assertions rather than discuss relevant evidence. I have asked him to contact me and commit to genuine conversation rather than troll-like behavior in the future. I hope he will do that, since I don’t want him to leave, I want him to stay and have genuine conversations that are not just his attempt to waste the time of others.

                    • Ian

                      Thanks, James.

                      I wonder sometimes about folks like Tim. If you’re not the sharpest tool in the box, and you know the person you’re talking too is wrong, but most of what they are actually saying is just sailing over your head. If you can’t actually operate on the level of facts and argument that are being used, but you feel duty bound to give an account of your faith, and all you have is partly remembered talking points from a source you believe is trustworthy. Then it is probably very easy to fall into appearing to be a dishonest troll.

                      I wonder if often we mistake lack of comprehension for lack of integrity. The famous ‘whale’ exchange with cdbren being another case…

                      I’m not criticizing your choice to restrict his postings one bit, just trying to summon a bit of empathy for Tim.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      I appreciate your points. It actually pains me to ban anyone – and if you have the patience and desire to keep trying to get through, I will gladly unblock him. My main consideration was that I recalled him taking you and me through almost the exact same conversation once before, and that seemed to me to indicate that he just wanted to post the same things over and over again rather than actually interact – presumably for the reasons you specified.

                      It is always hard to distinguish between those who are stubborn and unwilling to look into things more deeply, and those who actually lack the capacity to do so. :-(

                    • Ian

                      I honestly wasn’t suggesting you shouldn’t have banned him. You did a favour for my blood pressure, I’m sure.

                    • Cbdren

                      Ah, yes. A mistake in hasty typing and you hold onto it with a death grip as if an honest mistake actually holds any sort of weight.

                      You know, no one would be having these kinds of conversations if Darwinian evolution could simply be observed, tested and repeated. You know, real scientific methods?

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Your dishonesty is now a matter of public record. Just trying to change your story again doesn’t help. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2011/12/more-evidence-that-creationists-are-charlatans.html

                    • Ian

                      “A mistake in hasty typing and you hold onto it with a death grip” – first time I’ve mentioned it, as far as I can remember. In that conversation I remember more your bizarre claims about plant taxonomy, tbh, which showed an equal level of indomitable ignorance. Hey ho, seems everyone has their favourite cdbren ‘hasty typing’ mistake :)

                    • Tim

                      I know 100′s of people who are certain about what I believe about Creation and Flood and yet manage to avoid cult leaders and flying into tall buildings.
                      I am glad you are avoiding these things, too.

                    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                      Tim, there a cult leaders who get 100s of people to follow them. I am glad that your gullibility and cultish beliefs have not resulted in any deaths at your hand, but that does not make your assertions true.

                    • Ian

                      [Don't know why my comment below seems to be linked as a reply to this comment of yours, James, it was intended as a reply to Tim, must have misclicked.]

            • Ian

              A man is an ape. Ape is the name for a whole taxonomic group of animals including man.

              That’s like saying nobody ever saw a mammal become a cat.

              Predictions are made all of the time based on evolutionary results, and shown to be true in the present. They don’t rely on far distant future. Predictions about the kinds of change one observed over small numbers of generations in lab populations, predictions about the form of genomes in unsequenced individuals, predictions about the chemical compositions of rocks based on fossil discoveries.

              Your ignorance of what evolutionists claim is rather impressive. Even if you happen to be correct, it should bother you that you can’t even express what evolutionists claim with any cogency.

              The first stage in being so confident in dismissing your opponents claims should surely be displaying a basic comprehension of those claims. Can you describe evolutionary theory in a way that an evolutionary biologist would recognize? If not then, I hope you can recognize how foolish you appear trying to come up with objections to something you’ve not properly understood.

              • Tim

                Ian,
                There is one main difference between apes and Man. Have you ever noticed who actually lives at the zoo and who visits those who do?

                Fact of the matter is, no one did see God create the Cat kind, nor the Ape kind, nor the Man kind. But He did.

                You know, I think one who criticizes another for being foolish about not understanding what his opponent believes should first realize that he himself does not really understand what his opponent believes.

                • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

                  Tim, just making the same assertions over and over again while ignoring what others are saying is not acceptable behavior in this blog.

                  The issue is not whether God made cats and apes, nor whether human beings are different than other primates. Those are issues of faith and worldview and theology, in the former case, and simple observation that no one disputes in the latter. The question is the history and the processes.

                  Either discuss the evidence, or admit that you don’t care enough about the Creator to actually look at the evidence from creation. But if you continue to simply behave like an internet troll, then you will be banned. This is a place for serious discussion, and I will not have the level of interaction on this blog dragged down by someone who refuses to treat a topic with the seriousness it deserves.

      • mroge

        Wow! Thanks for sharing that! Proof that a new and positive trait can happen! I’ve bookmark that article.

  • Karl Priest

    It is not a scam. All Dr. Zimmerman, you, and all other true believers in evolutionism and worshipers of St. Darwin have to do is take the challenge.

    You will not because evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman.

    See http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      OK, since you seem not to have read the Zimmerman article, and also seem not to have any notion of the evidence for evolution, why did you comment here? Are you one of those atheists who goes around pretending to be an ignorant and rude Christian in order to make Christianity look bad?

      • Beau Quilter

        Now, now, James. Fundamentalist Christian nut cases need no help from us atheists. You might just as easily ask if Karl is one of those Muslims who goes around pretending to be an ignorant and rude Christian.

        No need to cast aspersions on atheists. The fundamentalist commenters on this post demonstrate well enough that they need no help in appearing ignorant and rude.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          I was simply making a point about Poe’s Law – if atheists were to go around pretending to be Christians online and then behaving badly and making idiotic claims allegedly in the name of their faith, in order to make Christianity look bad, they could scarcely outdo some of those who actually consider themselves Christians. And unfortunately, those in the latter category don’t see themselves as others see them.

  • bgrnathan

    NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only micro-evolution, or evolution
    within biological “kinds,” is genetically possible (such as the
    varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not macro-evolution,
    or evolution across biological “kinds,” (such as from sea sponge to
    human). All real evolution in nature is simply the expression, over
    time, of already existing genes or variations of already existing genes.
    For example, we have breeds of dogs today that we didn’t have a few
    hundred years ago. The genes for these breeds had always existed in the
    dog population but never had opportunity before to be expressed. Only
    limited evolution or adaptation, variations of already existing genes
    and traits, is possible.

    The genes (chemical instructions or code) must first exist or
    otherwise the evolution cannot occur. Genes instruct the body to build
    our tissues and organs. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design
    and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Nature can only
    work with the genetic ability already existing in species. Nature
    cannot perform the genetic engineering necessary to increase that
    genetic ability.

    Many people have wrong ideas of how evolution is supposed to
    work. Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on
    by genes – not by what happens to our body parts. For example, if a
    woman were to lose her finger this wouldn’t affect how many fingers her
    baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair will not
    affect the color and texture of your children’s hair. So, even if an
    ape’s muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still
    would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes
    or mutations that occur in the genetic code of reproductive cells (i.e.
    sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.

    Modern evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly
    millions of years, random genetic mutations in the genes of reproductive
    cells caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new
    genes. This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of
    evolutionists. It’s much like believing that randomly changing the
    sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will
    turn it into a book on astronomy! That’s the kind of blind faith
    macro-evolutionists have.

    When evolutionary scientists teach that random genetic
    mutations in species over, supposedly, millions of years caused by
    random environmental agents such as radiation, produced entirely new
    genes (i.e. genetic code or genetic information) leading to entirely new
    forms of life, they are not teaching science but simply a faith, a
    belief!

    What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn’t produce
    biological traits or variations. It can only “select” from biological
    variations that are possible and which have survival value. The term
    “natural selection” is a figure of speech. Nature doesn’t do any
    conscious selecting. If a variation occurs in a species (i.e. change in
    skin color) that helps the species survive then that survival is called
    being “selected.” That’s all it is. Natural selection is a passive
    process in nature, not a creative process.

    How could species have survived if their vital tissues, organs,
    reproductive systems, etc. were still evolving? A partially evolved
    trait or organ that is not complete and fully functioning from the start
    would be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. Plants and
    animals in the process of macro-evolution would be unfit for survival.
    For example, “if a leg of a reptile were to evolve (over supposedly
    millions of years) into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long
    before it became a good wing” (Dr. Walt Brown, scientist and
    creationist). Survival of the fittest actually would have prevented
    evolution across biological kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG
    EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition).

    All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are
    found complete, fully-formed, and fully functional. This is powerful
    evidence that species did not come into existence gradually by any
    macro-evolutionary process but, rather, came into existence as complete
    and ready-to-go from the very beginning, which is possible only by
    special creation.

    All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution
    have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not
    non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be
    fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples
    and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists
    have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures
    over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary
    interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but
    still being taught in school textbooks.

    What about genetic and biological similarities between species?
    Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by
    chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological
    similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who
    designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn’t mean all
    forms of life are biologically related!

    Also, so-called “Junk DNA” isn’t junk. Although these
    “non-coding” segments of DNA don’t code for proteins, they have recently
    been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where,
    and how genes are expressed, so they’re not “junk”). Read my popular
    Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection.

    Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION .

    I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, “Junk DNA,” genetics, mutations,
    natural selection, fossils, dinosaur “feathers,” the genetic and
    biological similarities between various species, etc., etc.

    Sincerely,
    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. theology/biology)

    Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

    *I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th
    edition of Marquis “Who’s Who In The East” for my writings on religion
    and science. I have given successful lectures (with question and answer
    period afterward) before evolutionist science faculty and students at
    various colleges/universities.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      The claims here are simply not correct, and this comment seems simply like an attempt (without the requisite ability in basic HTML) to drive traffic to some of your online materials. The fact that you were taken in by a “Who’s Who” scam does not make you seem more credible. But the fact that you copied and pasted things word for word does make you dishonest, gullible, and a spammer. If you cannot be bothered to actually write a new comment, quoting actual relevant sources when appropriate and giving credit where credit is due, then you will not be allowed to comment here any longer!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X