Dawkins: Debates Make us Look Bad (Photo credit: Templestream)
[Editor's note: My replies to a comment on another blog post was much too long to handle piecemeal with quotes or to leave as a comment, so I have copied the visitor's comment to here and placed my replies in-line within brackets.
It is something I would usually post on my sister blog http://www.truebook.wordpress.com where I address Biblical, doctrinal and related issues such as atheism, but since the original discussion grew from a previous posting in this blog, it therefore goes here...
NOTE: Quotes from Commenter "Cluttered Mind" are in normal text and left-margin aligned, while my comments are indented and bracketed and in red bolded font]
(Mr. “Cluttered Mind” says:)
It is interesting that out of the entire library of information on evolution you picked out the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis–which is not supported by the majority of evolutionary biologist–in an attempt to prove your point. If you wish to claim that evolution is not supported by science (which it is no matter where your beliefs lay, they don’t change the facts) then we only need to look as far as a few examples.
ME: [Punctuated Equilibrium
has always been the answer that darwinians use. in forums where I've been. to retort the fact that the "fossil records" testify against darwinism. It is the only hard physical evidence of the history of life on earth, the only hard forensics evidence, and the evidence Stephen Gould offers for it is that the only thing paleontologists find in the fossils is STASIS. There is no darwinism in the record. There is only evidence of change within what paleontologists call "forms", and what many Creationists call "kinds".
Yeah, Dawkins rejects it, so what is
Dawkins left with? The only physical evidence there os
contradicts his claim (and Cluttered's claimed "majority"
vote biologists' claim) gradual change from kind to kind,
there are no bones showing change from "form" to form
Below next Mr. Confused does what I've warned about before
and passed right over my comment that farmers have been
doing the same degrees of changes with their animals for
6,000 years! No Creationist in the world makes claims that
animal kinds like finches never vary in the wild in beak
length. This is like arguing that high-jumpers can reach the
moon just because one of them jumps higher than the other
The Lizards of Pod Mrcaru. A species of lizard named Podarcis sicula, which enjoys an insect based diet, occupies an islet in the Mediterranean called Pod Kopiste. In 1971 a group of experimenters transported five pairs of these lizards to the neighboring islet Pod Mrcaru where none of these lizards were found. In 2008 another group of scientist visited the islet of Pod Mrcaru. The scientist found a flourishing population of lizards which DNA analysis confirmed to be Podarcis sicula. Not only did these lizards flourish, but they showed a variety of changes in their biological figures. Due to the lack of insects on Pod Mrcaru, these groups of Podarcis sicula were forced to live off a vegetarian diet. This new diet caused their bodies to adjust in different ways. Their heads increased in size: longer, wider, and taller. This change accompanies a vegetarian diet due to the increase in strength needed to grind plant cells which are stiffened with cellulose. Another intriguing change in the Pod Mrcaru Podarcis sicula is the development of a valve called a Caecal valve. In many carnivores this valve is connected to the Caecum; a gut that houses bacteria, acting like a fermentation chamber allowing the vegetarian food to be more easily digested. These changes were only represented around nineteen generations.
[And there is a "theistic
evolutionist" who once claimed in another forum that he had
bred fruit flies to acquire a test for blood. He said he gave
it up when they started wanting his
blood. So what? Mountain lions eat wild grass as some 5
percent of their diet. Animals of all kinds were originally
vegetarian in the Garden anyway.
Adaptability was part of the original Creation. Creation
scientists pointed this out long before Darwin was a gleam in
his father's eye.
In fact, "natural selection" was a term
invented by a Creationist for they way created kinds adapt
to their natural environment.]
I have a feeling that this will not be a good enough example for you, as your beliefs seem to be set in stone.…
[If my beliefs were "set in
stone", I would not have become a darwinist atheist in the
first place after years in government-controlled high school
and college, or might have been stuck in la-la land of
Darwinism thereafter. Einstein said ""The important thing is not to stop questioning" and I didn't]
….If you would like another interesting example (I hope that you are at least open minded enough to research this and learn a little bit about it) search for Lenski’s E-Coli evolutionary experiment. That is an experiment that involves forty-five thousand generations of evolution in the lab (where you stated it never happened before). If you wish to look for any type of blind faith to ridicule, you only need to look as far as your own bible. There is not one shred of evidence for any supernatural myth proclaimed in the bible…
[I once believed this
generality myself, but there is absolutely not one shred of
evidence to disprove anything in the Bible, Darwinian and
pagan origins myths included, but Bible-deniers have been
embarrassed time after time by discoveries, especially by
archaeology, with evidence for much of what was attacked
specifically. There is a long list of counter-evidence to the
should superstitious myths of Darwinians and anti-theists that
fooled so many of us so long, where their theories say
"somehow.." but should read "And then a miracle happens",
like: #1.spontaneous bio-generation (life from non-life),
#2.the statistically impossible confluence of physical
constants that constitute the "anthropic principle",
#3."inflation", #4.quasar-galaxy red shift "anomalies",
#5.upside-down geology strata, #6.polonium halos, #7.the
fossil record. Just to name a few of the many more.]
…If you wish to deny evolution then I sure hope you do not go to the doctors to receive vaccines. Evolution is a proven theory, you can close your eyes and cover your ears all you want, it does not make you correct.
[Are you willing to match your
own research with your words? Creation scientists have been
yelling at the anti-theist scientists for decades that
organisms are designed to modify themselves, down to
the genome. It's finally begun to sink in, but don't expect
the overlords of entrenched Establishment Academia to admit
who got there first, but recent discoveries in epigenetics has
given the bio-geneticists fits, one of them anguished because
now they have to rewrite everything. (Besides, it's still
E-Coli. No proto-jellyfish, no proto-coral, no-proto anything
Okay, so uncover your eyes now. I repeated the research on
#1. Bacterial 'Evolution' Is Actually Design in Action. (Read
the whole thing for better understanding of the actual
experiment where the real science is):
In 2010, biochemist Michael Behe
reviewed 12 new phenotypes, which are outward expressions
of genetic coding, that Lenski's E. coli
displayed from 1994 to 2008.2 Behe categorized
the known genetics producing each new bacterial phenotype
as either losing, shuffling, or gaining what he called
"functional coded elements," which include genes and gene
promoters. All the known changes in the bacteria were
either a loss or reorganization of pre-existing functional
coded elements. None of the new phenotypes came from a
gain of functional coded elements, and yet this is what
molecules-to-man evolution requires.
Therefore, not only did the Cit+
bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but
they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement
mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as
evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3
So, all they did was breed E coli like a
dog breeder wins competitions. Yada yada. It's like using the
human immune system as evidence that rats evolve into humans.
The human body creates thousands, maybe millions, of white
cells with different genetic expressions to look for cellular
invaders to attack. When an infection occurs, it does this a
whole lot more, an automatic genetic experiment to try to find
the key that will unlock the door to kill the invaders.
#2. "No fruit fly evolution even after 600 generations":
I want to now address some of your other claims in your original post:
“We are told that when we share our faith and speak out loud we are hating others.”
Yes, when your religion preaches hate any morally decent person would speak out against it….
[...Opinions about morality are
just that.... Telling me I hate somebody because I warn him
about behavior I see as harmful is love, not hate. But I
wasn't even talking specifically there about LBGT. You said
this without knowing square one of what I think. Stereotypes
and using the word "hate" are covers for Pavloved unthinking
Spewing that LBGT individuals don’t deserve rights (or as the Westboro Baptist church members like to proclaim—and one can argue that they are more faithful then you to their holy book—that they should be slaughtered).
[You using the Westboro group
against ME is an example of an unthinking hateful reaction. And
you don't know anything about interpreting the holy book, You
like to say there's a bunch of different interpretation in one
day, and then claim to tell me what it means another day!]
…I guarantee if a Muslim individual stood up above a crowd of others he/she would be would be treated with abhorrence. Just because you think that your religion is the one that is true does not abstain you from criticism.
[Just because you think my
religion is wrong you are not immune either, but it's an
irrelevant point to what we're talking about. The blog started
as information about who is doing the bullying in the United
States of America today.
There are about a dozen Muslims who would also disagree with
your guarantee as relates to me. At one place I worked with a
very "fundamentalist" Muslim and we agreed that we had
more in common than most of the people around us. We shared
our faith with each other in great politeness, and it was a
much more respectful discussion than either of us has usually
gotten from atheists, we both agreed.
That young boy was quoted as saying he felt bullied just
because somebody prayed. I felt bullied in government school
when a teacher taught that the my faith was wrong]
“We are told that a five-year old kindergarten student is expelled for SILENTLY bowing his head in prayer over every meal in one place (where they had to be forced to apologize to the parents by legal action).”
Can you provide a source? I can’t seem to find any evidence of this happening anywhere.
[It was a long time ago and I
haven't found it but there are lots of similar incidents.
The incident I
referred to was in St. Louis, and reported on radio by one
who works with such attacks on religious freedom across
the country. It's easy to find ongoing examples of the
same thing in a search, though:
12 Students Suspended for Praying at School:
Of course it is still a far ways to go compared to the
brutal treatment of Christians and others at the hand of
atheists and radical Islamic regimes in the 20th century
But there are ominous precursors...
Nevertheless, in cases of suppression of religion
in schools, universities, and the public square so-called,
there are so many cases that even the ACLU has a big and
growing list where they have defended Christians:
Where Christians rightfully should object
to the ACLU perspective is when they take the religious establishment
clause and use it to support an official anti-religious
Duh. There is a Reader's Digest story from 1954 that I
remember reading that I now cannot find anywhere without
paying them a charge for a reprint, --if-- it's even
available. The article is real, and referred to a then-recent
experiment with prayer and plants growing. But I can't find it
on the Internet.
Anti-theists once said that there was no Assyrian Empire, it
was just a Biblical myth. No evidence for it anywhere. (Until
they found it).
Today's new generation of reporters do not think a five-year
old getting suspension for praying silently in one school is
much of a story.
Two months ago, many people thought Christian and conservative
groups were "paranoid" for claiming that the government was
treating them unequally under the law.
The mainstream "trusted name in news" trotted out a parade of
voices that said there was no "evidence" of this.]
“We are told that the money we pay in taxes or that our employers or where we buy from have to pay in taxes to support teachings that tell our children that their religion is wrong.”
I highly doubt teachers are going from class to class in schools hunting for children with religious parents (to call a child a Christian child is wrong, not child abuse, but wrong; let the child decide for themselves what they wish to believe) only to preach to them that their religion is wrong. If they are doing this then they should face consequences for it. The separation of church and state clearly states why religious institutions should not live within government programs.
“We are told that our Bible is racist, misogynist, genocidal, and that our fellow believers in the past were too.”
Only true ignorance can explain why an individual would believe it is not these things.
[You are steeped in true
The fact is, racism, mistreatment of women, genocide are
prohibited in the Bible. The "stranger" from other lands was
to be treated with great respect.
For example, you cannot use the example of Abraham apparently
offering Isaac up, for example, to say the Bible promotes
child sacrifice. The story itself, and especially in context,
shows that God is VERY MUCH AGAINST child sacrifice.
Mr. Confused then lists a bunch of verses that he probably
found an a militantly anti-theist web site. Of course, just
like Muslim-haters pulling certain verses out of the Koran and
feeding them to people that know little about it, to tilt the
apparent "evidence". Too many Christians blindly follow this
tilt, and "Christian Zionists" are th worst.
I haven't read the Koran in its entirety so cannot say that
the Koran more supports this or that. Many Muslims contradict
the Western propaganda that it supports total war against the
whole world at all times. What I concern myself with is their
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
[If you ignore context, especially the
context of the whole Bible, distorts understanding.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew
nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Verse 21, for example, provides context for verse 22 in Ephesians
5, and for 1 Timothy 2 as well:
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one
to another in the fear of God.
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,
as unto the Lord.
Women in the Bible have led the nation of Israel,
4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife
of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
--She also led them in battle.
In a visit by Paul who wrote the letter to Timothy, he was
confronted also by four daughters who prophesied and joined
their father in warning him against going to Jerusalem:
Acts 21:9 And the same man had four
daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
Paul elsewhere praises godly women leaders in the churches.
Do you hate your body? You are to love your wife as you do
your own body. Epthesians 5:28 So
ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that
loveth his wife loveth himself.
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
So we see that in the Bible...
#1.women have led the Israelites,
#2.kings at times sent for counsel to a prophetess,
#3. in the latter days daughters shall prophesy,
#4.men are to love their wives like Jesus loves the church and gave his life for
#5.four daughters that prophesied were there warning Paul against a trip,
#6. Women were the ones who first discovered that Christ had risen, a little girl was the first to announce that Peter had been released from prison, a misogynist scripture in those days would never have given them such credit.
#7...AND, to the same young man Timothy, Paul himself praised
his mother and his grandmother for teaching him so well in the
2 Timothy 1:5 I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also" (2 Timothy 1:5).
And after Bible days...
#8.Christians had respect to women, in contrast to patriarchal Roman culture in which men almost literally owned their wives and families, and to the Greek culture that held that women had a worth in the middle between men and slaves.
#9.St. Patrick's followers established monasteries where often a woman was the leader, because he was all Jesus and all scripture all the time, and loved the Irish as himself. This was in contrast to the Roman hierarchical clergy that locked out women of the most important spiritual leadership roles.
#10.It should be remembered in fairness that it was a Queen Elizabeth in the protestant England who led the country during the time that the Spanish Armada met its disastrous defeat, and even the King of Spain had to say that God himself had fought against them that day...]
“This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
[One of my favorite verses for the point about context. To read the Bible leading up to this verse, it shows how backwards you can get a meaning or the
significance of a verse when you take it out of context, like Peter said about Paul's writing, "to their own destruction".
The Amalekites had attacked Israel on at least two previous
occasions, something mentioned even in the same chapter if you
had actually read the chapter to find out.
The Hebrews were commanded to leave all the women and children
alive whenever they took a town or an area of the country at
that time. That's something left out of those atheist web
sites that condemn Christianity (based on what morality, it's
hard to tell, since their philosophy says there is no
On at least two occasions in the Bible before the time of
Elijah, the Amalekites had attacked the Israelites, even after
the Israelites had left their women and children alive,
as commanded when told to take over these lands. However, they
were so wicked that the women raised those children to again
They may have even been planning another war against Israel
when Samuel got this message. It would be consistent with
other times Israel fought. Later on, the Syrian king is
frustrated because the king in Jerusalem got prophetic warning
whenever he was planning on attacking.
BUT since Saul did NOT obey and wipe them all out, and some
escaped, most likely the queen and the king's son, because the
Amalekites show up later yet again and almost succeed in
wiping out the entire number of Jews throughout the Persian
Empire, at the hand of the wicked Haman, who is identified as an
"Agagite". An Agagite, descendant of the wicked King
Agag of the Amalekites.]
“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)
[Yes, these were the witches of those days like the ones that still today in many lands, who knew the tricks and recipes to cook up poisons, take power over other people by stealth and enchantments, and foor a price do great harm to somebody. In Israel it also always went together with pagan rites, child sacrifice, secret intrigues, and of course there is always plenty of fraud.
It is seen as working in lands where people generally believe in it. In the 21st century, it stays mostly hidden from the innocent because it still carries some social stigma. The stigma is rapidly diminishing, though, to the hurt of our society.
For example, Hitler was a big follower of such occult practices, and his SS was top to bottom a priesthood of witchcraft.
Generally it does not work on believing Christians, to the consternation of practitioners and the demons they invoke, as one former Satanist has said. In the lands where people generally don't believe the devil exists, he is
more than happy to oblige by staying in the shadows.
My daughters saw this in action in Honduras more than once. A
girl who pointed at a pencil and moved it like John Travolta's
character in Phenomenon, and after she split with a boyfriend,
on a dare, had him begging for a redo.
...And another tech colleague from Cameroon whose family is
split between sorcerers and Christians, and who hates
Halloween for its celebration of real things.]
“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
[There you go taking verses from a list without checking, that remove context
to contradict the intended meaning. This was a specific prophecy against
the enemies of God that was fulfilled the night of the Handwriting on the Wall in Daniel:
Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
This is also another example of the Biblical law: You reap what you sow]
“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)
[Yeah, do you want one very old man to go out there and take on the entire bunch of thugs? Not for nothing that the anti-theists leave out what happened
next. He stayed alive so these thugs could get their due punishment as a lesson for the rest of this wicked tribe.
That was the tribe of Benjamin, and they had forsaken
the laws of God and fallen into violence and wickedness, like
the present violent USA.
So the old man went home and sent messages to all the other
tribes about what those wicked men had done. All the tribes
had a meeting and they demanded that the Benjamites punish the
thugs. Benjamin's tribal elders refused to punish them. Now,
with the entire tribe exposed as equally guilty, they fought
the Benjamites and of course in the end it was capital
punishment for them.
What would you have done?
I knew one brother who came home mutilated once because a gang
of five approached his female partner (in witnessing) to rape
her. He got the verse in a quick prayer, "He teacheth my hands
to war", and fought them off so she could get away.
What would you have done?]
“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)
[Romans 1:27 is a warning you of the
consequences of your own actions is love,
not hate. Hate is when you slander the messenger because you
hate the message. I tell you socialism makes poor people even
more poor, you can't tell me I hate you if you're a socialist.
If a person hears a warning given in the spirit of love, if
it's in the spirit of love or concern, or a sincere warning,
and reacts with anger, or hate. or accusations of hate like an
adolescent to his well-meaning parents, this shows a spirit of
guilt, meaning the reaction shows a knowledge of being in the
Every Christian voice of any significance at all in the United States has denounced the Westboro gang.
Some church-ites do live up to the self-righteous stereotypes. But that's an attitude I've seen very common among atheists as well, who get snotty-nosed and uppity about how much smarter they are than dumb brute Christians. And then although they have no independent external basis for any morality themselves, get so self-righteous indignant about sins of Christians, while saying that the truly massively brutal regimes of official atheists don't count.
Like Christopher Hitchens blaming the mass murders in the officially atheist regimes of Lenin and Stalin and Mao, and blaming Christianity! Can you believe that!
Westboro cannot get more than two or three dozen people to follow them, and most of them seem to be from the same family. They are literally shunned by Christians.
Atheists don't like mentions of Stalin and Mao's mass murders but they love to bring up the Westboro gang. That shows they do not believe in treating others
with the same respect they demand, or that they see the world with warped lenses. I once suffered the same sight impairment.
John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.]
‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)
[This is the one story that best shows that God HATES child sacrifice.
Christians are the babies' best defense against the brutal, atrocious barbaric practices in
today's aborticide centers.
The operative word in Gen. 22:2 is "offer", as in "offer him
there", NOT "sacrifice him there".
In literally HUNDREDS of verses God promises the harshest
judgment against this pagan practice of sacrificing children
"to the fire", denouncing worship of Molech, a pagan god of the day for whom
they built idols with fires inside for babies.
Proving that atheists often do have moral sensibilities, many
atheists are horrified over today's baby-killing fields.]
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)
[This is already answered
above. In context, Paul also wrote that husbands and wives
should submit themselves to each other. In the verse just
before it, 21, he wrote that everyone in the church should
submit one to another.
"One flesh" doesn't mean one arm beating up the other arm, it
means taking care of it.
In the context of the culture of the times, too, it seems that
in some churches there were some women from the Pharisaical
traditions, and from the very misogynistic Greeks, and
even Romans, and others, that they went wild with the freedom
they had in Christ, like the mother-in-law in Corinth that
seduced her own son-in-law and he went bragging about it.
That's where you get Paul's harshest words about women.
Another point. In government and even other schools we learned
a bit about St. Patrick. I talk about his life elsewhere. His
followers in Ireland went on to establish monasteries that
saturated the island in the years following his mission. Most
of those monasteries were famliies living together. And a
great many of them were led by women "shepherdesses", or pastors.
The missionary work I was privileged to work with is also now
led by a woman. Very strange, in officially atheist lands I
can't think of one woman dictator (they're all dictators of
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
[That very bad verse comes not from the actual Bible but from one of
the worst plagues on Christiandom of the 20th and 21st
centuries, and that is, COUNTERFEIT BIBLES.
Here is the real genuine verse from the Holy Bible, the Authorized Version", also known as the King James Bible, although he only authorized it and refused to let it be named it after himself:
1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with
all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the
Note it's "SERVANTS" not "slaves". Translators
of the modern English language "versions" of the Bible (1)
use the abominable Westcott-Hort-compiled corrupted
Gnosticized Alexandrian Greek manuscripts and codexes for
their "translation" base, (2) they use Greek lexicons
based on the work of Hitler's "Christian spiritual
adviser" Gerard Kittel, and (3) many of them are graduates
of Ivy-League Divinity or Theology Departments where the
dean hates the Bible just like Westcott and Hort did, and
the students are almost any kind of thinking besides Bible
There is nothing on the entire planet,
in fact, that has done more to eradicate slavery, than
Christians. Thank God that it succeeded among Western
nations earlier than the time Darwin's book hit the
bookstores, because slavery having been shamed into infamy
by the Christian abolitionists.
After all, Darwinism gave strong
impetus to the Jim Crow laws, forced segregation, and
oppression, and later to eugenics. Pygmy Ota Benga was kept
in a zoo. Congolese rebels are even eating Pygmies, saying
they are "animals".
That's the other stupidity that
creeped in from counterfeit "Bibles", using the words for
"holy race" instead of "holy seed". If the Israelites and
Jews of David's day and Jesus' day were a holy "race", then
they were a "mongrel" race, because in their veins flowed
the blood of not only Jacob, but blood of Joseph's Egyptian
daughters, Ruth the Moabitess, Rahab the Jericho prostitute,
Ammonites, Edomites, Hittites, and all kinds of "races",
brought together by the word of God.]
To conclude, here are some helpful links to information about evolution. I hope you sincerely take the time to research the topic; it is quite enlightening, much more than a burning bush.
[Of course I not only have
researched it from both sides for decades, there was a time
when I was not so educated in the subject, not as convinced
you might say, that I picked up a book at a clearance sale
thinking it was a Creation science book, but I was
very glad to find out it was a collection of articles and
essays that were compiled as the best effort to "prove
I was a little nervous about reading the article by Isaac
Asimov, but his arguments against Creationism were ridiculous.
He struck down arguments from authority for example, that
Creation scientists never ever use in debates. In fact,
Darwinists that do debates seem to always want to argue about
religion, while Creation scientists keep bringing them back to
That book clinched the issue for me forever, though. It
was an experience like, "Is that the best you got?!?!"
In fact the editor, Ashley Montague, said he got the idea
for the book after being totally embarrassed after a debate
with a Creation scientist. He didn't say it that way, but it
So now, a Darwinian that gets a challenge to a debate
with neutral rules, will usually curl up his nose and act
snottier than the snootiest British royal of old and refuse to
"stoop" so low.]
[The rest of it is links to anti-Creation web sites.
[Note that from Darwinists you will never get the whole
story. Creation scientists would actually like to see more
teaching of the facts that relate to the "general theory of
evolution", including facts they always leave out.]
This one is about misconceptions about evolution, probably the most important link in my reply; it even touches on your punctuated evolution claim.
[Note that from Darwinists you will never get the whole
story. Creation scientists would actually like to see more
teaching of the facts that relate to the "general theory of
evolution", including facts they always leave out.]
Of the misconceptions propagated on anti-creation web sites, some are completely ridiculous, some are reasonable, some of their criticisms of some the assertions we already agree with because we already agree with them and they do not contradict Creation even if talkorigins thinks it does. Also, anti-creationists love to find straw man arguments and ad hominems that are easier to take on, instead of truly addressing the scientific origins issues actually raised by Creation science
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
[The so-called "evidence" for darwinian human origins theories has been refuted ad infinitum by science and Creation scientists, often with excuses for the lack of evidence, and plenty of fairy tales to fill in the gaps, as in the symbolic digital coded nature of the DNA code, the origins of life, the lack of any forensic example or even as much as an artificial breeding on scales higher than "kinds" or "forms", the lack of addressing the objections to the pre-hominid constructions, the ongoing insertion of Hoeckel's frauds into textbooks, Pasteur's experiments proving that life can only come from life, on and on it goes.
Instead they offer some facts always with language that imposes the theory overlaid on those facts, a circular circus that's enough to make you dizzy. Using variation within kinds as "proof" of variation from kind to kind.]
A video from Jerry Coyne on evidence for evolution. Get passed the heathen Richard Dawkins’ introduction.
[Dawkins' militancy is a ball and chain around the neck of anti-creationists, a vestigial shadow of the brutal atheist regimes of the 20th century. He calls creationists insane, and says letting them teach it to their children is "child abuse" (his words). He even wants to restart the conversation about eugenics. Oh, but Darwinism has nothing to do with racism, eh?]
Here is a link where one can find answers to many or most of the talk-origins claims about Creation science:
In fact, many of the talk-origins web pages have been changed after their refutations appeared on the Creation wiki, They were so obvious.
Here is a list where those who are really interested can find out more actual real-world science, mostly relating to the subject of origins:
You can a bunch of free videos here. They are free downloads, and they are even free to copy to distribute I think, as long as you don’t charge for them; the copyright is meant to protect that: