February 26th, 2014
03:12 PM ET

soundoff (1,555 Responses)
  1. observer


    Still haven't heard. Where do aborted fetuses go? Heaven or hell?

    March 16, 2014 at 2:34 am |
    • kermit4jc

      Sheesh..you have trouble connecting the dots? they go to heaven! but that is nOT justification for WOMEN to MURDER the children..they are nOT judge..only GOD is judge..and only GOD can take life

      March 16, 2014 at 2:36 am |
      • redzoa

        Maybe abortions are just part of god's plan to get the babies to heaven 🙂

        March 16, 2014 at 2:38 am |
      • observer


        Not dots to connect. You are saying that aborted FETUSES go directly to heaven.

        Sounds like a good idea. No having to put up with the world that is so miserable.

        March 16, 2014 at 2:40 am |
        • rafaeltrefil

          You know you kill a pregnant woman and her 5 month old Fetus and you are charged with double murder. You abort that same 5 month old Fetus and you call that a woman's right. Aggh! I wish Liberals where a little more CONSISTENT!

          March 19, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
        • ssq41

          Eighty percent of young evangelicals have engaged in premarital s.ex, according to a new video from the National Association of Evangelicals. and almost a third of evangelicals' unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.

          Maybe thou shouldst clean thy own house of its LIBERALISM before thou pointest thy willfully blind political finger.

          March 19, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
        • observer


          It's double murder because the woman WANTED to have the baby. This is the opposite of the Bible where God killed ALL the pregnant women who WANTED their babies.

          March 19, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          HOWEVER..WE are not God! WE have no right to take life....only GOD is Judge and reserves that right

          March 20, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • Fred

        How emotional. Except a fetus is NOT a child. And what's more, you know it. If there were a building in my town in which children or babies were being murdered NOTHING would stop me from getting in there and ending it. But since I don't believe this is what's happening, I'm not upset. YOU, on the other hand, do believe this is what's happening. YOU believe that there is a building in or near your town where babies are being murdered and you do nothing but posture and complain. This says to me that you don't really believe babies are being murdered. You just like to condemn the women who get abortions and make yourself feel superior.

        March 17, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HOW do YOU know??????????? HAve you even bothered to ask what I DO about it??????

          March 17, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Pure cop out.
        All humans are born with Original Sin, according to the dogma.
        Without repenting of it, it stains the soul and sends the un-baptized straight to Hell.

        March 17, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..BornWITH original sin..meaning they have the CAPACITY to sin..not that are sinning as they are born....you don't have a clue of the meaning of orginal sin....andit is shown all over the bIble that sin is something rhat one consciously does!!!!

          March 17, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Just as mortality is inherited through Adam, so is Original Sin inherent in all babies because of his terrible sin of curiosity.
          The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for everybody else.
          No baptism = stained with original sin = bound for eternal damnation.

          March 17, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • nepawoods

          You actually believe that? That an infant who dies before baptism suffers in Hell for eternity? Your god is powerless to see a way around that, or does he find it to be just? It's Eve's fault, so not his problem?

          March 28, 2014 at 11:02 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I don't believe it.
          I'm just pointing out what Christian dogma says.
          Those who want to make themselves feel better about it by saying that babies go to heaven are simply rationalizing away one of the core tenets of their religion.

          March 28, 2014 at 11:07 am |
        • kermit4jc

          SOME Christians may say that infants who are not baptized go to hell..however..there is NO Scripture in the Bible to support such nonesense

          March 29, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • nepawoods

          OK, I had a hunch that was it, but wasn't sure. But hey, if they keep rationalizing, eventually ...

          March 28, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • nepawoods

        Aborted fetuses go to heaven to enjoy a blissful eternal life with God.

        Fetuses that are born into the world run the risk of not taking someone's word that the fantastical tales of the Bible are true, and thus suffering in Hell for eternity.

        Even if I'd go to Hell for it, how could I possibly not be doing a good deed by aborting fetuses given the above?

        March 28, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • kermit4jc

          You are NOT the judge of life..thats why....wanna be arrogant and do so..you will pay the consequences

          March 29, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
    • Fred

      Neither place is real. So your question does not have an answer.

      March 17, 2014 at 11:19 am |
    • terickson1983

      I think what Kermit is trying to say, is that only fetuses that have accepted Christ go to heaven. Wheew I'm sure glad I made that commitment when I was a fetus, I can only pray for the rest of you!

      March 17, 2014 at 11:53 am |
      • kermit4jc

        I never even implied such silliness

        March 17, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
    • terickson1983

      Ridiculous question! Only Christians fetuses go to heaven, the rest are just SOL. Also Kermit save us from the "Adam and Eve" rants. Adam wasn't created 6,000years ago, Snakes don't talk, and people (Adam) can't live for 867 years. once a Religon makes a scientific claims (creation) it should be examined under any Scientific "trial". From a stand point of science there is not one shred of evidence to support a flood, Adam and Eve etc. to quote the great Richard Dawkins "We are all atheist we just one up other peoples "Gods". I.E. Jesus goes on the same shielf as Thor, Zeus and any other "God" that mankind has worshiped.

      March 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        YOU LOVE putting words in MY mouth don't ya? I NEVER said any of those things..idiot...

        March 18, 2014 at 1:48 am |
      • kermit4jc

        Save me from YOUR rants of silliness

        March 18, 2014 at 1:49 am |
      • rafaeltrefil

        All you Liberals take pot shots at us Christians but as soon as you get in front of a Muslim and you say something horrible about their religion like you just did about us Christians you retract like the cowards that you are. I wish for just one second that we Christians would stand up to all you atheist the way Muslims do that way you would stop messing with us.

        March 19, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • redzoa

          We call this "fatwa envy" . . .

          March 19, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
        • observer


          The biggest problem seems to be that the most radical Muslims are following most of the laws that God wanted mankind to follow when he originally came up with them. Check a Bible sometime.

          March 19, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • ssq41

          Easy....just burn the Consti.tution...

          And since you only want people to look, think and act like you, I think you'd be more comfortable asking Putin for some realestate East of Moscow...after all, you think, look and act like him (as well as the Muslims you hate so much)...you just use differing terms.

          March 19, 2014 at 11:51 pm |
  2. terickson1983

    General question for anyone to respond to. If one believes in what the bible says about Noah and the great flood, one must ask themselves this. If God did indeed flood the Earth that act would make God the single greatest mass murder of all time. I'm curious to know how a "loving God" could murder millions and millions of Men, Women and Children? Not to mention drowning is a horrible and painful way to die. One could agruge that it can be considered an act of torture. If there is a God and this being is responsible for such an act then God is anything BUT kind and forgiving.

    March 14, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      well that's to assume that God is all loving...and nothg more...thing is..god is more than love..He is also JUDgE...and JUST..we ALL die...every last one of us....God does not murder as murder is defined as UNLAWFUL taking of life..so to say God murdered..you would have to show that God (who gave life and is over life and JUDGE of life) has NO right to take life...

      March 16, 2014 at 1:46 am |
      • observer

        God TORTUROUSLY DROWNED EVERY pregnant woman, child, baby, fetus and embryo on the face of the earth.

        NO ONE has yet to name ONE SIN committed by the babies, fetuses, and embryos that "justified" killing them. NOT ONE.

        March 16, 2014 at 1:51 am |
        • kermit4jc

          WHO says that PHYSICAL death is always a consequence? The babies did not sin..no..but GOD took them to live eternity with them....are you saying that life here on earth is better than that afterlife? and who says they died torturously? maybe God made it quick death..were YOU there? then WHO are YOU to say what exaxctly happened? youre making assumptions and then using emotional appeals..thats flawed logic and reasoning..and God took EVERY life as well..I can see youre deliberately using emotional appeal...cause you didn't mention the men..so it ie obvious...do better on your argument ok?

          March 16, 2014 at 1:59 am |
        • observer


          "maybe God made it quick death.."

          The Bible says they drowned in the flood. Drowning is never "quick". It is torturous while people struggle with everything they have to get a last gasp of air.

          If God takes all fetuses and embryos to heaven, you have the BEST argument ever in support of abortion. What greater gift for your child than a "fast pass to heaven".

          By the way, your efforts to try to change the question to "men" FAILED completely. We're talking about all the babies, fetuses and embryos that God KILLED. Christians find EXCUSES for killing the men, so what about ALL the OTHERS he killed?

          March 16, 2014 at 2:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Actually..you have nOT thought this through..GOD take the life..NOT you..not me...Abortion is WOMEN being the judge...that's terrible argument..sorry..but you made a fallacy....GOD is judge..NOT you..not me..not women...they have NO right to take the babies...second....yes..drowing many times is not quickllbut again..GOD is on control here! and thirdly..I did NOT try to change it to men..YOU LEFT them pout om purpose..i was merely pointing out your flawed logic..using emotional appeal...it was obvisoius cause you ONLY focused on women children and babies..etc...

          March 16, 2014 at 2:14 am |
        • Doris

          Lol. Arguing over the rules of Monopoly is one thing. Arguing over the rules of Monopoly when you are Alice in Wonderland is quite something else.

          Prove your self-serving God exists, Kermy, then we can get into the details of "Monopoly".

          March 16, 2014 at 2:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          That isn't the issue right now..for arguments sake..the other person is saying that God does exist...(for arguments sake) so don't try to interrupt this line for now..or go to another line ok?

          March 16, 2014 at 2:12 am |
        • observer


          Speaking of not thinking things through and flawed logic, where do aborted fetuses go? Heaven or hell?

          March 16, 2014 at 2:18 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Lets think this THROUGH..what is SIN? SI is transgression against God...it is NOT done without forethought...do babies sin? NO...they have no mind of doing sin..they don't know between wrong and right!

          March 16, 2014 at 2:24 am |
        • Doris

          Oh, by all means, carry on in Wonderland. Don't cross the queen now. 🙄

          March 16, 2014 at 2:19 am |
        • observer


          This may be news to you, but God DID NOT TORTUROUSLY DROWN ALL men and women.

          March 16, 2014 at 2:20 am |
        • redzoa

          So if you accept the babies didn't sin, then how does this comport with judgment according to an exercise of free will? That is, they were not capable of freely choosing evil or rejecting God, yet they were killed, expressly for the crimes of their parents. I would add that death by drowning is a torturous and cruel way to take a life; were it not, we wouldn't blink at waterboarding (then again, perhaps you don't).

          I like to think that those apologists who endorse the view of god as an indiscriminate killer of children and infants will be judged for their lack of compassion and their embrace of such defamatory stories. Perhaps that's the real test of these narratives; distinguishing between those who would embrace and defend any atrocity for the self-serving purpose of displaying allegiance and those who resolutely reject such atrocities in favor of empathy. Clearly, most fundamentalists prefer a heaven full of obedient "brownshirts" . . .

          March 16, 2014 at 2:20 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HAHAHA...the parents are gone and all that's left are babies! WHO to take care of them??? and again..the physical death was nOT punishment for the babies! that's an assumption.to think ALL death is punishment....its merely a vehicle to get to the next realm...

          March 16, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • observer


          Exactly. So when God KILLED all of them, it had nothing to do with SIN. So why did he kill ALL those innocents?

          March 16, 2014 at 2:26 am |
        • kermit4jc

          uhh..read my posts..it explains why..and if you cant see it..then ask again..but I think you SHOULD be able to see it when you FULLY read my posts instead of skimming..ok?

          March 16, 2014 at 2:28 am |
        • observer


          "death is .... merely a vehicle to get to the next realm..."

          Of course. So killing people just helps them out in the end. Why not kill everyone to speed things up?

          lol. lol.

          March 16, 2014 at 2:29 am |
        • kermit4jc

          speed things up? what..like You are in a hurry? God has puprpose in all things he does...HIS timing..not yours..you don't know all things..God does...

          March 16, 2014 at 2:31 am |
        • redzoa

          Kermit gives a whole new meaning to "suffer little children . . ."

          March 16, 2014 at 2:32 am |
        • observer


          If Noah's family could take care of tens of thousands (or maybe MILLIONS) of animals on a small ship for a year, why couldn't they take care of EVEN ONE baby? Couldn't God figure out how to do that?

          March 16, 2014 at 2:32 am |
        • kermit4jc

          ARE YOU TELLING me..that the babies would have had a better life HERE??? ARe YOU saying they are not in a better place?????? WHAT is your problem with GOD taking the babies ot heaven???

          March 16, 2014 at 2:35 am |
        • observer


          Keep it up. You are making the GREATEST ARGUMENT ever in support of abortion.

          Well done. Tell us more about how miserable God's world is and how much better it would be for fetuses to go directly to heaven.

          March 16, 2014 at 2:38 am |
        • kermit4jc

          HOW am I making case for abortion>? have youNOT read my posts? I said this does NOT in ANYWAY JUSTIFY women murdering their children!!!!!! GOD is Judge..NOT humans...and women are doing it pretty much out of selfish concerns

          March 16, 2014 at 2:41 am |
        • observer


          It is comforting for women having abortions to know that they are sending their fetus directly to heaven. Gotta make them feel better.

          The Bible, of course, NEVER mentioned "abortion", but does apparently give a recipe for how to cause one.

          March 16, 2014 at 2:47 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes....the women can justify their murder by saying "Oh,m the baby will go to a better place" but that does NOT excuse their selfish motives that becomes the end result..abortion

          March 16, 2014 at 2:51 am |
        • observer


          "selfish motives that becomes the end result..abortion"

          GROSS over-simplification. MANY abortions are because the mother cannot give the baby the life she wants for it and will give to another baby later.

          March 16, 2014 at 2:59 am |
  3. kermit4jc

    Says" means "INTENTIONALLY says" as opposed to "UNINTENTIONALLY says"<-excuse me..THAT wasnt the issue..the issue is...do CHILDREN say cruel things to parents? KNowing exactly what they are saying? and like I said..this is not simply cussing at mom and dad...its CUzrSING..do you know what a CURSE is in Jewish context? it snot saying a cuss word..its basically telling mom and dad f off and die!! young ones dont really say those things without realizing what they are saying..older ones do..mostly adults...like I said..this is no spoiled brat thing...learn about Jewish culture first before you argue

    March 7, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
  4. joeyy1


    March 7, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
  5. zacharyhamilton007

    religion is not under attack.but i want to share a beautiful experience with god. i was praying to god for help to heal me with his love and i felt his prensense. this was a time i could not walk very well and as i finished praying and crying i felt cool air in a hot day guding my legs to heal. i believe god is real but that does not make me deluisonal becasue i know how i felt and what happend. so i want to put it on a definination of delision "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness, as in schizophrenia. delusion definition." so saying christians are delusional is insuting to everyone and the mental health field alone.

    March 7, 2014 at 10:39 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Apart from religious texts there is no evidence of a god. The knowledge that we have shows that all creation myths are incorrect. Belief in the personal god of religions is despite invalidating evidence. How is that not delusion.

      March 7, 2014 at 10:53 am |
      • zacharyhamilton007

        well i guess there is no direct eviodence but there is evidence that if people use prayer as a coping skills it works. its help people to calm down but you are right there is not direct evidence but if its a delison why do doctoers and soical workers suggests prayer? but there is a differene between a mentally ill person that has delision and people that belive in Christ. the mentally ill obess over the delison. for example if a person belive he is god and dispite doctors and friends tell him otherwise he believes he is god. that is a delsion. a person beliving in something that is down right strange and wrong like my example.its just experience i guess like what i wrote. maybe belifs are things that make us feel good and want to really belive in it. when i was healed no one saw my walkiing got better but i saw it did. i dont know what people say but being part of a delsion its not proven. maybe i imagined it. i dont know all i know is from my own persnol experience. thank you for commenting on my post and i am willing to wait for more replies.

        March 7, 2014 at 11:26 am |
  6. observernow


    For the flood, you have HYPOTHESIZED the existence of something that can do anything without regard for any of the known laws of science. Because of that, you don't require that ANY LOGIC or COMMON SENSE must apply. This magic has NO PROOF, but you don't care. You believe in magic for the flood and that's fine for you, but it is intellectually vacant.

    March 7, 2014 at 9:51 am |
    • kermit4jc

      TOTALLY false..logic and reason are NOT exclusive to science alone! To say such shows your limited capacity to use logic in other areas of your life. Besides..that something (God) MADE science possible..before anything existed, there was no science (cant apply science on nothing..right???)

      March 7, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
  7. kermit4jc

    Then WHY waste time arguing how many animals were on board and how to feed them?? LOL! Thing is..science has NOT proven no flood happened...there is still studies going on...

    March 6, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
    • igaftr

      In reality, science HAS proven that at no time since life has been on the planet has there ever been a global flood that wiped out all life on the planet (except for gods special boat)

      March 6, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      "there is still studies going on..."

      And there are still classes available that will teach you proper grammar.

      March 7, 2014 at 8:14 am |
      • kermit4jc

        DUDE..IM trying to kkeep up with several threads and writing fast...if yo ugot anything to say...don't attack my grammar or such..attack the issue or stay out of it thanks

        March 7, 2014 at 9:31 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "science has NOT proven no flood happened"

          Science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been no global flood as described in the bible. Most geologists and scientists say there is however a fairly large amount of data that proves a major regional floods have occured that would imitate some of the Genesis flood account details, however with the book claiming it was a global flood being specific as to how far over every mountain the water reached, physics easily debunks the Genesis account. First there is not enough water in the air, sea and subterrainian caches to reach the 10 cubits over the tallest mountains and even if there was enough water it would have had to rain at 25ft per hr for 40 days and 40 nights to reach that depth. I don't know if you have any actual experience with heavy rain but it doesn't take an meteorologist to know that 25 ft an hour is effectively solid water in a sheet drowning all life on the planet within hours including any who tried to escape in a boat.

          "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy, and the scientific community considers it to be pseudoscience." – "The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood" 2001

          Flood geology isn't a a real field, it is a pseudoscience, plain and simple.

          March 7, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          If one remembers the same Book (Genesis) claims that God brought on the Flood..if God created all things..surely he can create more water to do so....plus..hed be in control of the effects of a major flood...for example keeping fish alive during the deluge....The Flood was designed to kill all human life...thus it would only be occurring in areas of human habitation...if not in fact totally globally

          March 7, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • transframer


          Science is OK. But I think many people don't realize that science is their religion: a blind faith in something they don't understand but they think it can't be wrong. Which is exactly the same thoughts atheists have about Christians. Also we may have look at some realities of the science community. Like the fact that there are many impostors, low qualified or ill minded scientists. The fact that many of them risk getting laid off if they express something else than what is the accepted by the community. The fact they are brainwashed from childhood into thinking that materialism and evolutionism are the only ways.
          Having said that is not difficult to understand why one can say that "science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been no global flood as described in the bible" when this is not true at all.

          March 8, 2014 at 12:14 am |
        • redzoa

          @transframer – With all due respect, science has "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" that no global flood took place as described in the genesis narrative. Now this isn't "proven" as a mathematical certainty, but it is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; particularly among those best situated to appreciate the relevant evidence, i.e. the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists. For the global flood and related aspects of the genesis narrative to be true, this would effectively require that the entire scientific enterprise (i.e. physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, etc) be so fundamentally flawed as to be effectively worthless. Yet, evolution and its supporting disciplines are validated in daily applications ranging from medicine to agriculture to engineering. For example, contrast the # of oil/mineral companies employing “flood geology” as opposed to mainstream geology to locate reserves.

          Regarding science as a religion, I can see this use in the most general sense, but I know of no scientists who pray to their experiments. That many see science as an answer to tangible problems is simply the result of science’s ability to generate tangible solutions. The difference between science and religion is that science invariably invites criticism, understanding that it could be wrong. It is self-correcting and accepts new evidence. Religion, on the other hand, begins with the conclusion, then works backwords to justify itself. Science invariably converges onto known facts regardless of the individual’s personal faith or bias (e.g. objects on earth fall at 9.8 m/s^2, DNA is the hereditary material, etc) as opposed to religion which invariably diverges into an ever expanding # of discrete sects, each convinced they are privy to the one “truth.”

          Regarding excommunication of fringe scientific positions, this betrays a miscomprehension of the process of science. Every scientist and every journal seeks to generate the evidence which undermines or supplants a current paradigm. This is what generates subscriptions/downloads and launches careers. There is little incentive to simply confirm what is already accepted. Still, there are those whose positions are simply not supported by the weight of evidence, particularly those who invoke supernatural mechanisms to fill the voids in their hypotheses. Regarding brainwashing, this appears to place the cart before the horse in that religion is far more frequently introduced prior to materialism and evolutionism. We can point to any number of devout Christians who accept evolution on the evidence (e.g. Francis Collins, Ken Miller, etc).

          Lastly, in addition to the narrow slice of problems with the Genesis narrative you’ve attempted to address here, there remains an incredible array of evidentiary problems for the global flood. A few that pop to mind are the Coconino Sandstone, the meandering/lateral channels in the Grand Canyon, the progressive order of the fossil record (complete with a pre-hominid through hominid progression), forms which bear features bridging the specially-created kinds (i.e. fish with tetrapod features, reptiles with mammalian features, reptiles with avian features, etc), the presence of anomalous morphological/genetic features (e.g. the recurrent laryngeal nerve, male nip-ples, the presence of a defunct gene for egg-yolk production in our own placental mammal genomes), etc, etc.

          Suffice it to say that ignoring the evidence indicating evolution and invoking supernatural mechanisms to account for deficiencies in creationist models suggests the rejection of evolution is principally based in an unreasonable doubt born of a priori religious faith.

          March 8, 2014 at 12:46 am |
        • transframer


          Sorry but you are wrong. All the science has is hypothesis, not evidence, which are not proven or even provable, that's why
          they are not accepted by everyone. They are just models that describe the reality based on some presumptions. While they may have good logic, many also come from a line of thinking like this: ‘For a biologist the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all.’ (Peter Medawar) which defines the scientific framework for many scientists.
          That's not the case, for example, with Pythagorean Theorem.
          The same can be said about religion the only difference is that here the assumption is that God exist.
          Many or all of these hypnosis/problems that you mentioned here and in other posts as objections to flood and/or evolutionism (such as Coconino Sandstone) are not new and are addressed in sites like creation.com
          Finally, because you mentioned Christians who accepted evolution, how about some atheists who oppose Darwin's evolutionism such as Nietzsche or, more recently, Jerry Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini

          March 10, 2014 at 12:21 am |
        • redzoa

          @transframer –
          “All the science has is hypothesis, not evidence, which are not proven or even provable, that's why . . .”

          The original statement was “proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” not “proven” in the 100% certainty sense. As I noted, when the jury is comprised of those best situated to review the available evidence, i.e. the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists, the verdict is evolution is “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Your reference to hypothesis/not evidence, suggests a severe miscomprehension of the evidence. From the progressive order of the fossil record, phylogenetic analyses confirming these relationships, to observable instances of speciation and molecular artifacts like our gene for egg yolk protein, the evidence firmly supports evolution. This is why evolution and mainstream geology are directly applied and validated in application. Note that the “evidence” for creationism is almost invariably negative, i.e. arguments of incredulity targeting evolution. There is no evidence supporting the genesis creation account which is concordant with the entire body of scientific knowledge (whence the need for supernatural delivery,hibernation, etc). This is why creationism is rejected not only by mainstream science, but in every court case in which its alleged “evidence” has been presented (from McLean v. AR BoE right up through Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board). And this is why creation models are soundly rejected by researchers in both the relevant public and private for-profit sectors.

          My review of creationist sites addressing the Coconino Sandstone provide entries like the misleading cite you offered regarding founding pair genetics and Lenski’s E.coli below. But, in addition to still being a thorn in the creationist’s side, what the Coconino Sandstone show are that: 1) creationists, when they use appropriate methodologies, can get published in mainstream science journals (i.e. there is no conspiracy against creationists per se); but 2) their conclusions (e.g. Brand) are soundly refuted based on the totality of evidence. I would point out that “addressing” with misrepresentation of the relevant science is not the same as responding with positive evidence.

          Lastly, the reference to devout Christians who accept evolution was in response to your comment about brainwashing with materialism and evolutionism, i.e.:

          “The fact that many of them risk getting laid off if they express something else than what is the accepted by the community. The fact they are brainwashed from childhood into thinking that materialism and evolutionism are the only ways.”

          First, as noted above, ID/creationists can (although infrequently) publish when they conform to appropriate methodological standards. Furthermore, many retain their positions with academia despite their anti-evolution views (Behe and Minnich come to mind). As Collins and Miller illustrate, there are those who accept a divine supernatural realm and methodological naturalism (as opposed to metaphysical naturalism); but because religion is introduced long before science education, your “brainwashing . . . only ways” statement and your subsequent tu quoque are both faulty. In fact, your own reference to atheists who reject evolution undermines the invariable brainwashing argument given these folks didn’t succ-umb.

          March 10, 2014 at 2:32 am |
        • transframer


          My language may not be the most rigorous, I was thinking more empirically. By hypothesis I meant something that is not 100% sure and by evidence I meant something completely, 100% sure (like something we see or like a math theorem)
          What I'm saying is that science, at least when talking about phenomena that are related to Bible, operates with hypothesis, proposed explanations that are not 100% certain.
          Brainwashing exists for sure but, of course, it doesn't mean that all people become victims. But it seems to be harder and harder for many to even realize that other ways (in science and life) may be possible.

          March 10, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
        • redzoa

          @transframer – In light of your hypothesis/evidence distinction, then I would offer that evolution has both hypotheses (“we should find a fossil bearing particular traits in between these other two fossils”) and supporting evidence (“we have found a fossil bearing the predicted particular traits in between these other two fossil”). It’s the supporting evidence that elevates evolution to a scientific theory in that this evidence has, thus far, repeatedly and consistently confirmed the hypotheses.
          But I don’t believe we can ever use 100% certainty in anything other than math and formal logic. The best we can hope for in the physical sciences (and life in general really) is consistently repeated validation of prediction. How can I be assured he/she loves me? Well, he/she continues to behave accordingly (but it's possible he/she might not). How can I be assured gravity will be working today? Well, gravity continues to behave accordingly (but it's possible it might not). In the context of “proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” a 100% certainty standard is unreasonable and this is true whether we’re talking about law or science or anything outside of formal logic and mathematics.

          “What I'm saying is that science, at least when talking about phenomena that are related to Bible, operates with hypothesis, proposed explanations that are not 100% certain.”

          I certainly don’t argue this. But again, 100% certainty is an unreasonable standard for the physical sciences. I would add that it is also an unreasonable standard for accepting as true the phenomena described in the bible.

          “But it seems to be harder and harder for many to even realize that other ways (in science and life) may be possible.”

          And I certainly concur with you here. Whether it’s Christians who accept evolution or atheists who reject evolution, we all need to recognize that we could be wrong, and, IMHO, it’s inc-umbent upon any thinking person to reserve at least that level of humility and intellectual integrity. That said, however, not all positions are equally supported, particularly when they involve matters which are amenable to empirical investigation.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:18 am |
  8. kermit4jc

    Lee Strobel, Wayne House, William Lane Craig, GK Chesterson, CS Lewis...I can name a lot more...

    March 6, 2014 at 9:46 am |
    • midwest rail

      Peter Popoff, Ernest Angley, Eddie Long, Jim Bakker, etc.. I could name a lot more. What's your point ?

      March 6, 2014 at 9:49 am |
    • Doris

      And the question was, who are some Christian authors and someone who sounds like Dr Phil with a nasal infection?

      March 6, 2014 at 9:52 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      This is a list of people who exemplify what, exactly?

      March 7, 2014 at 9:38 am |
  9. Doris

    So you know there was this old dude that lived a long, long time ago. He was a funny sort of old guy – he had some sheep that he slept with – he was very fond of them. And this dude could feel the weather in his bones so to speak. Well one day, he was really feeling like it was going to storm pretty bad, and sure enough it just rained and rained for like the whole day and into the next day. It was pretty bad – it flooded his home and covered up pathways and such. Some places were pretty deep and you could drown if you weren't careful. Well being a pretty supersti-tious sort, and very paranoid, he went out and quickly built a little boat and got in it with sheep. Other people had done the same thing, but not to hold their pets or livestock, so they were looking at him kind of funny like when he went by. But they took note later because some of them lost their animals by drowning by the time this storm had passed. He was very proud when the storm was over and he could show his pals at the bar that he had not lost any sheep from that terrible storm.

    His kids would tell his story to their kids only they kind of had it a bit wrong and described the boat as much bigger than it was. Also they knew he had some goats, so they thought he had also put the goats in the boat with him, which he really hadn't. The grand kids years later would tell the story of this old man and they were so proud of him they had this boat being really big with hold all kinds of neighborhood animals in it. By the time time many generations passed people had pumped up this old man's story so much they had him in this monstrous ship and well you know the rest. Also they people didn't really know what to say about what really happened around the neighborhood of this old man, so they assumed he and his boat survivors were the only ones left after the storm, which of course, was later described as a world-wide flood.

    And that's the story of Austin. I mean Noah of course.....

    March 6, 2014 at 9:14 am |
  10. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    March 5, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
    • Bob

      Vic, your whole Jesus-sacrifice story is just a steaming pile of nonsense, and the murderous slave lord that you worship is pure fiction. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

      Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

      March 14, 2014 at 9:59 am |
      • kermit4jc

        This just goes to show that those who ask such qstions seem to not have rea te BIble at all..the Bible paints God as a JUST God..thus he cannot simply let sin go unpunished...second..God is not Just because he FEELS like it..again the BIble says God does not change..God cannot change his nature..if he becomes unjust..then he is no longer God...and it has nothing t do with being all powerful..being all powerful does not mean he can change his nature...

        March 14, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
  11. transframer


    You have some good questions but let's try stick with only one at a time. The question I'm trying to answer now is the number of animals on ark

    March 5, 2014 at 6:18 am |
    • Doris

      Why? Are you trying to write a children's book?

      March 5, 2014 at 6:59 am |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        The answer to the number of animals on the ark = number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin...

        March 6, 2014 at 9:20 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      NOAH’S ARK Q&A

      Q) How big was the ark?
      A) 450ft by 75ft by 45ft with 3 decks and an 18in overhang.
      (Genesis 6:15; 1 cubit = 1.5 feet)
      The largest practical size for a wooden ship is around 300ft.
      Those ships have been built that push 400 feet all leaked like crazy and required constant pumping to get rid of the water they took on.

      Q) How long did it take to build?
      A) 100 years, give or take.
      Noah is around 500 years old in Gen 5:32 and when the flood begins in Gen 7:11, he is 600.

      Q) How many people were on the Ark and helped build it?
      A) 8 people were designated by God to be spared, but the women wouldn’t have done any building. 4 illiterate men did all the work. They found the suitable trees in the desert, cut them down, seasoned the wood, transported, cut and shaped it, nailed together with nothing but Bronze Age tools.
      Large ships are normally built by organized teams of hundreds or thousands of skilled craftsmen working for years at a time.

      Q) What kind of raw materials would he need to build it?
      A) Enough trees for 216,525 square feet of wood fort the frame, plus load-bearing walls, interior rooms, stalls, pens, and staircases. Enough pitch (tar) to seal more than 114,750 square feet of exterior (thousands of gallons).

      Q) How long were they on the boat?
      A) Around a year.
      He entered on the 17th day of the 2nd month (Gen 7:11) and left on the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following year (Gen 8:14)
      There were 40 days of rain, 150 days of drifting, 150 days of receding water, 4 weeks for the recon birds to find land, 10 days between coming ashore and getting God’s OK to disembark.

      Q) How many animals were on it?
      A) If we limit our list of animals to those specifically mentioned in the Bible in one verse or another, that’s about 120 “kinds”. God said to snag 7 breeding pairs of clean animals, but only 1 set for the unclean critters, making for a bare minimum of 1320 animals.
      However, Noah would’ve also had to keep a good stock of animals to feed the carnivores.
      The Bible also mentions that Noah started slaughtering cows, sheep and goats as soon as he got out of the boat in order to thank God for His mercy, so he would’ve needed a few spares for that too.

      Q) How much food would they need?
      A) A lot. From mice who to elephants that eat 100 lbs of food each day.
      Food would have been a huge problem. How do you store tens of thousands of pounds of different kinds of food for a year in a confined space during the Bronze Age? The sheer volume would exceed the holding capacity of the Ark.

      Q) What about the poop?
      A) The Bible does not mention what was done with all those thousands of pounds of excrement or how it was collected, brought on deck and then dumped overboard.
      I imagine the Ark was pretty smelly and that the poor humans spent most of their time shoveling sh1t.

      March 5, 2014 at 10:01 am |
      • kermit4jc

        WELL>.remember...WHO (according to the same Book-the Bible) was incontrol of the Flood..who caused it? GOD....if God can create all of the universe...this would be childs play incomparison...who knows..maybe the animals didn't really eat...went into a hibernation type mode...don't know..the point is..GOD would bein control according to the story...

        March 5, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Of course magic is the answer! Why didn't I think of that?
          Or you could try to assert that it's a translation error, like how "young boy" actually means "older teenager" or how "made" actually means "referenced metaphorically".

          March 5, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          sir..I insert by context..youhave not shown me context..you apparently have in your mind a gang of little boys running around teasing people..to say such things a bald head..go on up..does NOT sound like something from a little kid!

          March 5, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          BY the way..magic is illusion..this was NOT an illussion..according to the BIble it actuallyhapened..it iddnt say or imply an illusion

          March 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • bacbik

          too much unnecessary capitalization.. too much BS from the kermit

          March 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          prove it is BS

          March 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • bacbik

          too much unnecessary capitalization.. too much BS from the kermit

          March 5, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          WOW...so now you pretend this was said originally by Americans? (note: sarcastic cat and paste from your earlier reply to me).

          the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
          synonyms: sorcery, witchcraft, wizardry, necromancy, enchantment, the supernatural, occultism, the occult, black magic, the black arts, voodoo, hoodoo, mojo, shamanism

          a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
          synonyms: mirage, hallucination, apparition, figment of the imagination, trick of the light

          They are not the same thing.
          You're invoking a deus ex machina (literally) to justify the impossibility of the Ark actually existing as depicted in Genesis.
          Divine intervention = magic.

          March 5, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • observernow

          Doc Vestibule

          "(note: sarcastic cat and paste from your earlier reply to me).'

          Does the sarcastic cat refer to Garfield? 🙂

          March 5, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "prove it is BS"

          Much like I do not need to prove Leprechauns BS, I do not need to prove wrong the "magic" origin to avoid the gaping holes in your logic concerning the flood account do not hold water. Anyone who currently believes that a global flood happened the way the bible describes is delusional.

          March 6, 2014 at 9:29 am |
        • kermit4jc

          There are no gaping holes..youhavent shown any in light of the Story having come from same Book that has GOD causing the Flood..you choose to leave God out of the equation

          March 6, 2014 at 9:43 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I suppose for global flood supporters we should call them "Deluginal"...

          March 6, 2014 at 9:30 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "who knows..maybe the animals didn't really eat...went into a hibernation type mode...don't know"

          "There are no gaping holes.."

          So it is up to those who don't believe to figure out how it was done or just accept it was done by your magical genie even though the geological record shows NO evidence of a global flood and the claims made in Genesis fly in the face of all known physics and plausibility. And you just want to stand there staring at a hole you could drive a planet through saying "Nope! I don't see any holes!" Maybe that is the problem, you can't see the forest through the trees, or rather, the void through the hole...

          March 6, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • igaftr

          "..you choose to leave God out of the equation"

          or to be more accurate, you chose to add god to the equation even though there is absolutely no evidence of such a thing.

          March 6, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • kermit4jc

          NOOOOO...I choose to add God to the equation BECAUSE I have evidence of God.....dont try to misprepresent me..thanks

          March 6, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
      • transframer

        Doc Vestibule
        You have the right questions but the wrong answers. I'll try to correct them one by one. Actually I already answered some of then in another thread, I'll re-post them.

        Q) How big was the ark?
        A) 450ft by 75ft by 45ft with 3 decks and an 18in overhang.
        (Genesis 6:15; 1 cubit = 1.5 feet)
        The largest practical size for a wooden ship is around 300ft.
        Those ships have been built that push 400 feet all leaked like crazy and required constant pumping to get rid of the water they took on.

        Maybe I'll tell more about this later but I only give on example now. Large wood ships were successfully built long time ago. The one built by Ptolemy Philopator (c. 244–205 bc) was 420 feet long, 57 feet wide and 72 feet high. It could accommodate more than 7200 men. So wherever you got your data from, you shd tell them to use some history. You can find something about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres

        March 5, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          That huge ship was mostly for show. It wasn't really an ocean going vessel. Note my use of the qualifier "practical". If a ship seldom if ever leaves port, it isn't made to be practical. It certainly would not survive violently roiling waters as would have been evident during Noah's flood.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • observernow


          Your example of a boat SUPPOSEDLY holding 7900 men didn't have them for A YEAR. lol.

          The ark was SMALLER than some of today's cruise ships; had to hold MILLIONS of different animals and a YEAR'S SUPPLY of food for millions of animals and 8 people.

          Science fiction and bad at that.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • transframer

          Maybe because it was built for war and speed. There are also too, which actually were used if you think this one is not too good. The ark had a totally different goal and design, almost like a submarine. Its only purpose was to stay afloat. There are complex calculations and models that show that the ark was extremely safe and able to fulfill its duty.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Thalamegos, a ship awash in myth and opulence, was described as a double-hulled catamaran style ship, which is not the shape of Noah's Ark as described in the Bible. The Hebrew word used to describe it is "tebah", which means "box" or "chest" (like a treasure chest – with corners and whatnot).

          March 5, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
        • transframer

          Leontifera was almost the same size and was actually successfully used in war

          March 5, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, Unfortunately AiG is not a reliable source of fact. There's a clue in the name that they may have an agenda. They estimate a size based upon rowers being in-line and having 3 feet of space, for which there is no evidence.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
        • transframer

          In Santa We Trust

          What has AiG to do with this? There are well known ways to calculate the length of a ship and there are 279 books in google books that have references to Leontifera / Leontophoros and other ships. Also it appears in a list of longest wooden ships here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ship, not a creationist friendly article

          March 5, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Yes – the largest wooden ships in history have all been in the 300 ft range.
          Great Republic, 1853. Designed by Donald MacKay and built in New York, she was at 335
          Santiago at 324 ft
          Roanoke at 311 ft
          Belyana at 328 ft
          England gaff schooner Wyoming at 351 ft
          HMS Orlando at 335 ft
          HMS Mersey at 335 ft

          The Great Republic had more than just wood – it had some 335 tons of iron and 56 tons of copper.

          The Wyoming was 329 feet long, not 351.
          Becuase of the length, the Wyoming had to use pumps to get rid of the water that constantly flooded the hold due to hogging and sagging.

          The Santiago was an iron hulled ship, not wooden.

          The Orlando and Mersey needed iron strappings to support the hull. Both were scrapped after repeated structural failures due to their extreme lengths.

          Belyanas were a class of ship from Russia.
          The huge river barges had constant problems with leakage and needed a large crew to pump water out of hull (again, becuase of the size).

          Another point: once the ocean salt water mixed in with the all of the world's fresh water, there would no longer be any fresh water and all terrestrial flora and fauna would die.
          How could there have been any bodies of fresh water after the flood?
          If every living creature on the planet, both terrestrial and aquatic, suffered simultaneous extinction there would be unmistakeable, unmissable, undeniable evidence of billions upon billions of creatures leaving their corpses behind.
          That does not exist.

          March 6, 2014 at 9:13 am |
        • igaftr

          "The one built by Ptolemy Philopator (c. 244–205 bc) "

          AHhh, so right at the iron age.
          Noah allegedly lived at the end of the stone age, right at the beginning of the copper age. He might have had copper tools at best, but unless he was very wealthy or very powerful, he would not even have copper tools.
          It is physically impossible for one of Noah's level of technology to make a ship anywhere close to that size.

          In essence, it would be similar to the Wright Brothers buildinig a 747 with their tools and materials.

          Just one of the MANY things proving the story is pure myth.

          March 6, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • transframer

          Doc Vestibule
          I just showed a list of much bigger and older ships from plenty of non-creationist sources. You dismissed one as not being practical (although practical in that context meant for war purposes) but didn't say anything about the others.
          Regarding the water. As I said, we don't know how salty was the water before flood. The flood was accompanied by major geological movements which literally turned the earth upside down. Water was mixed with minerals and it could get salty pretty fast after the flood but still with enough time left so animals and plants could accommodate. Also, after flood rain could be a source of fresh water.
          And yes there is plenty of evidence for the big extinction of creatures, it's called the fossil record.

          March 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • transframer


          So was the great Pyramid of Cheops. Almost the same age, people and technology, much bigger job.
          Is it a myth too?

          March 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • igaftr

          The geological record clearly does NOT show an extinction of all creatures on the planet. Not all at once, not in one big event, not at all points around the world at the same time..
          That is one of the MANY things showing the story of Noah to be pure myth. did not happen, could not happen.
          Noah could NOT have made a sea-worthy vessel of that size given his tools, materials and seafaring technology of his day.
          It would take 5 times the water on the planet to make the flood happen as specified in Genesis.
          The resulting flood would have killed every plant, and every sea creature. That would end ALL food chains, which would require many millenia for food chains to even begin to reform and become stable.

          The list of valid reasons that the flood could not have happened is VERY extensive, and god magic does not address it.

          March 6, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • igaftr

          When comparing the pyramid to noahs myth, you are really trying to throw smoke...lots of it. Completely different task, completely different skills. The pyramids did not need to be seaworthy, and yes, they made them using copper tools, since the pharoahs could afford them...not so with Noah, even if he had them, his boat would sink very quickly if it ever even got afloat in the first place.
          The technology of shipbuilding is VASTLY different that that of stone structures. Is that the best you have? throw smoke at it and hope no one notices that your argument is wholly without merit?

          March 6, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • transframer


          We know nothing about the tools and knowledge Noah had. The pyramid was mostly a reference, because we know it exist and was built almost in the same conditions. Even if we see it, it's hard to explain how was built. Yes, it's a different skill but it doesn't make any easier. Comparing with the building of pyramid, building of the ark was child play. Just read the engineering problems the builders had to solve. We have any reasons to believe that, even if technology slightly advanced (maybe), the skills and knowledge didn't, by the contrary. If not, we would have other bigger pyramids or at least many of the same size as the great pyramid but that didn't happen, the more recent, the smaller pyramids were built

          March 6, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, Ignoring all the points about salinity, diversity, geology, logistics, etc., why do think it a credible argument that they had skill that surpass ours?

          March 6, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • transframer

          In Santa We Trust

          >>Ignoring all the points about salinity, diversity, geology, logistics, etc.,
          How I ignore them? I addressed everyone of them. If you think that there are problems say it punctually not generically.
          >>why do think it a credible argument that they had skill that surpass ours?
          Maybe not surpassing, and surely not everybody, but at least on par. Because they were able to build stuff (like the pyramids) that was extremely smart and advanced. And we use to measure the skills of a civilization based on such visible aspects.
          You know that joke : "The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing." Sometimes I think it's not just a joke.

          March 6, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • igaftr

          "We know nothing about the tools and knowledge Noah had."
          False. We know exactly what tools were available at that time. We also know the materials that were available.
          There is NO possibility that the boat would not have leaked from the extreme water pressure created by such a large, heavy craft. The amount of water pressure would not be something that Noah could possibly counter. it would have leaked like a seive, and there would be no pumps, not possible that this boat, from Noahs time, could possibly stay afloat for the time specified by the myth. They didn't even have nails at that point. There are just WAY too many issues involved in making a seaworthy vessel, and when you take it to such a gargantuan size, flat out impossible during Noahs time.

          That is just ONE of the MYRIAD issues that show it is absolutely impossible for the myth of Noah to have happpened.

          I don't know why you keep bringing up the pyramids. That has nothing to do with this.
          Are you actually suggesting that they had more advanced technology and as time progressed they regressed?
          And THAT is what you site as why the last pyramids were smaller? ( That is NOT why the last ones were smaller, that isn't even a good guess)

          March 6, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • transframer


          All you did so far was just denying everything without providing a single proof. How about start now and show everybody what tools, materials and knowledge had Noah. Also, to see how much more advanced were, show us what tools and materials had the builders of the pyramids and how did they build the pyramids (this shd be easy because it's not myth, it's reality, right?).

          March 6, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          "The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing."

          Right, one of my big disappointments with religion.

          March 6, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
      • transframer

        Q) How many animals were on it?
        A) If we limit our list of animals to those specifically mentioned in the Bible in one verse or another, that’s about 120 “kinds”. God said to snag 7 breeding pairs of clean animals, but only 1 set for the unclean critters, making for a bare minimum of 1320 animals.

        Actually around 8,000 kinds so 16,000 animals

        March 5, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • observernow

          The process of creating new species from an existing one is called EVOLUTION.

          Good to see a Christian support EVOLUTION and MILLIONS of cases, too. Well done.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • transframer

          No, it's called speciation which is not evolution in the Darwin's way. But that's another discussion

          March 5, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          trans, Evolution over long periods of time result in new species. Take some time to read: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

          March 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • observernow

          EVOLUTION: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


          March 5, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Where do you get that number? I counted the number of animals actually mentioned in the Bible.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • observernow

          More SCIENCE FICTION in the Noah's ark fantasy:

          Where did the water come from?
          Where did the water go to?
          Where was there any food after the crops and animals were all wiped out.

          What a joke!

          March 5, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • transframer

          Doc Vestibule

          Those counted in Bible were only the clean animals. Noah took all the kinds, not only the clean ones.

          March 5, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
        • Doris

          Why were only clean animals counted?

          March 5, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
        • transframer

          God showed what animals can be eaten. These are the clean animals. Jews, Muslims and others still have this kind of food restriction

          March 5, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
      • transframer

        Q) How much food would they need?
        A) A lot. From mice who to elephants that eat 100 lbs of food each day.
        Food would have been a huge problem. How do you store tens of thousands of pounds of different kinds of food for a year in a confined space during the Bronze Age? The sheer volume would exceed the holding capacity of the Ark.

        A full grown elephant maybe but a young one not so much. The required food and drink water was calculated to be around 15% (volume of ark) for food and 10% for water (even less if rain is used)

        March 5, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
        • observernow

          "The required food and drink water was calculated to be around 15% (volume of ark)"

          A YEAR'S SUPPLY of food for MILLIONS of animals. Fresh meat for carnivores and bamboo for koalas.

          lol. lol. lol.

          March 5, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          100 lbs per day is the figure for a young elephant. Adults consume 3-4 times that amount.
          And we do know what tools were used back then thanks to archaeology.
          The women would not have been literate not labourers. At least not if they were ancient Hebrew women. This much is evident from the Bible verses pertaining to how women should be treated.
          Even if we concede that Noah was 500 years old when he began building the ark and had the requisite expertise, he still couldn't do the work of hundreds of ship builders.
          And what of the raw materials required? Where in the desert do you find a forest of gopher trees?

          March 5, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
        • Doris

          I keep coming back here thinking I've stumbled upon some mock blog on the Onion.

          March 5, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • otoh2

          Doc Vestibule,

          Excellent points - except maybe for this one:

          "The women would not have been literate not labourers. At least not if they were ancient Hebrew women."

          Noah was not a Hebrew. According to the tale, Judaism didn't begin until Abraham 10 generations later.

          March 5, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • transframer

          Doc Vestibule

          >>100 lbs per day is the figure for a young elephant. Adults consume 3-4 times that amount.
          Sorry, that's not always true. This is from http://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/elephant:
          "The elephants at the San Diego Zoo and the San Diego Zoo Safari Park eat less than their wild counterparts—about 125 pounds (57 kilograms) of food each day—because they don’t have to burn as many calories looking for food "
          That's for an adult one. That means that a young one will eat 30-40 lbs/day. And there is also an important point they make here: captivity animals eat less than wild ones

          March 5, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • observernow

          Using a minimum of 30 pounds per day for each elephant, that equals 21,600 pounds of food for ONLY TWO of the millions of animals on board for a year.


          March 5, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ooooooops! WHERE THE HECK do you get millions of animals on the Ark? stupid logic..any fool con figure that millions cannot fit on the ark....sheesh

          March 6, 2014 at 1:35 am |
        • transframer

          Doc Vestibule

          >> And we do know what tools were used back then thanks to archaeology.
          So, what were the tools used to build the pyramids? I don't know why the ark looks technologically so impossible when a much bigger engineering work was made in almost the same conditions

          March 5, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          You do know that the pyramids don't float?

          March 5, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
        • transframer

          Floating is not such a big job. As I already showed, we built ships almost the same size with almost the same tools just a few hundred years BC. What we didn't build anymore was pyramids the size of Pyramid of Cheops.

          March 5, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • transframer

          Doc Vestibule

          >>Even if we concede that Noah was 500 years old when he began building the ark and had the requisite expertise, he still couldn't do the work of hundreds of ship builders.
          How do you know how many ship builders were necessary? How many built a ship the size of Leontophoros? As far as I know there could have been more than 8 people involved, some of them died before the ark was finished. Methuselah was sure one of them ( he died 8 days before the flood) and maybe others too.

          March 5, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
        • transframer


          Sorry, can't help noticing you are funny because you are like my little daughter who keeps saying "million" because she thinks it's funny.

          March 5, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • observernow


          It wouldn't be so funny for you if you knew any FACTS about animals.

          A study, published in the online journal PLoS Biology, a publication of the Public Library of Science, estimated the number of species at nearly 8.8 million. Of those species, 6.5 million would be on land and 2.2 million in the ocean.

          OOOOOOOOOPS! Don't be so afraid of education.

          March 5, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
        • transframer


          Yes but if you read again, I said land vertebrates. So, how many species of land vertebrates are there?

          March 5, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
        • observernow


          lol. Whether they are vertebrates or not is totally IRRELEVENT. God didn't just kill vertebrates.

          Keep laughing at the FACT that there are MILLIONS of animals since I'm laughing at your lack of knowledge.

          March 5, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
        • transframer

          No, he killed every land vertebrate which was not on the ark:
          Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. (Genesis 7:22)

          March 5, 2014 at 11:49 pm |
        • observernow


          You're a riot.

          Guess you missed this VERSE IMMEDIATELY before the one you quoted:

          21 And ALL FLESH DIED that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

          OOOOOPS AGAIN!

          March 5, 2014 at 11:55 pm |
        • observernow


          You do have an excuse. Obviously, the Bible was WRONG since it said all HUMAN BEINGS did. Ooops.

          March 5, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
    • transframer

      Q) How many people were on the Ark and helped build it?
      A) 8 people were designated by God to be spared, but the women wouldn’t have done any building. 4 illiterate men did all the work. They found the suitable trees in the desert, cut them down, seasoned the wood, transported, cut and shaped it, nailed together with nothing but Bronze Age tools.

      I guess same tools were used to built the great pyramids of Egypt. Granted, not by 8 men but also much bigger task. Do you think technology evolved too much meantime? I would say the contrary. We don't know what technology they had, if women didn't help and how illiterate they were. Remember they were really special men, living more than 900 years.

      March 5, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
      • Doris

        Hmm. This reminds me – I need to pick up some Cocoa Puffs at the store in the morning. 🙄

        March 6, 2014 at 12:48 am |
    • redzoa

      @transframer – "You have some good questions but let's try stick with only one at a time. The question I'm trying to answer now is the number of animals on ark"

      Ok, we can deal with the fossil/geological evidence contradicting the flood myth later. However, with respect to the # of animals required on the ark . . .

      Here’s the PLoS paper you’ve been directed to:

      Even if we were to take your genera – kinds relationship, and even if we were to accept your extant species/genera numbers I'm not sure you've factored in the many extinct vertebrate forms that would need to be included on the ark. Without including these, then you loses the single flood event = fossil record. I also don't believe the numbers, by the relevant scriptures, are restricted to land vertebrates, but would necessarily include land invertebrates, insects, spiders, etc, that would have drowned. Even back then, they knew insects required air. This last group significantly drives up the #s.

      I saw your % allocations for food and water and they seem pretty low. The carnivore/herbivore constraints are significant and there are many forms with relatively inefficient digestion that consume a disproportionately high volume of food relative to their sizes. Carnivore digestion systems require meat and this meat must be kept alive throughout the voyage. I also saw your statement that salt-water tolerant fish are pretty resilient in fresh water, and while there are a number of species for which this is true, for most marine organisms, they require a fairly constrained range of salinity or else their physiology just drowns like our own (remember back to osmosis). I believe I saw you list the number of dinosaur kinds at 50, but if you are retaining the genus-kinds relationship, then this is a gross undercount. See e.g.:

      Granted, many of these listed are not in fact dinosaurs and it’s also likely that many distinguished genera are likely variants of a single genus. Still, the number is far, far greater than 50.

      All of that said, even 8K into 34K in ~4000 yrs is unrealistic. First, you need to account for relocation to the environments in which they speciated to yield the present day #s (including those getting to far away places in the absence of particular dietary needs). You need to account again for specific dietary and environmental range constraints during these rapid marathon migrations from Mt. Ararat. But most difficult, as I believe I pointed out to you before, you need a “hyper-evolution” from incredibly constrained gene pools . . .

      When considering the founding kind pairs, we are looking at most to 4 alleles for each gene (1/chromosome, 2 chromosomes/ndividual, 2 individuals). Although the probability of a parent donating one or the other allele to an offspring is for the most part 50/50, the actual donations do not reflect this .5 probability (e.g. consider how many families have all boys or all girls). Like flipping a coin, even though we know the probability is 50% heads and 50% tails, we don’t expect to see this reflected in the actual coin tosses until the coin is tossed many, many times. More often than not, the first 5-10 coin tosses are heavily dominated by one or other. The same is true with alleles. But unlike coin tosses, in biological reproduction, these early perturbations are dramatically amplified in ensuing generations. An allele which dominates early in the game has a very high probability of completely excluding the other allele from the population. When this happens, the allele that wins becomes “fixed” and the only way to yield a new allele is through mutation and positive selection. The following image shows how population sizes affect this rate of allele fixation and as you can see, as the population gets smaller, the rate of allele fixation increases exponentially.

      I would note, the simulation with the lowest population of n=20 shows a 70% allele fixation rate. You can easily surmise that a population 10-fold smaller would experience an even greater rate of allele fixation. In plain English, this means that a founding population of 2 would rapidly lose genetic variation and what we know about these populations is that they are highly prone to extirpation events from environmental change, disease, etc. Everything we know about population genetics indicates that founding kind pairs would not be capable of generating the necessary genetic diversity to invariably survive, let alone yield present day observable biodiversity.

      March 6, 2014 at 12:45 am |
      • transframer


        I have answered some of your questions above. Regarding number of dino genera, as far as I know there is no official list of dinosaur genera. Also the kind in Biible could have been genera, family or something in between and could cover more than one genus, maybe we'll find out more when we have an official and complete list of dino genera. Finally, could have been more than 50 kinds of dino taken on ark, I don't think that's a problem, we don't know what happened, we only show possible solutions
        Regarding the genetic stuff, this article has the answers:
        If you find something wrong with the answers, come back and explain or take it directly to the authors

        March 6, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • igaftr

          saying no it isn't and your evil desires, quoting the bible when addressing science, using incorrect information to show incorrect calculations, claiming that genetic mutation cannot add new material....the list goes on and on.

          I give them points for trying to use willful ignorance of the bible, when it is their willful ignorance of reality that is truly in question.
          It certainly does not address the FACT that we all have neanderthal DNA, nor the issue with us having 46 chromosomes, where our ancestors had 48.
          The list goes on and on and on and on

          March 6, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • transframer


          I'm sorry to hear you have such problems. But maybe not everything is lost for you

          March 6, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • igaftr

          "I'm sorry to hear you have such problems."

          What are you talking about?

          March 6, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • redzoa

          @transframer – With all due respect, you didn't really address the issues raised regarding: 1) actual # of extant vertebrate species; 2) the fact that land inverts "breath air" and would have drowned if not accounted for on the ark; 3) that the dino genera identified in the wiki link far exceeds 50; 4) the need to account for extinct land vertebrates in addition to those still around; 5) that many marine fish would have died as their habitat's salinity dropped; 6) that your % allotments for food/water don't reflect the fact that many forms require fresh meat and/or eat disproportionately to their sizes; 7) the specific dietary/environmental constraints involved in the migration to the Ark and the return trips from Mt. Ararat.

          The article you cite is conflating total possible genetic variability (i.e. 10^30K) with what is expected at each particular loci in subsequent generations. The argument is fine if one is genetically engineering clones, but this possible range of diversity simple isn't expressed in actual reproduction; particularly when starting with only two individuals. Again, the best simple example I can give you is the probability that a child will be male or female is 50/50, but we frequently see families with all boys or all girls. This is because the range of possible outcomes is not invariably reflected in the actual outcomes. The probability only manifests when we look at many, many families and add them all up to see roughly 50/50 boys to girls. The problem is that when starting with only a two parents, the subsequent generations are locked into whatever genetic dice rolls the parents produced. With respect to your cited article's extrapolation, clearly, unless the founding kind pairs produced at least 10^30K offspring, this range of possible phenotypes will not be realized.

          Again, the issue is that once an allele becomes disproportionately represented, the other alleles are quickly lost, i.e. allele fixation. So in the cited reference, even though we start with 4 alleles, we know that for many, many genes, 3/4 would be lost, forever, after a few generations. Plainly stated, this apparent large possibility of potential genotypes is quickly reduced to a relatively ho-mogenous, i.e. lacking genetic variation, population. Not only is this a problem of rapid loss of genetic variability, it's compounded by what we know regarding the expression of deleterious recessive alleles. If a deleterious recessive allele becomes fixed, every subsequent generation will have that allele and only that allele to contend with. This is why inbreeding is a bad thing, yielding developmental defects and susceptibility to disease. The cheetah is a nice example of the consequences of low genetic diversity; however, it should be noted that a founding pair of two would invariably produce far less genetic diversity than we see in modern cheetah populations.

          I would also add that the cited article is simple wrong regarding this statement, "no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism." Two notable examples which directly contradict this erroneous claim are Lenski's E. coli, and the Pod Mrcaru lizards.

          I'd be happy to try and explain allele fixation again if this still isn't making sense, but I'd suggest reading the Wikipedia article on genetic drift and allele fixation paying particular attention to the figure which shows the influence of population size on allele fixation. What this figure shows is that small populations = very low genetic variation in subsequent generations. In the top panel of the figure, every time the line reaches 1.0 or 0.0, an allele has been lost forever. The only way to regenerate genetic diversity once it's lost in a population is outbreeding with a different population (not possible for the founding kind pairs) or mutation (which is expressly, though erroneously, rejected by creationists). In other words, the population genetics directly contradict the ability of a founding kind pair to yield observable biodiversity, let alone to do so in only 4000 yrs.

          March 7, 2014 at 12:19 am |
        • transframer


          Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll try to answer your concerns.
          1) 3) 4) 6) We don't know what a Bible kind was and how many species, ganera, families covered so the actual numbers don't count too much as long as they are all covered by a common descendent. I am aware that the less animals the more difficult to explain the recovery after the flood.
          Also, many of the problems you signaled can be avoided or at least minimized if the animals were in a hibernated state all the way. I know they may still need food but much less, also much less space. I don't think we have to reply to everything we don't know with "God made a miracle" or something like this, other then when the Bible explicitely said it but we know that some divine intervention was there (god brought animals to ark) so it can extend a little further to keep them in a hibernated state.
          In addition, for dinos and other large reptiles (and maybe birds) could have taken eggs instead.

          2) It appears that god only asked to take the land vertebrates on the ark, the inverts died or survived by themselves by clinging to floating stuff, flying, using air pockets in earth or something like this. But there is also a posibilty that some of them were actually taken on ark, some boxes can hold thousends of small inverts (again in a hibernation state maybe)
          5) I already said we don't know how salty was the sea before the flood. But indeed most fish and other marine animals died, among with all land animals, with or without salinity. That ones that survived were also the ones which manage to quickly adapt to the changes.
          I think all of the above are possible scenarios

          For the genetic part, I don't know what to answer. Reading some wikipedia article will not make me a biology expert. I'll try to ask some more knowledgeble people about this and maybe I'll get back

          March 7, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • transframer


          Meantime I started to research your examples that you say contradict the claim that "no one has yet found a mutation that adds new complex coded heritable information to any organism."
          So far I researched only the Pod Mrcaru lizards. With all due respect I have to say that, at least for this one, you are wrong. The so called rapid evolution of this lizard is actually a rapid adaptation. Here is the article that published this research, in ScienceDaily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
          Quote: "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."
          So no genetic code was added. What's more, this research actually confirms the creationist view (and the particlar flood model) that animals can adapt much faster than evolutions say

          March 7, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • redzoa

          @transframer – And thanks to you as well for your responses.

          You are invoking science when you believe it suits you, but then will invoke supernatural intervention whenever the science appears to contradict your position. Whenever you qualify the plain language to include only land vertebrates, divinely-delivered eggs/juveniles, suspended animation, etc, you are indicating that the science simply doesn't matter. Because your supernatural explanations can account for any and every possible outcome, they effectively explain nothing. In other words, you are free to retreat to "god did it," but then why pretend the science is at all relevant in the first place. By this line of argument, you are effectively conceding that your position is not based on empirical evidence, but is purely a faith-based position.

          If god only delivered land vertebrates, then the vast, vast majority of inverts would have drowned. If the inverts were on board, this severely compromises your numbers and the plausibility of sufficient ecological and dietary diversity on the ark to sustain them. If you need to resort to further supernatural explanations, then again, any appeal to actual evidence is pointless because your position is not based on evidence.

          If you are conceding that most marine organisms died, then you face the same founding population genetic diversity constraints limiting their ability to rapidly yield the mult-itude of observable marine vertebrate and invertebrate life in a very short time.

          Regarding the Pod Mrcaru lizards, the actual study is available at the PNAS website:

          With all due respect, if you'd read the actual study, you would see that this was not a whole genome sequence comparison; rather it was a comparison of mitochondrial 12S rDNA and 16S rDNA sequences for the purposes of confirming the species relationship between the Pod Mrcaru lizards (P. sicula), the source population from Pod Kopiste (also P. sicula), and the original indigenous population on Pod Mrcaru (P. mellisellensis). In other words, in light of the dramatic morphological adaptations between the Pod Mrcaru and Pod Kopiste populations, the authors wanted to make sure these were the same species. What this genetic analysis did not examine was the genetic basis for the adaptation. If the Pod Mrcaru and Pod Kopiste populations were in fact, completely genetically identically (i.e. throughout their entire genomes), then there would not be the significant changes in morphology. Here is the relevant quote from the actual paper:

          "Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed."

          At present, and based on what we know of the genetic regulation of development, these phenotypic changes in the gut are most likely the result of positive genetic changes in the genetic regulatory pathways controlling the development of the relevant anatomical features, i.e. they are novel positive, heritable genetic features producing a specific and functional novel anatomical structure within the Genus. The authors, conservative as most scientists should be, do suggest that these adaptations may simply reflect phenotypic plasticity, but whereas the head morphology/bite strength fit in with what we understand about phenotypic plasticity, this level of anatomical reorganization in the gut without a genetic basis is unprecedented. Recall that less than 1% of scaled reptiles possess cecal valves and such structures are not found in this Genus and there is only one other in the Family Lacertidae (Galliota). It's also interesting to note that P. sicula were introduced to Long Island and remained otherwise similar to their source population, i.e. no herbivory/no cecal valves.
          See e.g.:
          Herrel A, Vanhooydonck B, VanDammeR (2004) Omnivory in lacertid lizards: Adaptive evolution or constraint? J Evol Biol 17:974-984.

          Burke, R.L. and Mercurio, R. 2002. Food habits of a New York population of Italian wall lizards, Podarcis sicula (Reptilia, Lacertidae). American Midland Naturalist 147:368-375.

          To sum up, if the cecal valves were simply the result of phenotypic plasticity, we would expect to see them more frequently in at least the Family level. Here we see them only in this one population on Pod Mrcaru and this is very, very strong evidence that the basis is genetic.

          However, just like the authors are conservative in allowing for other sources of this novelty, for the sake of argument I'll concede I could be wrong here. Future studies will conclusively show the basis for this change. If, contrary to what I expect to be a genetic basis, the actual source of novelty is phenotypic plasticity or perhaps epigenetics, then I'll concede I was wrong. There's still Lenski's E. coli to contend with and a host of other examples demonstrating purely natural mechanisms producing biological novelty.

          But while we're on the topic of concessions, I'll take it one step further. I'm willing to concede that it's possible that evolution is completely wrong, that literal genesis creationism is potentially correct, that the biblical deity is possibly the one true god. I make these concessions because I believe intellectual integrity requires at least a baseline of humility in acknowledging I could be mistaken. Are you willing to make the same concession? Are you willing to concede that:

          1) Evolution, i.e. common ancestry of all life on earth, humans from non-human ancestors, etc, might possibly be correct?

          or perhaps . . .

          2) The biblical deity might possibly not exist?

          March 7, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • transframer


          I would like to kindly remind you that the only place where I mentioned God's miracle is the same place where is mentioned in the Bible: when god brought the animals to the ark. It's clear or at least very possible that while doing this the animals were in some special state (trance, hibernation or something like this) which they remained in for a time. How long? One min, one hour, one day maybe. But could be also one year.
          Regarding the land inverts or marine animals: they faced the same fate as the land verts, only they were not taken on the ark, just a very small fraction survived by themselves. The same recovery process happened to them after the flood. You raised some genetic doubts about that process and I can't answer that (so far) as I don't have the knowledge, so I don't know if they are right or wrong.
          Regarding the Pod Mrcaru lizards: I am aware that researchers didn't make a whole genome sequence comparison. Basically what you are saying is that when they'll do it we we'll see that there is a genetic change. Well, for some reason, they didn't make it and that is just o hypothesis, like all the others you mentioned. Like the Lenski's E. coli. A very good explanation of what happened there is given here: http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli.
          As you see, many if not all of your objections are not new and they are already addressed one way or another.
          As long we only work with hypothesis I can't change my view about evolutionism. And God's existence is not a hypothesis, it's an axiom, something you start with.

          March 9, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
        • redzoa

          @transframer – With all due respect, whether you invoke supernatural intervention for a minute or a year, the result is you are no longer within the bounds of evidence or science.

          Regarding non-ark forms, allowing land inverts to minimally survive contradicts Gen 7:23 (specifically “the creeping things”). Feel free to take your time with genetic drift and allele fixation. At the very least, a proper review will show why your earlier reference doesn’t account for what population genetics has shown would be a rapid loss of genetic diversity.

          Regarding the Pod Mrcaru lizards, as I conceded, it is just a “hypothesis”; but, again, although contingent on a final direct sequencing experiment, the available evidence is squarely in the corner of a heritable genetic basis. However, regarding Lenski’s E. coli and your cite, in 2012, Lenski followed up with this paper:


          Your creation reference appears a little dated and one would think they would have adjusted their response. We could dive into the molecular biology but I’d suggest you just read this, particularly that portion under “Evolution of aerobic citrate usage in one population” beginning at “In 2012 . . .”:


          Lenski’s E.coli show a duplication of the anaerobic Cit gene. Rather than jamming the operon, the relevant genes were copied and placed within the reach of a genetic switch which turned them on. That is, the bugs still had their original gene turned off in the presence of oxygen, but now also had 2 – 9 copies of the gene added to a region which allowed them to be turned on in the presence of oxygen. This is the first refutation of your original claim in that genetic material (i.e. “information”) was added by mutation. And contrary to your cited reference’s claim of a loss of specificity, to the contrary, these duplicate genes were then refined by further mutation to make them better. This is the second refutation of your original claim. What we have is an addition of “information” and an improvement of that new “information” both via mutation.

          “As you see, many if not all of your objections are not new and they are already addressed one way or another.”

          And as you can see, given the example of your reference arguing against evolution in Lenski's E.coli, they have not actually “addressed” the objections. This is true whether we’re talking about Lenski’s E.coli, the progressive fossil record, the Coconino sandstones, etc, etc. Rather, what your sources offer are either misleading or incomplete (typically both) representations.

          “As long we only work with hypothesis I can't change my view about evolutionism. And God's existence is not a hypothesis, it's an axiom, something you start with.”

          As I believe the Lenski work shows, the ability of evolution to produce new “information” is not a hypothesis; it is a fact. Your reference to a “hypothesis” reflects a miscomprehension of the relative nature of “hypothesis” and “theory” as used in science. A scientific theory is one which is relentlessly tested and confirmed. Furthermore, a scientific theory is validated in successful prediction and application. Evolution has been relentlessly tested and confirmed and is further validated in direct applications ranging from medicine to agriculture to engineering (the same is true of all the other relevant scientific disciplines which creationism requires to be so fundamentally flawed as to be effectively useless, i.e. physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc). It has long moved past “hypothesis”; though “just a theory” is no better argument.

          I’m certainly willing to accept that you have no intention of abandoning your unreasonable doubts regarding evolution, but you should at least accept that your unreasonable doubts are founded largely upon misrepresentations of the actual science. However, what really surprises me is that you couldn’t give a straight answer to the question of whether it was even possible that the god of the bible doesn’t exist. Yes, I know it’s an axiom, but axioms are subject to revision and refutation. They are premises and premises can be wrong (lest you consider yourself infallible). The question is: Are you willing to concede your axiom is possibly wrong? Despite your intuition, logic, or reasoning that leads you to believe the god of bible exists, is it possible that said intuition, logic or reasoning is incorrect?

          March 10, 2014 at 3:33 am |
        • transframer


          Yes God has to be part of the equation and I never pretended elsewhere. I was only talking about the parts where god is not mentioned, parts that can be explained using regular logic and science
          I am not sure what you mean with the creeping things (btw I guess you are talking about Gen 6:20), which in this context are reptiles not inverts.
          Regarding the Lenski’s E. coli I might talk about the new 2012 results but before that maybe you can tell us what was wrong with the 2008 research and what exactly is new in 2012. Was the creation.com article correct about this subject if we are limited to 2008 research?
          Oh and I thought that I gave an answer to the god existence. Fortunately and hopefully I will not give up of the idea that God exists and is the creator of everything.

          March 10, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • redzoa

          With respect, the parts in which you invoke science/logic are wholly dependent on invoking supernatural explanations, before, during and after the science/logic parts. Perhaps you”ve seen this before:


          Regarding Gen 7:23, I was referring to your suggestion of escapees who were not destroyed by the flood. In other words, the inverts were on the ark (and then your prior numbers are way off) or they weren’t and they were completely destroyed (and then there’s no survivors to repopulate). Additionally, while I don’t pretend to be a student of Hebrew, it looks like the word is used in various contexts to include a variety of forms not restricted to reptiles.

          With respect to Lenski, there was nothing “wrong” with the 2008 study. It principally described the observation of a new phenotype for E. coli which was contingent on evolutionary history (i.e. the new phenotype could be re-evolved from. The 2012 study showed the precise genetic basis for the new phenotype. The creation.com article has defects with respect to the reference to Behe’s work (which ironically argues for multi-residue protein mutations occurring all the time), but with respect to the Lenski 2008 article, as hypothesized mechanisms they are not “incorrect”; however, neither are they “correct.” They are two possibilities (out of many) which expressly reject the actual correct hypothesis confirmed in 2012. That is, the a mutation occurred with “potentiated” further mutation, the relevant gene was duplicated 2-9 times and moved into regions allowing expression under aerobic conditions, and subsequent mutations improved the duplicated genes. Again, this is new “information” added where the “information” is improved upon, both occurring via mutation.

          “Oh and I thought that I gave an answer to the god existence. Fortunately and hopefully I will not give up of the idea that God exists and is the creator of everything.”

          Not quite. I’m not asking if you should or shouldn’t “give up of the idea that God exists.” I appreciate that this would be a question of personal faith. Rather, the question is, framed according to your quote above, whether it is possible that “the idea that God exists and is the creator everything” is incorrect? In other words, could you possibly be wrong in your belief that the biblical deity exists? For example:

          Q: Could I be wrong in my disbelief in the existence of the biblical deity?
          A: Yes. Absolutely I could be wrong. My logic/reasoning/perception which drives my conclusion could be incorrect, and contrary to my logic/reasoning/perception, the biblical deity could possibly exist.

          March 11, 2014 at 12:43 am |
  12. joeyy1


    March 4, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
  13. observernow

    Actual Christian definitions for a possible Christian Dictionary:

    "children" means "adult kids"
    "I will cause" means "they will cause"
    "vengeance" does not mean "punishment"
    "dead" means "alive, just spiritually dead"
    "reality" means "the afterlife"
    "not talk in church" means "talk in church, just don't gossip"

    March 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      LET me ask youthis..do YOUNG children usually get drunk and get rebelious and all? if yuo say no..then it is OBVIOUS that the writer mean GRoWn children..sheesh..yuo dont know the Bible very well..your wacky defintions are not funny..but pathetic..youhave not used context at all..I SHOWED you context..you need reading skills..as for the no talking in church..no one said it was dont gossip..it was in the context of what was happening in the church at Corinth and the culture in Corinth....STUDY the Bible for once in your life...

      March 4, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
      • observernow


        You don't have a clue what you are talking about. I reported what you and OTHERS have said (fred, for example).

        Did God say "I WILL CAUSE"? Yes or No?

        March 4, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • observernow


          (Exodus 21:17) "Anyone who says cruel things to his father or mother must be put to death.” [God]

          See ANY age limit there?

          March 4, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          do children say cruel things out of intention to their parents? noooo...this is not simply being a spoiled kid...sorry...you are not usuing context of culture or common sense

          March 4, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          God "caused" yes..by ALLOWING it to happen...AGAIN GET the context..LOOK what HAPPEND to the Israelites..an army came against them..laid seige..and the Isrealites eventually became cannibals after runnning out of food! My Goodness..try to STUDy the Bible..I DO know what Im talking about..cause at least I read AND studied the Bible..youhave shown you are the one not knowing what you are talking about...try to actually read and study the Bible

          March 4, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • observernow


          You finally agreed that God caused it, just like the Bible SAYS and then you claim I didn't know the Bible.

          Good one.

          March 4, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          uhh..I did claim it already duh..you just didnt read..I said what i said before...I didnt really change a thing..I said God ALLOWED it to happen..right from the start

          March 4, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
        • observernow


          Good addition to the Christian dictionary:

          "Says" means "INTENTIONALLY says" as opposed to "UNINTENTIONALLY says"

          March 4, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          apparently yuo dont have a clue what context means..what context does...and dont like using context..i feel for you when you try to communicate your ideas without using context...try it...you will like it

          March 4, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Here is a GREAT example.."board" does not always mean a piece of wood...sometimes it is a group of executives "Im going to a BOARD meeting" see..CONTEXT determines useage..MANY words have different meanuings and defintions..such as the one I just gave.....

          March 4, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
        • observernow


          Yes words can have different meanings.

          So "I WILL CAUSE" has a different meaning than "I will cause", right?


          March 4, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          AAAAAAND again we look at what had happened...God allowed the army to come in and Israel became cannibals...looking at HOW God caused it....

          March 5, 2014 at 1:45 am |
        • bacbik

          too much unnecessary capitalization.. too much BS from the kermit

          March 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        What of Elisha and the bears that killed the children who mocked him?
        The Hebrew word used in the original scripture is "naar", which unambiguously means "a boy" or "a lad".
        God thought a fitting punishment for making fun of hid baldness was to send bears to maul no fewer than 42 children.

        March 4, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WOW...so now you pretend this was written originally by Americans? these were young boys (older teens) who wre threatening his life! Imagine something similar..if you were to go to inner city LA and 40 Crips surrounded you and taunted you..would you fear for your life???? Caling him baldhead was not a teasing thing..it was a total lack of respect for the prophet AND God!!! USE the context..yes..today here in America calling someone baldy may be nothing..just joking..but that wasn't case to Elisha

          March 5, 2014 at 1:49 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Hebrew word for "older teens" is "yeled", not "na'ar"
          If that is what the Bible means, why doesn't it use the correct term?

          And who said anything about a 4,000 year old story being written by Americans?
          I'm not even American....

          March 5, 2014 at 8:21 am |
        • kermit4jc

          I said people often think unintentionally that it was..they read it AS IF it were...but ok..written by English people in your country....whatever

          March 5, 2014 at 9:27 am |
        • bacbik

          too much unnecessary capitalization.. too much BS from the kermit

          March 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • derado8

      If people lived their real lives like the OT I'd have been killed at least a half dozen times by now for assorted reasons.

      March 4, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
  14. kermit4jc

    you still got lots to learn fom thje Bible...first of all..YOU are not God..that was NOT the point of my queasiton...the point of it was YOU gave consequences..period..GOD gives different consequences cause He is CREAATOR and JUDGE of you..you are not..ssecond..Goddid not MAKE them eat feces or become cannibals..He caused a situation..he allowed a situation to occur to which they eventually became cannibals...LOOK at the sieges of Jeruslam and such! The SEIGE means they went wihout outside ousrces of food..and when they ran out of food, they ate each other...because GOID ABANDONED them! get the context man...plllus....GODS timeis not YOUR time....ALL things will be accomplished in HIS time....you seem to be impatient person.......GOD was telling them WHAT will happen when they disobey..he wil,l turn his back on them..remember..He made a COVENANT with him..uyou know what a covenant is??

    March 4, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
    • bacbik

      Too long, too boring, too much unnecessary capitalization, too much BS.

      March 4, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.