Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Sam]

Maybe if you had actually read my entire response you would have come up with a more educated reply yourself. Maybe not though. It’s pretty apparent today that Scientists working in Nazi Germany were DEEPLY inspired by Darwin’s work. This led to their practices in eugenics and helped to fuel their viewpoint that Jews were inferior to Secular Germans. Dictatorship may have been the tool that accomplished the Holocaust, but Scientism and Atheism were what drove this tool. If you read many of Hitler’s own writings, his viewpoint of Christianity was very similar to a lot of the posters on here.

How is this apparent today? There could be (and I suspect are) multiple reasons why Nazi Germany employed eugenics. While they may have used a distorted interpretation of Darwins theory in their resoning this certainly does not make the theory culpable.

Furthermore, the Jews were not considered inferior to 'Secular Germans' they were considered inferior to all other people. The majority of the German people, at this point still held religous views and in fact both Catholic & Protestant Priests and Nuns supported Hitlers movement. Hitlers own words clearly identify him as a Christian;

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

As for Newton, his belief in God is what drove his Science. He actually spent more time studying scripture than he did Science. He believed that the laws of nature should make sense to man because they were part of God’s natural revelation. So his Creationist viewpoints were what drove him to discover the laws of gravity. You can try to deny history all you want, but it is really just a futile exercise.

This still doesn't mean you can credit 'Creationism' with the discovery. The discovery is credited to the man himself, regardless of what you feel his motivations were or his religous alignment.

Come on man! You have got to do better than this. The “Burden of Proof” is generally accepted to lie with the side making an affirmative statement. However, since Atheism and Theism are both belief systems that make affirmative statements (Theism affirms that God does exist, Atheism affirms that he does not exist) the burden of proof lies equally on both sides.

First of all, Atheism is not a belief system. In its self it is simply a lack of belief.

You will also find that the majority of 'Atheists' are actually Agnostic Atheists i.e. They feel that we cannot know definetively that god does or does not exists but feel it is most probable he does not and live their lives accordingly.

In any case, the Theists statement is affirmative whereas the 'Atheist' position is negative. Obviously you cannot prove a negative and as such the Burden of Proof rests permanently on the Theist shoulders.

However, since you have not even proposed a valid syllogism to make your argument, it’s pretty obvious I have the upper hand. So you can either propose the syllogism, or address one of my premises. Incorrectly asserting that the burden of proof is on my side does nothing for you though.

In fact, we need do nothing with regards your syllogism because it contains two completely unsupported premises. 1) That God Exists 2) Thats this God is Eternal. That observation alone nullifies your syllogism.

To say that Darwinism does not have social implications is quite frankly ridiculous. Humans are animals in the view of Darwinists, so Darwinian principles apply just as much to humans as they do ants. This viewpoint has lead to some of the worst human tragedies in reason history.

I think you'll find that Evolutionary theory and Social Darwinism are vastly different entities Statler. The principles of evolutionary theory deal with the natural development and speciation of life, they have nothing to do with social issues within those species.

. . . your posts are almost completely devoid of any citations, I guess it’s all just your opinion huh?

In the same way that you keep making assertions without any concilliatory evidence? i.e. 'The Human Genome Project supports a 6,000 year Old Earth'

There are Creationists who do Gene Therapy too, so apparently it does not require Evolutionary Theory at all to be successful. Ahem.

It was however developed using the principles of Evolutionary Theory though. This means that its existence and implementation is a direct result of evolutionary theory.

Cheers

Sam

---

Actually you are way off on your "Old Earther" list, every Scientist I listed is a young-earther. The list I looked at had over 200 names on it and had the Old-Earthers identified (their view on the age of the Earth was from their biographies and auto-biographies). I purposely didn't put any of them (like Richard Owen) on the list. So whereever you got your facts from, they are wrong.

Statler, did you even have the courtesy to read the reply?

it was specifically stated that the problem with your List was the times these people lived in (Before Evolutionary Theory etc . . .) As such their views were the de facto views of their time. I noticed you haven't cited your source for this list as well, so it seems slightly unfair to declare Lethe's list wrong and yours right without any supporting evidence.

Darwinism is a Religion too, so your point is moot.

Darwinsism? Please define the concept of Darwinism as you see it and state how this makes it a religion.

Cheers

Sam

[Thor]

It’s pretty apparent today that Scientists working in Nazi Germany were DEEPLY inspired by Darwin’s work.

So what? A group of people use the works of a scientist to "justify" hatred and genocide. This makes the works of the scientist culpable in the horrors perpetrated by the screwballs? Unless you can show me where Darwin proposed eliminating "inferior" people, your point is senseless.

This led to their practices in eugenics and helped to fuel their viewpoint that Jews were inferior to Secular Germans.

Actually, most Germans were members of one religion or another (mainly Christian).

Dictatorship may have been the tool that accomplished the Holocaust, but Scientism and Atheism were what drove this tool.

Bullshit.

No one was killed during the Holocaust because the Nazis were trying to promote an atheist agenda. They were killed because they were hated by those in power.

If you read many of Hitler’s own writings, his viewpoint of Christianity was very similar to a lot of the posters on here.

I think Sam addressed this point quite well. Thanks, Sam!

As for Newton, his belief in God is what drove his Science.

Even if this is true, so what? There have no doubt been people who were driven by outside factors to accomplish great things. Doesn't mean the outside factor is responsible for the accomplishment.

He actually spent more time studying scripture than he did Science.

And this proves.....?

He believed that the laws of nature should make sense to man because they were part of God’s natural revelation. So his Creationist viewpoints were what drove him to discover the laws of gravity. You can try to deny history all you want, but it is really just a futile exercise.

And none of this means you can credit "Creationism" for Newton's works.

[Anomalocaris]

Philosophically, Is going around and around in circles with a creationist buffoon whose worldview is locked inextricably in a death spiral around a black hole of a holy book really a good use of a thoughtful person's time?

[Lethe]

Whoops, I just realized I forgot to address Statler's "John Kidd wasn't an Old Earth creationist" bit.

He was a collaborator in the Bridgewater Treatises (Volume II: On The Adaptation of External Nature to the Physical Condition of Man), and a proponent of natural theology. He was also, alongside being a chemist, a geologist. If you wish to read the Bridgewater Treatises, Google Books has them available.

[orogenicman]

There are Creationists who do Gene Therapy too, so apparently it does not require Evolutionary Theory at all to be successful. Ahem.

Ahem. And you can name these creationists who are developing gene therapy to cure disease, right?

[Statler Waldorf]

Try roughly 200,000 years ago.

Obviously you don’t know how those numbers are calculated. Evolutionists get the 200,000 year number by looking at the amount of differences between Chimps and Humans; they believe this difference happened over roughly 5 million years. So they then apply this same ratio to the amount of difference between humans on Earth and get a figure of 200,000 years. If you can’t see the obvious problem in this line of reasoning, then there is not much I can do for you.
Rather, when we look at the amount of difference that occurs in Humans per generation, we get a mitochondrial eve at 6000-6500 years with a bottleneck occurring at 4000-4500 years when the X-chromosomal data are examined. Why do evolutionists not like this superior method? Well because it has huge young Earth and Biblical implications of course! So maybe before you “lolololol” you should try and have a firm grasp of the facts.

]
1.5% to 4% based on which resource one consults. And?

Do you have any idea how much difference this actually is? Let me help you out…

Let’s first start off by establishing that homology cannot be used to support evolution because it is the old Logical Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. However, I will just ignore this for the sake of discussion and play along.

The similarities between humans and chimps were not calculated by the Human Genome Project, since a fully sequenced chimp genome has yet to be produced. It was rather done by the very controversial method of DNA hybridization. However, I will pretend this is a legitimate method, and play along for the sake of the discussion. So let’s assume that Humans and Chimps were 98 percent similar genetically (I spotted you a couple percentage points according to newer estimates). The human genome contains over 3,000,000,000 bits of information, this would mean that humans and chimps differed by 60,000,000 bits of information in each cell! This is the equivalent of 40x250 page books of information. Even using very liberal estimates of mutation rates, and assuming that mutations always add meaningful information (which they never do) the human/chimp common ancestor would have had to still live billions of years ago. Yet Evolutionists believe it lived 5 million years ago. You actually believe this garbage? To think, you get on Christians for believing in a faith based system, I don’t have enough faith to believe in something this absurd. Keep in mind; this is just humans and chimps, not all life on Earth.

So the evolutionary tree increased in accuracy, you're saying this is a bad thing?

No, this was in response to the claim you made that genome research helped to support Darwinian Evolution; it did not. They had to destroy the tree of life and try to rebuild it. Something does not support a model very well if it destroys it.

Care to elaborate on that point?

I would love to. According to Darwinian Evolution the fossil record should show a historical timeline of life on Earth. It should show the gradual evolution of animals from simple to the complex. It was long thought that this is what we saw when we saw amoebas at the bottom of the tree and humans towards the top since amoebas look very simple and humans look very complex. However when we examine their DNA, many amoebas are just as complex (some even more complex) at the DNA level as humans are. Since DNA is what Evolution actually has to “work with”, this shows that the fossil record actually does not move from simple to complex. Rather it moves from immobile to mobile which is exactly what we would expect to find according to flood theory.

Human Genome Project, Human Genome Project, Humperdinck, Humperdinck, Humperdinck!

[sarcasm] mature [/sarcasm]

If you're referring to a cult in which some whackadoos worship Charles Darwin as a deity and demand all their followers participate in "Taco Tuesday", then yes, that would constitute a religion. If, on the other hand, you're referring to those who accept evolution as being a part of a "religion" then I have to assume you realize how ridiculous your stance is and are trying to bring the sciences to your level of stupidity by branding them with an ill-fit label.

Actually Darwinism is just as much of a religion as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Mormonism. It’s a faith base system that people adhere to.

Religion- –noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. (dictionary.com)

Darwinism falls under all three of these definitions. Have you ever seen Richard Dawkins speak about Darwin? The guy goes giddy! Even more giddy than many televangelists talking about Jesus. I can always just quote my buddy Michael Ruse (Atheist) again…

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
“… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
- Michael Ruse

It is the Seven Daughters of Eve not Noah theory, besides the bible said that Noah had three sons and those three sons had wives (Noah's daughters in law). Anyway it has been noticed there is a huge gap between Mitochondrial Eve (who existed between 152,000 - 234,000 years ago) and Y-chromosomal Adam (who existed between 90,000 to 60,000 years ago). Despite all of humanity today being descended from these two people, there is no reason to suspect there were not other people existing alongside Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, it is just their lineages have not survived to the present day.

Nope sorry, it is actually the three daughters of Noah. Since I said X-Chromosomal DNA data I thought this was pretty obvious I was talking about females. When someone says “The Three Daughters of Noah” they are talking about his daughter-in-laws. Again, I thought this was pretty obvious. So they believe their were other DNA lineages even though we have never observed them? Do you always believe in invisible things upon faith? You are a very religious person. As to the faulty dates you threw out, I already addressed how these numbers are calculated above. After the flood there would have been 7-9 difference sets of X chromosomes in play and only one set of Y-chromsomes in play. This would give you your apparent “gap” you mentioned. Of course this is exactly what we see when we examine genes worldwide, 7-9 different X-Chromosome ancestors and one set of Y-Chromosome ancestors, funny how that works huh?

How is this apparent today? There could be (and I suspect are) multiple reasons why Nazi Germany employed eugenics. While they may have used a distorted interpretation of Darwins theory in their resoning this certainly does not make the theory culpable.

Furthermore, the Jews were not considered inferior to 'Secular Germans' they were considered inferior to all other people. The majority of the German people, at this point still held religous views and in fact both Catholic & Protestant Priests and Nuns supported Hitlers movement. Hitlers own words clearly identify him as a Christian;

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

I find it interesting that all you guys stand up for Darwin so much. You stand up for him with the same vigor that many Christians stand up for Christ with. Just goes to show how much of a Religion it really has become.

There is numerous works done on the subject of how the Scientists in the Nazi regime were deeply influenced by Darwin. This directly led to Eugenics and the Holocaust. Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the holocaust was deeply interested in many of the ideas put forth in Darwin’s the Descent of Man.

As to the notion that Hitler was a Christian, this has been refuted time and time again, and I am a bit surprised to see it even brought up on here. Hitler was born into a Catholic family but left his faith at an early age. He would often speak of “God” to fire up his men, but to say that he was a Christian is ridiculous. Let’s look at some quotes he actually made concerning Christians (unlike you I will also include when he said them).

“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”

-Adolf Hitler, July, 1941

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

- Adolf Hitler, October, 1941

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse The only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little. Christianity the liar. We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.”

-Adolf Hitler, October, 1941.

“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”

-Adolf Hitler, October, 1941.

“Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease.”

-Adolf Hitler, December, 1941. (quotes from “Hitler’s Table Talk”, Oxford Printing Press)

It’s kind of looking like your assertion that Hitler was a Christian is a bit ridiculous. Well maybe you are right, maybe the Nazis were all a bunch of idiots who didn’t understand Darwinian Theory so they misused it to try and ensure the survival of the Anglo-Saxon, and Hitler really was a Christian who happened to hate Christianity. Sounds a bit farfetched to me though.

As to the Newton thing, so when a man believes the World should make sense because he is a Creationists and uses this to derive the laws of Gravity, the fact he is a Creationist means nothing? However, when Evolutionists come up with Gene Therapy (which has nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory itself), Darwinism gets all the credit? Now that is having your cake and eating it too.

As to the list of Creation Scientists, many of those guys post dated Darwin and were young Earthers. So your argument that it was just the default position is silly. Maybe scientists today believe the Earth is old just because it is the default position? That argument could work both ways, therefore it is a pretty poor one.

You are wrong about the burden of proof; Atheism has always been defined as the affirmation of the non existence of God. There is no such thing as an Agnostic Atheist, you either don’t know there is a God or you know there is not one, you can’t be both.

“‘Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.”


- Encyclopaedia Britannica


“Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’

-Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (The most widely used Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


So my initial argument still stands, the Burden of Proof lies on both sides equally in this instance. You are right about one thing though, you cannot prove God does not exist. Since this would require infinite knowledge to do so (which would pretty much make you a God haha). However, you can logically prove he does exist, so it looks like I am standing on the side that can have proof, and you are standing on a side that can never have proof.

---

So what? A group of people use the works of a scientist to "justify" hatred and genocide. This makes the works of the scientist culpable in the horrors perpetrated by the screwballs? Unless you can show me where Darwin proposed eliminating "inferior" people, your point is senseless.

---

From a Darwinian perspective, what the Nazis did was not “wrong”. Even Dawkins admits that if Darwin is correct there is no right and wrong. So the fact that you are so appalled by what the Nazis did and you are a Darwinist is a bit humorous.

As to your quote you are seeking, this one might help…

“‘At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.”

- Charles Darwin, the Descent of Man

Or maybe this one, where Darwin views Anglo-Saxons as the superior race and compares blacks to “the other great apes”?

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

-Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

“Before 1859 (before Darwin's Origin), many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin, the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link" between ape and Teuton.”

- John C. Burhan, Science Vol. 175

No wonder the Nazis thought whites were the superior race, they were only agreeing with Darwin himself.

We know that the Nazis were huge proponents of Eugenics, but does Eugenics itself have any ties to Darwin?
“...modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics—and it was he who created the term “eugenics”—were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.”

- Encyclopedia of Bioethics

Did Darwin help to fuel Germany’s motivations for war? Looks like it…

“ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.”

- A. Keith, “Evolution and Ethics”

Whoops, I just realized I forgot to address Statler's "John Kidd wasn't an Old Earth creationist" bit.

He was a collaborator in the Bridgewater Treatises (Volume II: On The Adaptation of External Nature to the Physical Condition of Man), and a proponent of natural theology. He was also, alongside being a chemist, a geologist. If you wish to read the Bridgewater Treatises, Google Books has them available.

Yeah I screwed that one up, I thought you were saying the underlined guys were Old Earthers. Kidd may have been an Old Earth compromiser, the sources I have says it is still a bit unclear. Thanks.

As to the “Doctors not being Scientists” argument, I completely disagree. Both of the two men I mentioned have helped make huge breakthroughs in surgical procedures and human anatomy, so I feel they are very good scientists. I also feel this was an appropriate refutation of the original point that Evolution has done wonders for modern medicine.

As to the underlined names, well of course they lived before the Human Genome Project, that was done in 2000, so that is kind of a silly point. There are still Creationists alive today who make big contributions to the Scientific Community, so I don’t really understand your point on that one

---

[quote=Statler]There are Creationists who do Gene Therapy too, so apparently it does not require Evolutionary Theory at all to be successful. Ahem.

Ahem. And you can name these creationists who are developing gene therapy to cure disease, right?

---

[orogenicman]

I can't wait for Abe to jump into this conversation. Come on ABE! This is going to be fun!!!

[Justtristo]

It is the Seven Daughters of Eve not Noah theory, besides the bible said that Noah had three sons and those three sons had wives (Noah's daughters in law). Anyway it has been noticed there is a huge gap between Mitochondrial Eve (who existed between 152,000 - 234,000 years ago) and Y-chromosomal Adam (who existed between 90,000 to 60,000 years ago). Despite all of humanity today being descended from these two people, there is no reason to suspect there were not other people existing alongside Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, it is just their lineages have not survived to the present day.

Nope sorry, it is actually the three daughters of Noah. Since I said X-Chromosomal DNA data I thought this was pretty obvious I was talking about females. When someone says “The Three Daughters of Noah” they are talking about his daughter-in-laws. Again, I thought this was pretty obvious. So they believe their were other DNA lineages even though we have never observed them? Do you always believe in invisible things upon faith? You are a very religious person. As to the faulty dates you threw out, I already addressed how these numbers are calculated above. After the flood there would have been 7-9 difference sets of X chromosomes in play and only one set of Y-chromsomes in play. This would give you your apparent “gap” you mentioned. Of course this is exactly what we see when we examine genes worldwide, 7-9 different X-Chromosome ancestors and one set of Y-Chromosome ancestors, funny how that works huh?

This is why I don't bother to debate Creationists very much because of their sheer inability to accept their hypothesis has been repeatedly shown to be false. Not to mention their circular reasoning and whack the mole tactics, you wonder why Richard Dawkins won't you debate your kind.

Anyway it is inherent logic given the huge gap in time between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam that other Homo Sapiens existed alongside them. Also I have a habit anyway of getting my information from scientific sources (science magazines and the odd peer-reviewed journal). I am not in the habit of asserting my hypothesizes as fact, unlike yourself.

I would love to. According to Darwinian Evolution the fossil record should show a historical timeline of life on Earth. It should show the gradual evolution of animals from simple to the complex. It was long thought that this is what we saw when we saw amoebas at the bottom of the tree and humans towards the top since amoebas look very simple and humans look very complex. However when we examine their DNA, many amoebas are just as complex (some even more complex) at the DNA level as humans are. Since DNA is what Evolution actually has to “work with”, this shows that the fossil record actually does not move from simple to complex. Rather it moves from immobile to mobile which is exactly what we would expect to find according to flood theory.

People confuse lifeforms such as bacteria and amoebas as somehow simple, which is not really the case, since they have been evolving for billions of years. It is rather like the common fallacy that a Chimp is your grandfather, in fact they are cousins whom we shared an ancestor which looked more like a chimp than a human.

[Statler Waldorf]

This is why I don't bother to debate Creationists very much because of their sheer inability to accept their hypothesis has been repeatedly shown to be false. Not to mention their circular reasoning and whack the mole tactics, you wonder why Richard Dawkins won't you debate your kind.

Anyway it is inherent logic given the huge gap in time between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam that other Homo Sapiens existed alongside them. Also I have a habit anyway of getting my information from scientific sources (science magazines and the odd peer-reviewed journal). I am not in the habit of asserting my hypothesizes as fact, unlike yourself.

Haha, yet you fail to be specific. Nicely done. I think the reason you don't debate Creationists is because you'd get your butt kicked. They don't allow you to just make assertions (like you did here) in debates.

You say you read Scientific sources, yet you have not cited one, and you say I just make things up, yet I cite more sources than anyone else on here. Classic!

Dawkins doesn't debate Creationists because he only won a debate against them by a couple votes at his own University (Many of his own students were in the crowd voting and he still eeked by). Ever since then he says he won't debate them because he doesn't want to give them any credit, yet he interviews televangelists on his television show in the UK? So that obviously is not the real reason, he is just scared that if he did the debate in front of a half way neutral audience he'd get spanked. We saw this when he debated John Lennox, I actually felt kinda bad for Dawkins he got embarrassed so badly.

People confuse lifeforms such as bacteria and amoebas as somehow simple, which is not really the case, since they have been evolving for billions of years. It is rather like the common fallacy that a Chimp is your grandfather, in fact they are cousins whom we shared an ancestor which looked more like a chimp than a human.

Huh? So you are agreeing with me? Amoebas in the fossil record are morphologically almost identical to amoebas today, so they have not been "evolving" much at all. A bacterium that was collected in the 19th century is still identifiable today, despite there being thousands of generations separating the two. So since amoebas that are supposedly nearly a billion years old also have over 3 billion bits of genetic information in their cells, where did all this information come from?

[Justtristo]

Haha, yet you fail to be specific. Nicely done. I think the reason you don't debate Creationists is because you'd get your butt kicked. They don't allow you to just make assertions (like you did here) in debates.

You say you read Scientific sources, yet you have not cited one, and you say I just make things up, yet I cite more sources than anyone else on here. Classic!

I will cheerfully admit I don't have scientific education beyond a high school level. However I have read enough to understand things such as genetics, geology and biology to a degree, I can accept evolution by natural selection as a fact.

In fact I will ask you a question, why do we share the same mutation which shuts off the ability to artificially produce vitamin c in our bodies as a lot of primates.

Okay you want sources, here are a couple aims more towards the interested layman to start off with.

Genes, Peoples, and Languages by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells[/i]. Those two men are among the most eminent population geneticists.

Huh? So you are agreeing with me? Amoebas in the fossil record are morphologically almost identical to amoebas today, so they have not been "evolving" much at all. A bacterium that was collected in the 19th century is still identifiable today, despite there being thousands of generations separating the two. So since amoebas that are supposedly nearly a billion years old also have over 3 billion bits of genetic information in their cells, where did all this information come from?

I am very familiar with lifeforms evolving very little over vast periods of time, they are called living fossils such as the Coelacanth is a most famous example. Also likewise evolution can occur a relatively rapid period, it is called a Punctuated equilibrium. However there is no doubt amoebas are more complex than the first lifeforms on Earth were and 2 billion years is plenty of time for the ameobas to evolve the 3 billion bits of genetic information.