Browse By

Creationists ask: “Where are the Transitional Forms?” Reality Responds Yet Again.

The Institute for Creation Research (which, if you look carefully, describes itself as a “biblical” religious “ministry”) asks a typical anti-evolution question:

Where are the transitional formsEvolutionists sometimes brag that they have abundant evidence of transitions, but when pressed, the examples are almost always minor variations within a category, as expected within creation thinking, and thus certainly not proof of evolution.

Long lists of significant transitional forms in the fossil record have been compiled to demonstrate both vertebrate and invertebrate evolution; see them here and here.  New discoveries of transitional forms continue all the time.  Last week, the journal Science published a paper by David Martill, Helmut Tischlinger, and Nicholas Longrich describing a newly identified four-legged snake from ancient Gondwana.  That paper is held behind a paywall, but detailed photos of the newly discovered specie, tetrapodophis amplectus, can be found at National Geographic.

125 thoughts on “Creationists ask: “Where are the Transitional Forms?” Reality Responds Yet Again.”

  1. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

    Great science from a REAL group of scientists who just happen to be Christians too! The only thing I disagree with them about is the interpretation of Genesis. The scientists on this site are mostly DAY-AGE believers in Genesis, which suggests that each “day” of the Genesis account is explaining MILLIONS of years of earth’s history. It is absolutely INCORRECT exegesis of Genesis.

    However, the rest of the science is ROCK SOLID!!!

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Sorry, but about the website I have to disagree. None of the “scientists” on the website to which you refer are trained evolutionary biologists, and the website begins with faith and takes its avowed “ministry” task as using observations to prop up that pre-existing faith, which is not a scientific approach.

      1. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

        Jim. Dr. Hugh Ross is a bonafide scientist, period. I didn’t say he was a “trained evolutionary biologist” I said he was a REAL scientist. He’s not a minister. He holds a PH.D in Astronomy from USC. Okay great. So what, right?

        The point is….there ARE actual Biologists on his page…Dr. Ross is not one of them. He comments on subjects in his own field of study and provides the comments of “trained biologists” to comment on biological topics throughout his website. It’s typical of evolutionists to HIDE BEHIND the education “argument” and what is and what is not a “scientific method” but the truth is, Jim, it doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” or a “trained biologist” to observe nature and see what is ACTUALLY taking place.

        Those who still hold to Darwin’s weak school-boy view of biology are in trouble.

        What, you haven’t heard, Jim? Evolutionists are bailing out of Darwin’s theory in droves! Why? Because of the inability of evolution’s DNA-copying-error mechanism to furnish a credible explanation for male and female forms, body morphology or the utter complexity of even a single cell, yet Darwinism continues to pose as serious science and hoodwink the intellectual elite of the western world.

      2. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

        Oh and one more thing.

        Let me be perfectly clear here…I am NOT a YEC (Young Earth Creationist).

        I am an old earth creationist.

        I utterly reject the YEC views about the earth being only 6-10 thousand years old. I only use their websites for other arguments they have because some of it is useful and to at least try to acknowledge some of the work they’ve done but MUCH of their arguments for a young earth are simply ridiculous and unscientific.

        YEC’s don’t seem to realize that even if the earth was TRILLIONS of years old, evolution as Darwin proposed would still be wrong. Biology simply does NOT work the way evolutionists WISH it did and PROPOSE that it does when in reality…It is simply an INCORRECT understanding; and that goes for Geology, Paleontology and other sciences too, that try to fit the evolutionary framework within these sciences. Its hilarious to see as they struggle with trying to explain the evolution theory in these sciences at the same time we are discovering new and EXTRAODINARY examples in science of how the earth and universe were formed and what the early conditions were like. For instance, we’ve found over an OCEAN’S worth of water in the interior of the earth! This definitely helps explain the “fountains of the deep” referred to in Genesis regarding Noah’s flood and how it happened.

        There is NO direct evidence for Noah’s flood because it only LESS THAN one year. But there is several INDIRECT pieces of evidence for Noah’s flood:

        Greenland Ice Core test show a time period that directly correlates to the same time as Noah’s flood the following:

        1. Massive drought on the earth for a century or more (which would happen after a massive flood).
        2. Massive dust deposits on the ocean floor relating to that drought that also correspond to the same time period as Noah’s flood.
        3. The rapid extinction of several known cultures at that same time period: The Akkadian and Old Egyptian cultures.
        4. Ocean fossils found on the highest mountain peaks in the world.
        5. And now…the massive amount of water in the earth’s mantle.

        And we’ve found a TON of water in space!

        This is the evidence of an even LARGER ELE event that was so devastating that it didn’t just flood the surface of earth (Noah’s flood) but also effected the Heaven’s above (the cosmos) and caused a FAR BIGGER water event disaster on earth than Noah’s flood. Noah’s flood could NOT have formed the Grand Canyon for instance. This was caused by a much larger event of series of events on the earth’s surface LONG BEFORE humankind was here.

        These two facts alone have made it much easier to explain the Gap Principal understanding of Genesis; that the earth, at the time the Genesis account is explaining, had undergone a complete catastrophe (ELE Event in Younger Dryas) that left the earth (and some believe the local solar system) in utter darkness (both physically and spiritually) and completely buried in water and ice…even extending past the earth’s atmosphere and the earth had stopped its rotation. Younger Dryas had destroyed ALL LIFE on this planet only about 12,800+ years ago and then by about 6,000 years ago there was suddenly an EXPLOSION of life across the earth! The “previous” age or “world” was GONE FOREVER and a NEW WORLD suddenly arose with new flora and fauna…as if “overnight.” The Greenland Ice Core test prove that in a relatively and geologically short period of time the earth suddenly warmed up again and these new living forms were there. NO…they didn’t survive Younger Dryas. The oceans were poisoned by this event…perhaps forms of bacteria survived but that’s about it. Funny what happens when sunlight is blocked out for a year or more and photosynthesis cannot take place.

        And the conditions of early earth MAY NOT BE what we originally thought:

        Well I can’t even finish this post…I have to go now…will follow up later. But this should be enough to keep you busy, Jim, for quite some time.

  2. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

    “Long Lists of significant transitional forms in the fossil record have demonstrated both vertebrate and invertebrate evolution.” Here and Here.

    Went and looked at them….NOPE. Nice try though. In each example you’ve provided (which are nothing more that OLD links to Wikipedia….I mean…Wikipedia? REALLY?)

    Each case looks very much like the following:

    Supposed transitional forms of Fish….are still Fish!

    Supposed transitional forms of Apes are still Apes!

    Supposed transitional forms of Birds are still Birds!

    And the list goes on and on.

    “All species undergo gradual change over time” YES! That’s right…its called VARIATION. Variation is the where “evolution” as Darwin proposed begins and ENDS.

    Don’t believe it?

    I provide the following links and evidence contained in them as PROOF. I DARE ANYONE READING THIS to go to these sites and explain yourselves if you STILL HAVE THE GUTS to talk to me about “evolution” as Darwin proposed. Biology simply does NOT work that way.

    There is a LIMIT to the amount of change ANY LIVING ORGANSIM can experience. It is LIMITED to its OWN KIND. For instance, there are about 20,000 different kind of Bees…but there are ALL Bees and will NEVER be anything BUT Bees.

    There are about 164 different kind of Dog breeds but they are ALL Dogs. And so on and so on. This is something animal and plant breeders have known for a LONG LONG TIME and why they also REJECT Darwin’s WEAK ASS theory that has been WIDELY discredited.

    WAKE UP!!!

    Here’s the proof that ALL ORGANISMS have ONLY VARIED within their OWN KIND and the evidence for it along with a list of credible scientists who understand that ALL LIFE ON EARTH only VARIES and REPRODUCES after their OWN KIND and MANY OF THEM have only been on the earth about 6,000 years.

    NO…I am NOT a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) who believes the earth is only 6-10 Thousand years old.

    I am a OLD EARTH Creationist GAP PRINCIPAL of Genesis believer.

    Please explain:

    HOW can Darwin’s WEAK ASS theory be correct about ALL LIFE “evolving” over MILLIONS OF YEARS when the earth’s Geologic Record PROVES there have been AT LEAST 3 distinct ELE (Extinction Level Events) in its history?

    This would mean that the so-called “miracle” of evolution as Darwin proposed would not have to had started just once, but would have had to start over each time from scratch!! And this doesn’t even BEGIN to explain that his weak ass theory also can’t explain the separate “evolution” of both male and female organisms.


    Here’s the links: (Each and every one of the links below simply DESTROY the stupid outdated biologically inferior view that Darwin’s weak ASS theory attempts to explain.

    You’ve all never met any REAL creationists….YEC’s are a JOKE!!! But you’ve met your match with us Gap believers and I am TIRED of seeing this NON SCIENTIFIC VIEW sold to the average unsuspecting and uneducated public this SHAM of a theory any longer….bring it on if you dare….I’d LOVE to hear from you IDIOTS who still hold to this view. WHY am I being so condescending? Because I am ANGRY that there are still powers that be who put out a few weak ass wimpy examples of so-called “evolution” as Darwin proposed and pass it off as science and come off a superior in your understanding of the subject when there are a TON of REAL scientists who have UTTERLY REJECTED this view LOOOOOOONG ago yet you STILL are talking about it as if it is fact. WHAT A JOKE!!

    P.S. Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” paper(s) did NOT get disproven by the scientific community. Their response was also WEAK ASS.

    Paul Glenn Cawley

    Hit me up if you dare….

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Follow citations in those lists and you’ll find many scientific sources. Also look at Tiktaalik and Ichthyostega, which contradict your claim about transitions.

      1. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

        Oh yeah? How so? Explain yourself!

        1. Jim Cook says:

          Go read up on Tiktallik and Ichthyostega, which are transitional forms not simply between species but between vertebrate classes.

      2. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

        Btw Jim, they’re not my “claims” about transitions…they’re facts.

        Interesting Quotations from Scientists on Evolutionism

        Here are some of our favorite quotes by scientists speaking on the subject of evolutionism. Note that many of these scientists are evolutionists themselves, in spite of their comments. I suppose that they would maintain that to admit that “God did it” would not be “intellectually satisfying!” Such a confession, of course, flies in the face of their naturalistic presuppositionalism.

        “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.” (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
        “I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.” (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
        “By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them.” (Luther Sunderland, “Darwin’s Enigma”, p.10)
        “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion… The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” (Dr. L.T. More)
        “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme… (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, “incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.”)
        “The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory — is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation…” (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”)
        “What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events… An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle… (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
        “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE… It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of “Evolution from Space,” after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
        “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.” (Sir Fred Hoyle)
        “I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles… It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics.” (Sir Fred Hoyle)
        (These “mathematical miracles” that must have occurred are summarized in my paper “The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution”)

        “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change…” (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
        “I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.” (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
        “The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don’t care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn’t show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don’t change. That’s bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don’t see it, that brings terrible distress.” (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
        “To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest.” (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)
        “Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, ‘special creation,’ is clearly impossible.” (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)

        1. Jim Cook says:

          Congratulations, you have mastered the technique of copying and pasting someone else’s pastiche of butchered quotes out of context. To provide just three examples:

          1. Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould recommended not debating with creationists on creationists’ terms because the terms on which creationists chose to debate were illogical, emotional and manipulative, not dispassionate and rational. Instead Asimov and Gould, both supporters of evolutionary biology and the latter an evolutionary biologist himself, proposed other venues for communication that were dispassionate and rational.

          2. Karl Popper’s quote has been butchered, leaving out the second half of the quotation in which he declares that Darwinism (which is not the same thing as evolutionary biology) is a metaphorical framework under which scientific theories of evolution can be developed… which, in fact they have.

          3. Gradualism is not a necessary component of evolutionary biology. Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium is entirely compatible with evolutionary biology.

          At any rate, you’re making an appeal to authority, not an appeal to evidence. People can be wrong and are often wrong, including you, me, philosophers, theologians and scientists. In fact, science as a process assumes there will be frequent error in the kind of hypothetical claims you’re quoting. Repeated empirical observation — which you do not cite — shows strong support for evolutionary biology.

          To be fair, I shouldn’t say “you.” I should say “the cut-and-paste dreck you’re copying here by rote.”

          1. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Nice try Jim. Not gonna work. Cutting and pasting is a necessary part of delivering information. You did it yourself with your original post.

            I’ve heard the reports of SOME of those quotes being misrepresented. Ok. Maybe some are….some are NOT. There are still many quotes by these men that HAVE been quoted correctly and if some have not that does NOT negate the argument that the “theory” of evolution as proposed by Darwin is WRONG based on the EVIDENCE not on “authority” as you suggest. Be specific Jim. What “Repeated empirical observation” are you referring too? —

            “which you do not cite” I cited MANY direct examples and dropped in the links to work by REAL biologists and other scientists who give DIRECT scientific examples of where evolution begins and ends; ultimately its called VARIATION Jim. That’s all Darwin got right and that’s all that Biology can scientifically prove.

            I am NOT a biologist and one does not have to be a “trained biologist” to go into the natural world and make observations. It’s typical of you evolutionists to HIDE BEHIND education and the need to have a “formal” education to have an opinion on the subject. HOGWASH! There are high school science teachers all across the country and right in my own son’s classroom who utterly REJECT the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin AND his peers.

            “Repeated empirical observations shows strong support for evolutionary biology”

            How so Jim? Explain how despite the inability of evolution’s DNA-copying-error mechanism to furnish a credible explanation for male and female forms, body morphology or the utter complexity of even a single cell. Please show me a study Jim?

          2. Jim says:

            Your premise is flawed, Paul. There are ample peer-reviewed scientific papers describing the role of DNA in the evolution of sex chromosomes and body morphology. On the evolution of sex, for example, here are two papers among tens of thousands:


          3. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Ok. Finally. Now we’re talking. I will be looking over this paper very carefully, Jim, and will respond to it and to you when I have completed my investigation of it.

            My premise is not flawed – its quite simple and based on 2 guiding principals:

            Best evidence for the existence of God.

            Best evidence for the origin of life.

            Using real science for the origin of life research and sound Biblical scholarship and exegesis for the origin of God research.

            Simple. Gets results.

            I have no doubt that my premise is to find TRUTH – Truth in both of these MOST important matters; truth that is factual and verifiable – yes, but also inspirational to me personally and self evident to the world and in some ways at least, reasonable.

            Here’s the closest to my science “premise” in a single statement on the theory of evolution:

            (however, I disagree with this website’s YEC positions)

            Jim, I stand with a multitude of believers from over 2 thousand years of history including some of the most profoundly brilliant people to the most common ever imagined. From great to small, rich and poor…so many lives have been changed dramatically for good by our Lord Jesus Christ that to not consider the claims Jesus made about himself is…well…kinda… dangerous. I mean…as C.S. Lewis said, based on what Jesus said about Himself and what was also said about Him in the Apostles writings: Lewis said that by the rules of logic, Jesus can be only be one of three things: A liar, a lunatic or (who He claimed to be) the Lord. Well, I choose the last one…LORD.

            The fact is…EVERYONE dies. No one is going to escape death and Jesus said He came to bring us and give us LIFE.

            Ironically, Jim, when you die, God is going to ask you a few questions. The same questions we ALL get asked:

            1. What did you do with your life?

            And judgment – whether it comes right at death or sometime later…

            Is based on:

            2. Did you reject God or believe in God and call on God’s name with all your heart? The evidence of God’s existence He declares to be revealed in all of creation and the natural world that He gave to you as a gift to better know Him and who He IS.

            3. The conscience on your own heart that defends you when you do right and accuses you when you do wrong. This is also how you know that God really exists. He claims to have written His name on everyone’s heart and “knows” you.

            There you have it. My premise. What’s your premise, Jim?

            I provided the Shroud of Turin documentary from History Channel that has absolutely VERIFIED the Shrouds authenticity. And there are several other documentaries now by Russian scientists who have found writing on the Shroud naming Jesus and the family that loaned Jesus their grave.

            The other piece of scientific evidence for the existence of God and the afterlife is the NDE phenomenon. There is STRONG medical science that supports the phenomenon as being real by MANY HUNDREDS OF Certified Doctors from all over the world and is gaining so much momentum now…it simply can’t be ignored any longer. I provided links to EXCELLENT research on that subject to and a VERY well researched list of NDE experiences. Don’t dismiss them. It is SERIOUS research and may just save your life.

          4. Jim Cook says:

            Your argument is circular: Why faith? Because of reasons based in faith. If you question the faith, the argument comes undone.

            I don’t have a core premise to which I adhere without question. I’m a young person in an old universe who has a lot of questions.

          5. Jim Cook says:

            Thank you for reading the articles. There are many thousands more of them in the research literature.

          6. ella says:

            Isaac Asimov, I’ve read that name before. Oh yes, he’s a famous science fiction writer. And Stephen Jay Gould, my you do know your fiction writers. And wasn’t that “…don’t try to debate with evolutionists because they will debate with, “… illogical, emotional and manipulative…” arguments? Jim you are out of your depth with this one.

          7. Jim says:

            I know very well who they are. I did not bring them up, Paul did. What’s your particular point regarding these two specific people, Ella?

          8. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            I did not “bring them up” Jim, I simply posted a piece I’ve had for years about quotes from biologists. Jim, you went in there and “cherry picked” a few that MAY have been misquoted or PERHAPS have been misquoted. So what? There’s about 40 quotes in there!

            Besides, you have skipped SO MUCH of the information I have dropped in that is much more heavyweight. What about the other much more robust sites and information I’ve dropped in? You haven’t even begun to dig through the links and information I’ve sent you, and when you do, you won’t have any more quotes to try use somehow as a way to discredit what I’m saying.

            Check out EvoGenesis…the author, John Thomas, holds a Master’s degree in Physics and is a former high school teacher from England. He understands Darwin’s life work quite well and has written extensively about him and his background that are all available on his site. He also had a biologist review his book/website for accuracy on those matters because he is not a biologist himself, and the biologist who reviewed his book said EVERYONE needs to read EvoGenesis because it reveals several fallacies about biological evolution that the western world has been hoodwinked by for over a century now.

            I’ll drop in his actual articles from the site right here if you want? I just may in fact. It is DEVESTATING to Darwin’s theory.

            Another one you really MUST look at is this:

            which comes from this site:

            Now, even though I think these folks MAY BE from the YEC perspective…as I’ve already stated, even though they may be (I’ll have to check that) their 75 Theses link is a GREAT overview of WHY Biological Evolution as proposed by Darwin is simply wrong. Period. No debate. It’s a school-boy view of biology and human origins and nothing more. Michael Behe’s work on irreducible complexity just DESTROYS the notion that at the most basic level life started out simple.

            Was the Opabinia or the Tribolite simple organisms Jim? They’re from the Cambrian period…some of the oldest fossils we know of…that Darwin said would SHOW simple living forms having once existed on the earth. Oh really? Is that what we see? NOPE. They were HIGHLY COMPLEX and yet where did they come from? They seem to just SUDDENLY APPEAR. Punctuated Equilibrium is a fancy word for FAST EVOLUTION…Hmmmm….sounds very much like BAM! Creation. Or as Genesis uses the word create as BARA (making something for the first time out of nothing) for vs. 1 “In the beginning God CREATED (Bara) the Heaven and the earth” and then in vs. 2 the word MAKE (Asah) is used…revealing that God was not CREATING for the first time in each “day” (24 hour period of time) but was MAKING THINGS (Asah) which means to make something out of materials already in existence. And the word BARA (Create) is not used again until Day 6 when Humans are both made AND created…(both words are used…also see the chapter 2 creation account of Adam & Eve for more on Bara & Asah). The point being, many living forms were made from materials already in existence because God had created them LONG before in vs. 1. “In the beginning” by definition does NOT say WHEN the beginning was. So we cannot use the chronology of Adam’s line to date the age of the earth, only to date the age of human beings (made in God’s image and likeness).

            The literal interpretation of Genesis put next too actual KNOWN and OBSERVABLE scientific facts does not contradict!

          9. Jim Cook says:

            Most of the claims you have pasted here are not germane to the questions of the post. I feel no need to attend to your red herrings. You also have acknowledged that at least some of the cut-and-paste “quotes” are problems, which means you shouldn’t be cutting and pasting them around. You should be making sure you’re not spreading dreck. Go check the quality and veracity of the quotes yourself — they’re your problem since you’ve screwed them up. I don’t believe in appeals to authority as a solid basis for trust anyway.

          10. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            That’s a terrible analysis of what I’ve dropped in here. You act like all I’ve dropped in is these quotes to several scientists that you REPORT are misquoted but have provided NO DIRECT EVIDENCE to support it but that’s fine. There are MANY quotes in it…much more than your reported two misquotes and if you continue to pursue this subject alone, I am going to go research every last one of them and find out EXACTLY how many ARE Misquoted and how many are NOT and I am POSITIVE you will NOT LIKE the results.

            But there are probably 20 links total I’ve provided and at least 5 of them simply DESTROY the very flawed theory of evolution. Biology itself has defeated your silly unscientific views, Jim. Variation. That’s it and you have answered NOT ONE of the questions posed to you in my numerous posts…EXCEPT…the post with all the quotes and have hammered away at that one PITIFUL subject.

            Posted as a final thought from this link:


            Key Claims of Evolution

            1. When organisms reproduce, DNA copying errors may occur, creating small differences between their offspring which can affect their fitness to survive in the struggle for life.

            2. Natural Selection refers to processes by which the advantaged, with their improved design details, are preserved and multiply.

            3. All organisms gradually evolved from one or several “common ancestors” over many millions of years.

            4. Evolution is demonstrated by the fossil record.

            5. All organisms, living and extinct, are related and can be arranged to form a “tree of life”.

            6. The recent discovery that all organisms contain DNA, confirms that they evolved from common ancestors.

            Comment & Criticism

            Although evolution is described by its supporters as a fact, it is no more than a half-truth – a mixture of observed facts and unproven claims. For example:

            Darwin never observed anything beyond the limited “micro-evolution” that had been familiar to plant and animal breeders for thousands of years, and as demonstrated by his famous finches.

            Evolution requires that the vast majority of fossil of extinct organisms be those of the myriad “unfit” intermediate organisms that Natural Selection rejected – but after a century of searching that is still not the case.

            In the times of Isaac Newton, it was popularly thought that the moon and planets must be attached to invisible “crystal spheres” that provided the forces needed to keep them moving. However, Newton’s laws showed that because of inertia, objects in a frictionless environment do not need forces to keep them moving. Thus, in one simple stroke, Newton dispensed with the spheres. They did not exist and never had existed. And so it is with Darwin’s transitional forms. They cannot be found because they do not exist. And they never did exist. This tells us that there is something wrong with his theory. Darwin knew this, but refused to believe it.

            The claim that the astonishing complexity of every detail of every living organism resulted from the accumulation of random but favourable DNA copying errors when they reproduced over millions of years is simply not credible to most people, especially mathematicians. Even dedicated evolutionist Derek Hough describes the claim as preposterous – and is currently seeking a more credible mechanism, because he cannot accept magic or God as the answer.

            Materialistic evolution cannot explain animal emotion, intelligence and instinct in terms of inanimate atoms and molecules. As one tiny example, cuckoos lay their eggs in the nests of other birds. Then they migrate to Africa. Yet when the young hatch out, they also know how to migrate to Africa and promptly do so.

            Evolution does not address the question of what “life” is, and how the “life” in a cell, for example, differs from that which is lost when a creature dies? Or, why, on the basis of evolution, is a man more important than a cabbage?

            Evolution cannot explain the existence of complex but complementary sex organs in the male and female of any organism. That simple fact alone utterly destroys Darwinism. No wonder Richard Dawkins admits he avoids the subject.

            And so, the cat is out of the evolutionary bag – as thinking individuals begin to see evolution for the preposterous nonsense it really is.

            Although evolution is now presented by the media as a “fact”, a close examination of its “proofs” will show that it is far from fact. If you check out “The Seventy Great Mysteries of the Natural World”, for example, a book contributed to by some sixty-two world experts in their field (evidently several of them contributed more than one article!), you will find that their glib claims to explain anything from the origin of life and DNA to demise of the dinosaurs are based on a swampy foundation of speculation, supposition, wishful thinking – which is why the book is correctly entitled “Mysteries”, not “Solutions”.

            A dog, for example, has four legs and a horse also has four legs – therefore (if, like Darwin, you accept evolution as self-evident and desperately want to believe it) that “proves” they must both evolved from a common ancestor. Behold, evolution at work! Thus a supposition becomes a “fact”. That little bit of intellectual magic is called “cladistics”. And although cladistics is lauded as the latest thing since sliced bread or Kindle e-book readers, a top Oxford professor of evolution honestly assured his audience recently that “It does not work!”.

            But there’s more. A diagram shows that human eye is far more complex than that of some tiny extinct creature – but see how this computer model can “evolve” and expand the “primitive” eye one small step at a time and fit it with a lens and a retina. Then Abracadabra – and given a few millions years, evolution works! This is serious science at work!

            As you study such “proofs”, be aware of Darwin’s oft-repeated claim that if any feature, such as vision or flight, would be an advantage to an organism, then that feature will evolve, sooner or later, by the action of Natural Selection on random DNA copying errors. That glib “explanation” is trotted out regularly on TV natural history programs. It saves presenters having to think, as they parrot the party line and marvel at the creative power of evolution – neatly bypassing the need for specific cause-and-effect reasoning. They want to believe it. They will believe it. They have to believe it.

            I find it hard to understand the extreme shallowness of evolutionist thinking. I can only assume that, once having nibbled the magic mushroom of Darwinism, their perceptions become warped and they can no longer see the shining glory of God’s creation in a flower or a bumble bee.

            Evolution is of course just a theory, but scientists love theories. They enjoy speculating. It is fun – and they get paid for it. And if they think up a good new angle, they might get on the TV or be offered a publishing contract. And why not a Nobel Prize? That very human dimension of science is frankly discussed by Dick Lewontin, American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator in “The Doctrine of DNA”.

            That said, let us now attempt to separate evolution fact from fallacy.

            Evolution Key Facts

            1. The earth is very old, perhaps millions of years.

            2. The fossil record demonstrates that there was a previous age populated by bizarre and now-extinct organisms.

            3. The limited process of “micro-evolution”, which leads to new breeds and varieties, is well documented.

            4. There is a struggle for survival and the earth’s present ecology exhibits endless violence and suffering.


            1. Are you happy to embrace the belief that man is nothing more than a complex arrangement of inanimate atoms, effectively making him no more important than a cabbage or a worm?

            2. How can the young of migratory birds be born knowing how to navigate by the sun?

            3. How could the incredibly complex yet complementary human penis and vagina have evolved separately in man and woman? Ditto for all mammals?

            4. How do the cells in any growing organ, such as the human heart, “know” how to work together to create complex morphologies, such as pumping chambers, veins and arteries, valves and the coordinated electrical impulses that regulate their working?

            5. Why, do you think, did Charles Darwin spend so much of this life suffering from severe psychsomatic afflictions — and why did he delay so long in publishing his work? Answer: In his heart, he knew it was infantile nonsense from the start.

          11. Jim Cook says:

            1. I’ve posted a number of links to peer-reviewed scientific research in response to your claims.
            2. It’s not my job to defend your cut-and-paste job of boilerplate creationist misquotes. It’s your job to substantiate them, since you’ve made the claim and since you’ve acknowledged that some of them may be problematic. Go do the work or retract the quotes, which even if they were true don’t prove anything more than that some people said some words once.
            3. You should not be surprised to find that when you respond in your latest comment by cutting-and-pasting another piece of baloney boilerplate that you didn’t even take the time to write yourself, I refuse to play into your game (yes, I’m fully aware it’s a game) of making me do your work.

            Instead, I will do you the courtesy of taking just one of the five eye-roller questions written by someone else for an apologetic ministry, and pointing you to a book of scientific research on the subject for you to read. Your cut-and-paste job poses this question:

            “How could the incredibly complex yet complementary human penis and vagina have evolved separately in man and woman?”

            Go read this book containing 22 chapters of detail on that very subject if you are actually curious about the answer:

            The Evolution of Primary Sexual Characters in Animals. 2010. Janet Leonard and Alex Cordoba, editors. Oxford University Press

            If you don’t want to buy the book, your local public library can arrange an inter-library loan.

            If you are sincere, and not just playing a game, you should go read the three articles and one book I’ve suggested for you so that you can learn some answers to the questions you cut-and-paste here.

            Further cut-and-pasted questions before you read those articles and that book will confirm for me that you’re playing a game with your questions, and not seriously interested in answers at all.

          12. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Ok Jim. Now I’m done here. This debate is over. You are not honest. You keep referring to ONE THING I said about two possible misquotes from ONE link I posted out of over 20 I’ve provided in various posts and that is all you now talk about…my “admitted mistakes about quotes” and are applying it to everything I’ve posted and don’t even acknowledge the other posts.

            What are you 10 years old? Are you mentally challenged?

            This is NOT a game to me in any way shape or form. WHO ELSE has even bothered to chime in but Ella? (who btw takes my position).

            OBVIOUSLY I am the real deal and care VERY MUCH about what I am doing here and am NOT playing games.

            YOU are the one who posted the original thought therefore YOU are the one who has to defend your position…NOT ME. And I DID defend my position. Repeatedly. You are simply too blind to see it or too proud to acknowledge it and probably don’t get this much feedback from ANYONE. No one will EVER post as much factual information in your NATURAL LIFE as I have here Jim and you’ve acted like its nothing. Gosh…you’re so smart….too smart for me. LOL!

            I am not a biologist and a belief in evolution requires understanding MUCH MORE than just biology, which you don’t even recognize. You HIDE behind your “education” and “peer reviewed” research like its your safety blanket. I can see you now…over in the corner sucking your thumb while you quickly look for more “peer reviewed” work to toss in here.

            I SHOULD drop in Michael Behe’s published work on Irreducible Complexity AS WELL AS his responses to his critics…something RARELY done in the “peer reviewed” scientific world…especially on that level…but Mr. Behe DID do just that and he more than DISPELLED the “peer reviewed” responses to his Irreducible Complexity paper. A paper that OBLITERATES the idea of a human cell EVER forming by natural evolutionary processes. But I’m NOT going to do that. I will be investigating the one paper you posted (because I promised and for my personal research) and will get back here at some point but that’s it. My work is done here.

            I provided valid scientific responses and information FOR YOU since YOU are the one who put up the stupid post in the first place and since you CANNOT answer even HOW evolution is POSSIBLE when AT LEAST 3 distinct ELE events in earth’s natural history DESTROYED ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET SERVERAL TIME OVER then I will not bother to post here anymore. YOU evolutionists are FAR MORE guilty of circular reasoning. Using suppositions to prove a point and then saying SEE evolution is true…what a joke. Relying on “Peer reviewed” “scientific work” like its not subject to CORRUPTION and EXAGERATIONS and ASSUMPTIONS and DISTORTIONS all spewed out by a closed world of evolutionary biologists whose entire PAYCHECK and LIVELYHOOD depends on the “truth” of evolution…

            Its just another “good ol boy club” patting themselves on the back and convincing each other how right they are…having nibbled the magic mushroom of evolution. I mean at least 6-7 proposed apes considered ancestors to modern humans were either proven HOAXES or Mis-Identified as something else all together!! That alone should wake your ass up!! But nope. Carry on.

            “professing themselves wise they became fools…and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

          13. ella says:

            Asimov was a biochemist and Gould was a paleontologist. As hard scientists of the last century, they both were prolific writers. Gould definitely supported evolution. Asimov was an atheist, humanist. So I thought you brought them up. I need to back up reading my posts. I’ve read such from both and found that neither had an original idea or one that did not correspond with the teachings presented to them. That is why they were so successful. The division today between scientists who are projecting the actual appearance of the human dating in the modern or past 12 thousand years or later, is increasing. The major extinctions are documented as is the re-emergence of life. What popular science and serious science say are not always the same. But one thing they have in common -they all originated their occupational searches from one tomb, a collection of books, and other assorted “religious” texts throughout the world, that all coordinate information incredibly well. And they document incredibly ancient facts that we have only begun to scratch the surface of.

          14. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Great comments Ella. The bottom line for me is that at least 3 distinct ELE events (and probably more) make biological evolution as Darwin proposed IMPOSSIBLE. The “transmutation” of a species is PURE wishful thinking. Species only share “common ancestors” of the SAME KIND…an earlier version of themselves and nothing more. Similarities in anatomical structure arise when a the living forms in question function similarly. Just because 4 legged creatures all have similar structure does NOT mean they all share a common ancestor it means they all have a common designer/engineer who OF COURSE (and any engineer will acknowledge this…just ask them!) gave similar “design” features to four legged creatures because they ALL have to carry their weight on four legs! Cladistics is a JOKE. It does not work! It PURELY made up and has no basis in fact.

          15. Jim Cook says:

            Nice sum-up of your position — the whole field of evolutionary biology is just a scam? You’re right in one sense — if you believe that, and if you therefore won’t pick up books that answer your cut-and-paste questions, then obviously we can’t even begin to have a conversation.

            In contrast, I’ve read through 3 of your links, I’ve answered 8 of your more dozens of scattershot questions at different points in this thread, indicating a willingness to interface with you but not a willingness to play the classic creationist make-em-dance-with-a-large-volume-of-questions game. Throwing a large tub of mishmash and trying to make the question of whether I’ve addressed each point in the tub the central focus is a classic apologetic strategy. You seem to be miffed that it didn’t work.

            Let’s take this moment to remember that the central focus of the article was the emergence of yet another transitional form. You haven’t documented that, contrary to the “absence of transitional forms” claim of your favorite website, this transitional form exists. The rest is distraction.

            Finally, I want to thank you for providing so many links to examples of poor argumentation on creationist websites. They’ll be great fodder for future posts at Irregular Times.

        2. Mark says:

          I looked at your long list of quotes. When I found the first one to be lacking I stopped looking.
          “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.” (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)”

          Dr. Etheridge (1819-1903) was a an assistant at the museum. He cataloged fossils, he was not a paleontologist. By no means did he really know what he was talking about. I even doubt the quote was made by him.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      And here’s a peer-reviewed scientific research article in the journal Nature on a transitional form between two of the very most basic forms of life, prokaryotes and eukaryotes:

      1. ella says:

        Guilty of Copy/Paste: A basic life form
        noun, plural amebas, amebae [uh-mee-bee] (Show IPA)
        any of numerous freshwater, marine, or parasitic one-celled protozoa of the order Amoebida, characterized by a granular nucleus surrounded by a jellylike mass of cytoplasm that forms temporary extensions, or pseudopodia, by which the organism moves, engulfs food particles, and forms food vacuoles.
        a protozoan of the genus Amoeba, inhabiting bottom vegetation of freshwater ponds and streams: used widely in laboratory studies.

        It is a happy day that it is only an hypothesis that this creature created itself many eons ago, and in the many forms that it exists today.

        Virus: (no copy paste) is known to have existed at least 750 million years ago with the same RNA structure, if not patterns, as exist today. It is able to mutate, adjust to suit a host cell with which it can join. That cannot be called evolution because it is instantaneous change. That happily is now also being considered as hypothesis. It is refreshing to note that scientists are beginning to practice what they preach (no pun intended). It may well be that we will soon find that the hypothesis of slow but random change will finally be termed hypotheses as well. As it is botanically documented that plants do have natural triggers than cause them to adapt to changing circumstances (if they are able to), that is not reasonably termed evolution, but a natural survival mechanism that is programmed into the biological form.

    1. J Clifford says:

      oh, yeah, the hypothesis that Jesus is savior has been verified through extensive scientific experiments, right?

      1. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

        Indeed the “hypothesis” HAS!

        Watch it and explain to me HOW it is that ALL OF THESE SCIENTISTS agree…


        Watch it! I DARE YOU….and tell me where they went wrong; you won’t, because you can’t. The EVIDENCE is there, however, no matter what you may think.

        Time to wake up from your sleep, J Clifford, arise and Christ will shine on you!

        1. Mark says:

          Wasn’t the Shroud of Turin carbon dated to about the year 1300?

          1. ella says:

            At one time, the less reliable C14 dating was used on the Shroud of Turin. There are more modern methods:

            that date the Shroud to the 2000 year era.

          2. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Watch the Shroud of Turin documentary Mark…it will answer your question. But here it is: NO. The outside of the Shroud of Turin was burned about that same time frame…burned in a fire around the edges and the edges were then replaced. And that’s where the 1970’s research team cut their piece of fabric from and ran the tests.

            The new research team dispels all that old information and obliterates any notion that the image on the Shroud is fake. It is not. This is REAL science (mostly forensic science) being applied to an ACTUAL piece of evidence related DIRECTLY to the message that Jesus proclaimed about Himself and the Shroud is a POWERFUL testimony about Him.

            Here’s some more:

   – Scientists say there is

            actual 3D information in the Shroud of Tourin…WOW!!!

   – Science PROVES shroud is Jesus!!!

          3. J Clifford says:

            Wait a minute, Paul. Even if scientists determined that the cloth was very very old, and not the relatively recent material that tests have actually shown it to be, how would that prove that the “shroud is Jesus”?

            Couldn’t it simply be the burial shroud of someone else who lived a long, long time ago, and had a beard?

          4. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Guess you’ll never know J Clifford. That is…unless of course you watch it.

          5. J Clifford says:

            I guessed you don’t have an answer, Paul.

          6. ella says:

            You know that a person just dying in a piece of cloth does not leave an image of any body parts. That was tested also and said to have happened through a process not yet perfected with machinery. The problem is that it was generated by the body itself. Of course…

          7. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Thanks Ella for your excellent points and commentary. As for J Clifford, Mark, and Jim Cook. I have a wife and kids and work a full time job. You can learn about my background by going to my website: or just googling my name. If you do google my name you can also google it with the added words Guardian Christian rock band.

            Why am I mentioning this?

            Because as I’ve stated here in another post or two I am not a evolutionary biologist. I am a follower of Jesus, and a kind of “street” minister and apologist. I did not post the original posting about transitional forms…Jim did. I responded to it for the sole purpose of providing reasons for faith in the FACT(S) that God Almighty created all things and engineered into them the ability to VARY and REPRODUCE after their OWN KIND just like Moses wrote in the book of Genesis. Who is God? know…the invisible God…the one you can’t see that ACTUALLY EXISTS…the God whom Peter identified Jesus as coming from when he said “you are the Christ…the son of the living God.” And Jesus replied…blessed are you Peter…for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven has revealed this to you.”

            So this is who I follow and proclaim to the whole world…and have for over 30 years now. I don’t have a lot of time to type original rebuttals at length…but I did here anyway. Yes I cut & paste…but I also put in enough of my own writing and thought too….that is clear to ANYONE who sees all the posts I’ve written here. I apologize for coming off so condescending and angry…the fact is…I do get angry about the evolutionary theory because I KNOW its wrong. You don’t. You love it and believe it. I don’t. So there we have it. I came here to provide reasons for faith knowing that you would put your complete trust in “peer reviewed” scientific work. I have SEVERAL friends just like you and we debate all the time….so I am used to it. But my guess is…you will NEVER turn to the Lord….and I can ONLY hope that if you are ever close to death and aren’t actually killed quickly but have time to contemplate your life and beliefs that something…ANYTHING that you can recall of the information I’ve dropped in here will reach you. Because you cannot escape death of course…none of us can. And its SO VERY permanent. If this was a game to me…I certainly would NOT be wasting one more second of my time here…but its NOT a game. If its not obvious to you that I’m sincere, you all are more jaded and lost than I realized. Your blind faith in evolution (that you THINK has been proven I guess…truly it has NOT been) and your faith in your own intelligence and the totally corrupt secular education system is like the blind leading the blind into a pit…and its terribly sad to see.

            I offer the documentary on the Shroud of Turin and the NDE links I provided here (along with two supplemental links to additional information on the Shroud showing the 3D information it contains from a Russian scientist) as the best scientific proof I am aware of regarding the claims made in the OT & NT concerning the existence of God, the afterlife and who Jesus is. The other links to Old Earth Gap Principal science pages contains rock solid science…even acknowledging MUCH of secular established science! That’s because we (we “Gap Principal believers” LOVE science) are FAR from the YEC “movement” with the church and regularly endure nasty criticism from them for acknowledging an old age for the earth…which to them…gives “evil” evolutionists the “time” evolution needs to be “true” not realizing that the earth could be a TRILLION years old and Darwin’s weak school-boy view of biology would still not make evolution as he though it…to be true. Biology simply does not work that way. Speciation is a MYTH and wish dream for those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the very being who made them…transmutation of one species into another is IMPOSSIBLE. And evolution cannot even BEGIN to explain the utter complexity of life…but you don’t believe that. So “game over” there is nothing left to discuss.

            Hope you get the guts to watch the documentary on the Shroud…it speaks for itself and requires no more explanation…once you see it…ALL of your questions (posed to me here) will be more than sufficiently answered. Hope you watch it along with the other two shorter Youtube movies about it. They will really make you think. And so will the NDE links I’ve provided…they are VERY POWERFUL.

            I will be reading the Evolution of Sex Chromosomes paper and will respond to it when I have completed my investigation of it.

            Thanks guys…and God bless you.

        2. J Clifford says:

          Look! Watch this video! It’s proof that Pastafarian religion is literally true!

          May a noodly appendage grace you with its divine marinara, Paul!

          1. ella says:

            How people try to do what they are told God wishes, and their various contracts (covenants) with Him, is another matter entirely. There are more conflicts over who has what contract with God than there are conflicts over the existence (or possibly the wish for a non-existent) God. Not to be confused with the existence of same. Man has long used, or denied, God for his own purposes. And His enemy has certainly done everything he can to develop and exacerbate the situation. But you don’t know anything about His enemy either.

  3. ella says:

    Paul Glenn Cawley, thank you. Many scientists today have decided that ape facial bones rally do belong to apes and that they are their own species or variation of vertebrate. There are the die hard types that still actually want to believe they were derived from another species of being, and in a way that may be so. But there are many variations of human as well, were made so. Then there are the genetic misconceptions that have 8 legs and/or arms – or some such thing. But they are not evolutionary changes, just quadruplets that did not form properly. That is a human occurrence and occasionally happens with cattle, dogs, cats, etc. Then there are the natural variations that occur genetically with climate change and in plants with soil change as well. Genesis deniers are a part of an also vary old conflict, still going on. But there are those who could ask themselves how many times a species has been declared extinct and then many years later one pops up. Or are simply never found again. How did they ‘evolve’ through extinction? Or did one of their variations appear unrecognized? Genetics of each type are amazing.

    1. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

      Thank you Ella. Agreed!

      The fossil record is much more a record of death than of life. In fact, it is a record of massive death of living forms across the globe from a series of ELE events that have taken place throughout earth’s geologic history, right up to Younger Dryas just 12,800+ years ago.

      When Younger Dryas occurred, there is no doubt now (the evidence continues to mount) that it was a global and devastating event that left the entire earth (and local solar system) “VOID and FORMLESS and DARKNESS UPON THE FACE OF THE DEEP” which is what is described in the second verse of Genesis. And the “time frame” of the event corresponds completely with what we now know were the conditions of the earth at the time the Genesis account is referring too.

      You see, the Genesis account is telling us something happened to the earth and it was in a state of ruins when God came to RESTORE IT in 6 literal days….NOT create it for the first time.

      This is why Genesis does not fit the geologic record. It was never intended to!

      Genesis is not a geologic record of the beginning of the earth. The earth had been here for perhaps MILLIONS OF YEARS (or maybe more) before the work of the 6 days even began. The earth is VERY OLD…at least 110 thousand years BP according to the Greenland Ice Core tests and others like it around the world. And of course is believed to be MUCH older by other tests. But human beings (made in God’s image and likeness) have only been on the earth about 6 thousand years.

      We can discuss the hominids in another post, but aside from them, the secular evidence of human beings knowledge suddenly exploding in the fertile crescent region of the world about 6 thousand years ago is too coincidental to be tossed aside anymore. Suddenly, humans could speak, had a written language, formed complex societies, farmed, could navigate by the stars, and understood metallurgy and herb-ology. This fits the Genesis account to the tee!

      However, there was a previous world BEFORE Adam & Eve and their descendants. And this takes an advanced Bible student to see mysteriously hidden in the scriptures for those who are willing to do the work.

      In fact there were probably several “worlds” here on earth before Adam & Eve and their descendants, however, each one was destroyed in cataclysmic events over a long period of time. Some in the church say “this is heresy because Paul the Apostle clearly states that sin and death came into the world through Adam so there cannot have been sin and death in the world before him.” But this calls for proper exegesis of Paul’s words and the words written in Genesis and an understanding of the meaning to the Hebrew words for “WORLD” and “EARTH” and when one properly understands these things they see that Paul was saying that Adam brought sin and death into the world of MEN. But sin and death itself were clearly ALREADY HERE…right under Adam’s feet!

      It’s called the fall of Lucifer. That’s right…there really IS a devil…Satan…who was formerly Lucifer, a MIGHTY Angelic being that God created to reflect His OWN glory and beauty and when Lucifer eventually FELL along with a THIRD of the company of Heaven with many other angelic beings joining Lucifer in his rebellion, they were CAST OUT of Heaven (which exists everywhere at once but can only been experienced right now by humans AFTER they die and are in the spiritual realm in a place called eternity where there is NO time or space) and into the physical realm of time and space. The evidence for the UFO phenomenon is best found hidden in this event and is another good discussion for another post.

      So Lucifer sinned first, LONG BEFORE humankind was ever created in the Genesis account, and Lucifer’s sin caused sin and death to begin to take over the physical universe and God began to judge him and destroyed the very planets he ruled over, the evidence of which we now see on every planet in our solar system in the form of impact craters.

      There was once a fifth large body in our solar system:

      This fifth large body was broken up by God and is now the asteroid belt and was used by God to mete out judgment on the physical world that Lucifer ruled over and brought continued death to the earth as well and again is evidenced here by the fossil record of death and ending with the Younger Dryas event.

      This understanding of Genesis is quite profound because it is by far the most literal understanding Genesis and the most scientifically accurate as well.

      The 3 distinct ELE events alone disprove Darwin’s weak school-boy view of origins and of biology for that matter. In Darwin’s day, they thought a human cell was just a blob of protoplasm! Now that we’ve looked into the actual design and function of a cell with over 3 million bits of coordinated moving parts inside with bacterial flagellum motors swimming around inside…all like a microscopic factory in full production! Please…explain to me how this could have EVER assembled itself over even TRILLIONS of years….IMPOSSIBLE! No math guru on the PLANET would ever say it was possible and I’ve got quotes from SERIOUS biologists who say it is equal to a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a 747 jet! It’s just not possible. We don’t even understand HALF of what a cell does yet, or genes and gene expression. We have NO IDEA how a cell “knows” how to become a heart, or a tooth, or arteries…etc etc and yet “evolutionists” say it all happened by some blind random process over billions of years. I mean…its simply absurd and an insult to the intelligence of rational thinking people. The eco-system…being so mind bogglingly complex and that we only understand a tiny fraction of….insects needing to pollinate flowers in order for HUNDREDS of animals to have a food source. Trees giving off oxygen that we breath and exhale carbon dioxide that trees use to make oxygen with! Beetles that have two chambers with gasses in each side that will explode if they come in contact with each other! The list goes on and on of complex design by a master designer who engineered into ALL living forms the ability to VARY and REPRODUCE after their OWN KIND.

      That’s it! Praise God Almighty for HIS AMAZING WORK!!!!

      Then there’s the

      1. Mark says:

        You seem to be referring to the five global extinction events that have occurred during Earth’s history. They are:
        late Devonian

        In each of these events over half of the Earth’s species disappeared. But, not all. Asteroid impacts are postulated as being the cause of many of these events. There was certainly enough life left on the planet afterwards. Evolution is a remarkable process. When large numbers of organisms disappear, the remaining quickly evolve to fill the vacated niches.

        By the way, the Younger Dryas event didn’t even come close to being classified as a global extinction event. While many species did go extinct during this event, it wasn’t as many as other events.

        You are also touching on the idea of irreducible complexity with your example of the bacterial flagellum. This idea has been roundly debated and debunked by the scientific community. The fact that you’re still bringing it up says to me that you are not abreast of the latest scientific literature and are only repeating items you’ve found on the internet from years ago.

        1. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

          I disagree Mark. More and more information is coming out about it being a global event and I believe it will eventually be shown that it completely destroyed all life on earth for a relatively short period of time.

  4. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

    Link to Dr. Dill’s newest book and website:

    I don’t like to call it a “theory” and either does Dr. Dill anymore. The belief that a gap of time exists between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1 go back to ancient times and this definitive work by Biblical scholar Arthur C. Custance is proof of that:

  5. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

    Unfortunately that was not the link I wanted to drop in here on Cladistics by John Thomas. He only touches on it in the link I provided but on his website he devotes a whole study to the subject. I’ll find it and post it here soon.

  6. ella says:

    Now that I am just an observer out of the heat of battle let me make an observation that needs no link and that I am personally aware of. Evolution was a diversion of sorts created by Darwin, (He was sent on an expedition by a father whose daughter he wanted to marry. Of course she was married by the time he returned. Then he was a very angry man.) but he was not the first to notice similarities between species. In these modern times we know that to be the assigned genetic predisposition of each genus and species. “Lucy” was a favorite ‘proof’ many years ago. but since has been ‘proven’ to be of an ape family. Actually, some amateur explorers in Africa accidentally came upon and filmed a ‘tribal’ group of ‘Lucy’s’ family living today. They hide in tall grasses by hunkering down, and one female stands up to survey the surroundings while they eat whatever. She has very modern human features, picks up and brushes off a very human foot with five toes, with a very human hand, with four fingers and an opposing thumb. She is comfortable walking upright with proportionally balanced body. No sunken eyes, normal lips, well you get the picture. But they are very slender, another a male stands, and they are only about 3 1/2 feet, or a little more, tall. Like ‘Lucy’ they are a diminutive race of beings. To this day, in modern society, the variations of height, weight, bone structure, and facial features that have been found in any mankind remains, still exist. The races were all created with differences, hence ‘races’. Interbreeding has occurred and features have genetically been passed down. It happened before. Is that the definition of Evolution? I find in scientific research papers that there is an ‘attempt to define’ evolution. The hypothesis of ‘evolution’ is still in development and ‘evolving’. The definition of creation is a concrete definition. There is the crux of the situation. The scientists are attempting to unravel the entire ‘mystery’ of creation. The conflict is necessary to stimulate the minds of people to search out ‘how’ it was done. There is a difference between, a barrier of sorts, different genus. A cut off point where it cannot inter breed with another that is divided from it. Why does anyone want to? Evolution is an exercise in developing a theory from an hypothesis, yet to be named, in the general scientific communities that are devoted to it.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Ella, you write, “…Actually, some amateur explorers in Africa accidentally came upon and filmed a ‘tribal’ group of ‘Lucy’s’ family living today. They hide in tall grasses by hunkering down, and one female stands up to survey the surroundings while they eat whatever….”

      I’ve never heard of that film of “Lucy” apes. Can you share a link to it?

  7. ella says:

    I’ll look around Jim, that documentary is many years old, at least 15 or 20 years ago and an academic piece. Maybe it has been made public. Just a note about NDE: I do not know if you have ever experienced that phenomenon, if you have you could have had any number of experiences. It does illustrate that we do not simply die and turn to dust, or ashes as it were. There is another part of the being that is an entity with the possibility of eternal life. Since Paul is actually delving into the basis for this instructional Book and I might add, in this very interesting blog, having experienced that several times, it makes this very personal. Once it has happened there never is a doubt again, but faith or knowledge, having the right one on your side is the whole game. Paul is trying very hard to make this very clear. Not my way of talking, but then I am the ‘common of the common’, not ashamed of it. And I appreciate Paul’s strength in this discussion.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      My hunch is that such a film doesn’t exist or did exist but has been outed as a hoax, Ella — but I could be wrong. Do you have a title for that?

  8. ella says:

    Jim, define ‘evolution’. Now, time and modern history have swallowed most of anything about the white tribe of Africa, but still, there are some references to them, in books. Here’s is one: ; Michael F. Robinson is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Hartford. He is the author of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture, which won the Forum for the History of Science in America Prize in 2008. I doubt it refers to Lucy, but the White Tribe still exists and is noted historically. I didn’t realize that they had been found so much earlier than the accidental documentary filming. Makes sense though.

    Be precise in that definition of evolution as it pertains to the existence of all life on this planet, and has to be provable as in a theory like any mathematical equation can be proven with a consistent, verifiable solution.

    1. Mark says:

      You seem to have a misunderstanding of what constitutes a scientific theory. As defined at
      A Scientific Theory is “a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation”.
      There is no requirement for it to be provable, only that it is confirmed by a wide body of evidence. The Theory of Evolution is the most basic and useful theorem in biology. As more scientific studies have been conducted they have only served to reinforce the theory. Nothing has been found to discredit the theory or cause us to renounce it.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      You lost me on this “White Tribe” business. People from all over the globe have been moving around and sleeping with one another for some time, but I don’t get what it has to do with evolution.

      If you want a precise definition of evolution, why not read a textbook in evolutionary biology? I mean, it’s not like I’m a biologist or anything, and I don’t want to pretend to be one. Here’s a link to a well-reviewed textbook: .

  9. ella says:

    I’ve already been there Jim, because I had an innocent question for a tenured professor, I was asked to leave the department, called in at night and asked to leave with a slip in my hand. I know about how ‘theory’ works in evolution – you do not question it. That Jim, Mark, is not scientific. There are patterns in biology that repeat world wide. That does not support evolution. DNA is very complicated with triggers, aminos that turn on or off certain aspects of a design that the DNA is developing. i.e., brown eyes, four legs etc. That does not support evolution. Some bones that are millennia old, have been found to still have DNA enough to identify them and have proven that some skeletal remains that were thought to be human predecessors were in fact apes, not much different from what exist today, which put a hole in the human evolution aspect of the finds. The more we learn about how life systems work, the more we find allocated to both sides of this issue. If the definition of theory is “…a coherent group of propositions formulated by a wide body of evidence…” then both sides have equal footing. Absolutely every fact found backs up what is stated in Sanskrit, Assyrian, Hebrew, Greek, Chinese (ancient) and Indian dialects (east). The writings simply (for the most part) do not go into the details of HOW it was done. There is where curiosity steps in and becomes a ‘theory’ with all sorts on investigators trying to find out HOW it was done. Only it seems many want to leave out the important step of WHO did it. That seems to be a big part of the problem, that and a thing called “I don’t need WHO did it.” So, ‘scientists’ have an occupational society within which there are those who stay with WHO did it, and those who say “NOBODY did it and I am going to figure out HOW it was done!” Does that sound about right?

    1. Jim Cook says:

      What university and what question in what country? If you weren’t threatening or harassing in your behavior, and if you had a right to be on campus, then for just asking an innocent question you could win a lot of money in a lawsuit against that university if you were asked to leave your department as a student.

      Am I misinterpreting, though? Were you there in a capacity as a student?

      People at universities question all sorts of things about evolution all the time. At no time in the history of evolutionary biology has there been one and only one strand of theories of evolution. I may not be a biologist, but I have read enough to know that there are disputes and disagreements in that field ALL the time.

    2. Mark says:

      Scientists question the theory of evolution every single day. That’s how science works. If a scientist found solid, irrefutable proof that our current understanding of evolution was wrong he/she would become an international celebrity. Grant funding would pour into his/her facility. His/her career would skyrocket.

      You said, “There are patterns in biology that repeat world wide. That does not support evolution.”
      In fact, it’s worldwide patterns in biology that DO support the theory of evolution. If patters occurred only regionally then we would need another theory.

      “DNA is very complicated with triggers, aminos that turn on or off certain aspects of a design that the DNA is developing. i.e., brown eyes, four legs etc. That does not support evolution.” Why doesn’t this support evolution. DNA is extremely complicated and we don’t fully understand how it works. But, there are brilliant minds working on the problem and they’re understanding more every day. Nothing they’ve found so far disputes the theory of evolution. By the way, this field is called ‘Epigenetics’.

      “Some bones that are millennia old, have been found to still have DNA enough to identify them and have proven that some skeletal remains that were thought to be human predecessors were in fact apes, not much different from what exist today, which put a hole in the human evolution aspect of the finds.” Finding out that previous scientific finding were wrong is how science works. Science is a self-correcting field of study. Previous assumptions are always being questioned. Nothing about old bones which were originally thought to be prehuman, but were actually ape, has put any kind of hole in our understanding of human evolution.

      “If the definition of theory is “…a coherent group of propositions formulated by a wide body of evidence…” then both sides have equal footing.” What evidence exists supporting the side declaring that a creator (God) has driven the development of life on planet Earth? Stating minor reasons and examples of what you think are faults in the theory of evolution does not support the alternative. You need to present positive evidence supporting your idea. A scientifically documented miracle, and not just hearsay reports, would certainly help.

      Writing from thousands of years ago are not considered scientific writings and do not provide evidence for the existence of some external intelligent force that drives evolution. Without documented scientific evidence that some external being (God) influences the course of evolution, science must assume it does not exist. The mechanisms of evolution as we understand them do not require an external driver. Asking WHO did it is an irrelevant question in science. That’s a purely philosophical and religious question. If you have a religious belief that God is driving evolution, accept that your belief is purely religious and has no scientific basis. Science deals only with the universe as we can observe it. If it can’t be observed through objective analysis, it must be discounted from the scientific process.

      1. ella says:

        Indulge me. The probability of an already developed brain conceiving of the idea that it had a beginning, when the body it controls had only the earth around it to stimulate it, is incredible – a miracle – an unexplained happening. The number of unexplained happenings rival the number of as yet unexplained facts that pertain to the construction of life. Even many scientists today are using that brain to think, maybe there are too many coincidences. What motivates a person to know how living organisms exist. Or are they searching for how they live? Maybe how to make them not die? Long before those questions were asked with the modern marvels, instruments our remarkable brains imagined and made, there were facts written, facts that those remarkable instruments are recording, as well as they are able, this day. The most important question is what has been found to refute the presence of God? Of the knowledge that has been passed down for thousands of years. Which is very scarce when compared to the teaching of social propriety. What has negated that to this day, knowledge is being disseminated, spread among us for purposes other than our own aggrandizement. What about an hypothesis of evolution, negates the creation of an evolving life system? This argument only needed to exist to cause conflict. Creation is not a theory or hypothesis, it is a fact. And humans prove it everyday of their lives, we all do. Have you never ‘created’ anything? Anything that is made is created, made once an,d if broken, made maybe made again. This sounds simple to you. If you knew how to create with your mind and not your hands, then you would, wouldn’t you? Creation is a source of repetitive actions, a religion of continuity. Religion being defined as a way of life, social and daily habits. What is wrong with people living a social life that harms no one (unless it is themselves, and then that isn’t good) and exercising beneficial daily habits? Beneficial to themselves and their surroundings.

        Religion has been given a bad name as has science, by people who abuse a system. It is well known there are people who spend their lives trying to harm others for profit and amusement, notoriety, fame – getting attention. Other believe them and fall into a degraded way of action and habits, change their beneficial actions. Have we ever lived by the way of beneficial society. Some have and for long periods of time they stayed isolated from those who find gold and silver more important, along with all of the other attention getting machinations. God was and is not alone and we are not the only companions around, but we are who he wants to succeed, wants us to get to know one day. We are learning about this earth and what is on it, how it works, how to create, and be useful. Science can only investigate what is, what is and maybe how to re-create it, manipulate that knowledge to create something else for their own fame or maybe satisfaction. God knows how and has made the rest available to us. There is no real conflict except in the mind of ‘us’.

        1. Mark says:

          Okay, Ella, consider yourself indulged.
          You say (line 4): “The most important question is what has been found to refute the presence of God?”
          I would answer, “Nothing”.
          But you neglect the corresponding question: “What has been found to prove the presence of God?”
          I would answer, “An equal amount of nothing”. Writings from thousands of years ago do not constitute any level of proof, or else you would have to agree that all the texts describing the Egyptian and Greek gods (among dozens of others) are proof of their existence.

          In order for science to entertain that an idea is valid, there must be evidence in favor of it. Lack of evidence disproving an idea is not the same thing.

          I do not doubt that the moral codes developed by religions have brought great rewards to mankind. Many people have undertaken innumerable positive actions in the name of their religious beliefs. Overall, I would agree that religion has had a positive influence on the history of mankind.

          But you need to understand that the philosophy of science is fundamentally different from religion. Religion begins with an a priori tenet of belief from which all other ideas follow. Science has no such foundational beliefs. Everything is built on observable facts. Belief comes only after the establishment of a wide body of facts. If it can’t be observed, it can’t be considered. Your God cannot be observed, so therefore cannot be considered in scientific studies. You are attempting to inject the philosophy of religion into the philosophy of science. That cannot be done without detrimental effects on both philosophies. They are mutually exclusive.

          1. ella says:

            The Egyptian gods, were for the most part stone carvings and obviously animated by humans (priests). However, there were ‘gods’ which were very real and they came one at a time to their Temple. A statue was erected to each one in turn. After so many years that one would ascend and another would take his place. Each was identical until the last one. He was rejected by the temple priests because he looked different. They still followed his instructions and built his statue. Then he left and no other came – ever. They were, every one, teachers. They instructed in social, agricultural and governing practices among other things. So, yes, they were called son’s of the gods. I’m sure they were.

            I understand you point of view concerning the differences between doctrinal science and religion. The KJV is very reduced from a much larger field of writing and requires a good deal of faith if left as the only source of information. But as these writings as the originating basis for the sciences, I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. There is nothing in the KJV that precludes investigation into the statements made within. In fact, to me, it invites investigation, but asks that we remember who the source is.

      2. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

        That’s because evolutionary biologists (and other scientists in other fields) are examining and testing materials already in existence! It is also not proof to say that since they have examined and tested a particular subject within their field that it PROVES the evolutionary theory of Darwin. It only proves that the subject they were examining VARIES. The “scientific” proof that God made all things with the ability to vary and reproduce is in the fact that it exists to begin wit AND that we (even the scientists) still don’t know how it CAME TO BE! We still cannot MAKE (or Create) ANY of the life forms we study…can we? Nope. We can’t. There isn’t a scientists alive today who can themselves “make” or “create” any living organic form today…all they can do is STUDY them! They could not bring into existence any living organism so the fact that LIFE does exist and that we cannot make life ourselves but can only “study” it is in itself a kind of proof that we do NOT understand very much about HOW life got here and HOW life “works” and while scientists ARE learning more and more everyday they/we are still FAR FAR from being able to completely explain it and understand it. Those who adhere to the evolutionary theory act like it’s been proven that all life “descended” from common ancestors when in fact it has NOT been proven! The best biology has proven is that living forms VARY within their own kind. And referring to less then 7 or 8 examples of so-called transitional forms as somehow being proof of Darwin’s theory is simply ridiculous as even Darwin himself imagined there would be millions if his theory were true and now bro-Darwinists have had to retract this and now say “oh well actually ALL living forms are transitional forms” and THAT is apparently the reason we don’t “see” any transitional forms (except of course for the 7-8) that you try to use…and nearly all of those are amphibians which of course have a complicated biology that can even change sexes! These are NOT good examples!! The bottom line: evolutionary biologists don’t get to hold a monopoly on science!! Real science is NOT (only) evolutionary science but a myriad of disciplines that ALL involve OBSERVATION, STUDY, TESTING, and repeat!! Guess what? People of all kinds of beliefs can do that not just atheistic evolutionists who have militantly taken over “science” as if it’s only for them! How ridiculous!!! The vast majority of founding fathers of the scientific revolution were Christians or held to some form of belief in God and the same holds true today.

        1. Jim Cook says:

          Your comment about a lack of evidence for common descent is far off base. See here for multiple lines of strong evidence for common descent:

  10. J Clare Peteet says:

    As I have already posted this in another section, please allow me to repeat it here where it should have been: Could we consider that God orchestrates evolution throughout the universe?

    Belief in a supreme Creator whose Big Bang set everything in motion, with NO further guidance or interference needed, is neither a refutation of evolution nor of God. I hope to offer an acceptable resolution with which a creationist might take comfortable within the science. The orchestration is inherent in all the laws of science.

    1. Mark says:

      Without any independent observational evidence that God is actively orchestrating evolution, science cannot consider the possibility. The observational scientific evidence supporting evolution shows no evidence of a supreme being guiding the course of evolution. In order to consider the orchestration of evolution by a supreme being we would need to have evidence of an evolutionary event or chain of events that defy our current scientific understanding of the process of evolution. Basically, miracles.

      You seem to contradict yourself. You say we should consider that God orchestrates (present tense as you elsewhere noted) evolution. But you also suggest that God simply created a set of physical principles for the universe that would enable the development of life and evolution without his hand currently orchestrating evolution. Which would you have us consider?

      If you want to believe that God created the universe 13.8 billion years ago with a specific set of properties that would enable the evolution of life and intelligent species, go ahead and believe. But, don’t think that this religious belief is in any way relevant the the scientific study of the evolution of biological systems or the natural processes of the universe. “God” is being pushed back further and further into the smaller and smaller realm of the unknown as science probes further and further into that realm. Eventually we (the human race) will figure out what caused the Big Bang. It make take millennia for us to understand it, but when we do, the origin of the universe will no longer be a safe location for your God to exist.

      Some modern ideas (I won’t even call them theories at this point) suggest that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes that are randomly created and destroyed every moment of time. These universes exist with random physical properties. Many would collapse upon themselves almost the moment they are created because of their physical properties. Every so often a universe will come into existence with just the right set of physical properties to allow it to exist for a long period of time. (Time might also be one of the random physical properties that can change). We exist in this universe only because it consists of just the right mixture of physical properties. We may think our universe is special because we are here to observe it, but in reality the universe we exist in to observe was simply the result of randomness.

    2. Mark says:

      Here’s an analogy that might help to understand our situation in a universe that was seemingly created especially for us:

      You have an infinite number of barrels filled with 1000 dice each. You pour out these barrels. You will find one where every die will come up ‘6’. At that point you invite someone to come observe that one result, but none of the others. He’ll be certain that you fixed the dice and set them to come up all ‘6s’ because the likelihood of it happening randomly is remote (1 in 6 to the 1000th power = 1 in 1.4×10^778).

      1. ella says:

        Sure you are able to, but even as a scientist, are you willing to? If you have so closed a mind, too ingrained with rote memorization, that you are the only source of life, then you are willingly depriving yourself of the beauty of life itself. Consider the descriptions that are given and then use the eyes you are given, or ask for the sight. You must first believe as much as you believe there is no God, that there is God. Blinding oneself does not remove a wall that is in front of us. You cannot see what you cannot conceive. Until some gave you another use for the word evolution, you thought it had a definition that pertained to social conditions. Revolution was (and still is) considered a violent social condition. But it is also considered as a form of biological change. Maybe you could consider God a social leader and gradually raise you thoughts upward.

    3. J Clifford says:

      Could we consider that “God” orchestrates a symphony of squid playing Bach on giant clam shells in the Gulf of Mexico every night?


      Why not?

      We can CONSIDER that “God” orchestrates anything!

      To say that we have any information at all to suggest that such a thing actually happens, or that “God” is anything more than a pathetically transparent psychological projection tool, that is something we cannot do.

  11. ella says:

    Can someone please give me the Book, Chapter, and Verse in the KJV, where it says that God created the Universe? And then again, “God created the Earth…” and of course the firmament. And Heaven, which He called home.

    1. J Clare Peteet says:

      Ella, I have never been to the site, but curiosity got the better of me. I found a rather long and detailed summary of scriptural references to the Big Bang here and also the creation the universe and the subsequent stretching it. I did not look up any of the references so I can’t vouch for the information contained therein. I am just passing on the website info for you.—the-bible-taught-it-first

      1. ella says:

        There is, in the Apocrypha a statement that “…Dark turned himself inside out so there could be light.” It has been a long time, it is in the older translations. This link you gave is really helpful.

  12. J Clare Peteet says:

    Mark, please note my last sentence above. I don’t see where I have contradicted myself. Yes, the process of evolution throughout the universe is never ending. The creation was once and done. My original statement was for the creationists.

    As for your comments on “universes: Universe means “all that is”. How can there be more than one? There appears to be a war of words concerning the observable and unobservable parts of the one and only universe. The unseen stretches and what lies therein can hardly be called “another” universe. The inability to observe infinity does not prove it is not a reality.

    1. Mark says:

      J Clare,
      The contradiction comes from your proposal that God orchestrates evolution in the present tense, meaning to me that God is manipulating evolution to drive it to a certain end and he has done so for the entire period of time since the formation of the universe and the Earth.
      You then say that God simply created the universe with a set of properties that would enable the creation of life and intelligence without Him taking an active role.
      Which of these to you propose?

      Here’s the wikipedia article on the Multiverse Theory.

      Our universe is the one that we can observe. It came into existence at the time of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago is one of an infinite number of universes. Our inability to observe these other universes does not prove that they are not real (paraphrasing your comment).

      1. Mark says:

        I meant to say “Multiverse Hypothesis” not “Multiverse Theory”.

  13. ella says:

    After coming to the point in this debate, can anyone suggest what, if anything, has ‘evolved’ in the past 5,000 years? Consider how many ancient creatures do still exist in water. And by evolution we mean has changed genus or species isn’t it?

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Evolution does not mean “has changed genus or species.” A species has evolved when the genetics (genotype) and therefore form (phenotype) of that species changes as a result of selective pressures.

      One example in the last 5,000 years: Heike Crabs. See this nice video clip from the original Cosmos:

      1. ella says:

        I really don’t buy that as an evolutionary occurrence. A bit interesting, but Carl Sagan has no idea when the carapace of some of those crabs came to have the appearance of an angry face on them. Still he says it in the start of his speech, “Humans” cut the face on the back of the crab. That somehow does not pass as evolution to me. A crab would not genetically associate a ‘face’ on its back with survival and decide to try it out one day. And the idea that such a ‘face’ would have stopped anyone from eating it before the deaths of the Samurai is astronomical. It will have to be something like a water storage device in order to survive in a suddenly arid climate. Or a variation of something like that. Like all potatoes have a variation trigger that allows them to survive in various climates and soil conditions. That is not evolution, but a, oh! You are calling survival traits/genetics ‘evolution! It sure took me a long time to figure that one out.

        Now the fact that, for instance, bone density changes with prolonged exposure to more, or less, atmospheres, might be called evolution and can be documented in the past 5000 years. As for “Where is this god that you keep talking about?” Really? There are many gods, there were many gods in the beginning. But there is one God that you are in search of, or perhaps not in search of, that for some reason is a mystery, or unknown, to you. That requires a sight that you either do not use or are not possessed of at this time. It requires the ability to conceive of the Being, in order to see the Being. It is like the American Indians that saw ‘clouds’ on the horizon and could not understand that they road upon the water.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      Another more recent example: the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria –>

      1. ella says:

        Okay, that sounds like a good example and in the past 5000 years. RNA, a virus, can mutate parts of whole cell. The bacteria can alter it’s structure to combat an enemy. More like revolution than the unfortunate hypothesis of evolution, that it takes millions and millions of years for a change to take place. But in the beginning of that hypothesis there was not so much microscopic research, and even so, no one had a basis to understand what they saw. It is still a thought in process though. Thank you for a good thought.

    3. Mark says:

      Here’s a site with some excellent examples of observed evolution:
      Numbers 5, 4 and 3 are especially relevant.

      Here’s another website:
      The observed speciation of cichlid fish in Lake Nagubago over the past 4000 years should be a slam dunk.

      From the same page here’s another perfect example:
      “Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.”

      1. abel says:

        Mark I want you to look through the links you posted because all they are demonstrating is normalvariation in reproduction.Charles Darwin insisted that the tiny variation in a littler of kittens might be accumilated generation by generation and extrapolated ad infinitum in order to finally turn a cat intoa totally new and different kind of creature.Yet allscientists are doing is demonstrating that God created life toproduce after its kind.They are not and never have demonstrated life evolves.They take normal adaptation and normal variation in reproduction call it micro-evolution and use this as evidence life evolves.They use normal adaptation and normal variation in reproduction as evidence life evolves explain it evolved by imagination and you believe them and trust them.It is not creationists who need to get real who believe the bible by faith but evolutionists whoimagine things tat do not happen and indoctrinate society.

        1. Mark says:

          When after generations of selective breeding the progeny of a common ancestor are no longer able to mate and produce viable offspring they have become separate species. They have become different kinds. That result is far more than normal variation in reproduction. This is proof of evolution.

          What exactly are you looking for in the fossil record to show transitional forms? You deny all the examples given by palaeontologists, but you never say what you would accept. Unless there is something you would accept our discussion comes to an end. Non-believers have told you what they would accept in order to believe in God, but you have not reciprocated.

          1. abel says:

            Mark Why don’t you read on talkorigins because there are alot of life that is said to have bread but cannot breed,scientists alreadyknow this so how can you say it has evolved? Also it is not a new species at all it is normal variation in reproduction with the plants.plants+plants=more plants.this is not evolution and cannot be used as evidence life evolves.Look at dogs andlook at the variaty,the different shapes and sizes and yet it shows what the genes can produce but it does not show evolution.The bible is believed by faith and does not need to be proven true.This does not mean we have no evidence though,we do,but non-believers won’t accept it.This really has nothing to do with evolution,for even if you don’t believe in God it has still never been demonstrated life evolves.

          2. ella says:

            Check this out: an armadillo needs no mate to reproduce, it is self reproductive. A horse and a Jackass bring a Jenny into the world, which has no sex and cannot reproduce. Able to genetically combine one time, but a mistake, so it stops there.

            One shows that there are creatures that have been around since their inception and will continue so long as their species survives.
            The other, two creatures of the same genus (equine) (or is that species?) that should be able to interact productively and cannot.

            That would make it appear that what was – is. And what is will remain so – and will not. What happened? Was it evolution or the opposite, the inability to evolve – or adapt any further within a single group. Evolution had nothing to do with it in either case. A horse to this day will reduce back to a very small three toed animal under the same circumstances it had to live in when it originated. Diet and climate has everything to do with it.

          3. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Ella, here is the first reply I got from John Thomas, author of and I have two more comments from John after this…(I dropped in Jim Cook’s responses to John’s questions to evolutionists he asks them on his page and Jim’s posted answers to those questions on my Facebook group page called the Genesis Gap doctrine and here’s John’s first response:
            John Thomas
            Hi Paul, Evolutionists like to discuss what might be called ‘twigs’, not realising that Darwin’s whole ‘tree of life’ has now been felled by the Human Genome Project. In answer to the evolutionist I would quote top Harvard evolutionist Prof Richard Lewontin who says: ”Our ignorance of the generation of shape remains profound’. In another place (‘It Ain’t Necessarily So’) he admits: ‘We do not have the faintest idea about how all this (i.e. genes, DNA) is turned into the shape of my nose’. The fact is that evolution has hit the buffers. It is not ‘all in the genes’, hence the call for a new ‘epi-genetic’ project.The simple fact is that the genes do not contain the blueprints of any organisms. No wonder Sheldrake is reviving the old idea that organisms are shaped by a non-physical ‘morphic field’ that science knows nothing about and cannot investigate. Sadly, those who have nibbled the magic mushreoom of Darwinism, find it hard to cope with reality. Sorry to waffle on, but I really believe that the game is up. They reached the end of the evolutionary rainbow and there was nothing there. For more waffle, see my little book ‘Literal Genesis’. (Free PDF at uk). I will take a look at the link you cite, which I notice dates from 1991. Lewontin’s stuff is newer than that.
            Edited · Unlike · 2 · More · Aug 2

          4. Jim Cook says:


            Most of the “scientists” cited in those lists have PhDs in fields other than the biological sciences. Those lists are disingenous.

          5. abel says:

            ella It is a shame the games modern science is playing pushing this evolution nonsense as scientific truth.Charles Darwin in “On the origin of species”insisted that the tiny variation in a litter of kittens,might be accumilated,generation by generation and extrapolated ad infinitum inorder to finally turn a cat into a totally new and different kind of creature.
            And yet not one scientist has ever demonstrated this but instead takes normal variation in reproduction or adaptation calls it micro-evolution and uses this as evidence to cover the whole theory of evolution.

            But even worse is that none of the evidence shows or demonstrates natural selection has any effect on life at all too.Take bacteria that has adapted to live in Chernobyl and yet according to Darwin and narural selection the bacteria sould have evolved,yet it is still bacteria and has not evolved at all.And al of the peer reviewed evidence that I’ve looked at shows the very same thing and that is natural selection has no effect on life at all.Evolution is a myth even if a person rejects God and creation,it makes no difference evolution is a myth being passed off as true science.Science lost its way I believe trying to battle young earth creationists and forgot about evidence and instead just pushed this theoryup the hill with the media’s help.Jesus warned about great deception in the last days inwhich even the elect of God could be decieved and I feel for my brothers and sisters in Christ wo have bought into theistic evolution.

          6. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            I couldn’t agree more Abel…well said my brother! 😀 I think I’ve posted enough here to keep Jim Cook, Mark and Cliff busy for a while as they sort through the MASSIVE list of names of a wide variety of scholars, scientists (yes including biologists) and even medical doctors in the RSR report!!

          7. Jim Cook says:

            … a tactic which is known as the Gish Gallop.

          8. Mark says:

            It’s not my job (or even the job of the science community in general) to prove that you are wrong or to wade through all the minor examples you come up with. That’s not the way science works. It is your job to prove that you are right and do so in a forum where your ideas and evidence can be discussed and critiqued by experts in the field. This web site is not such a forum. A proper forum for that discussion is a scientific journal or similar publication. Until your ideas merit enough evidence to make it through the peer-review process they’re nothing more than hypotheses (and poor ones at that).

            I’m sure you think there’s a grand conspiracy against your ideas, but I know that there isn’t. Your ideas have been fully examined by the general scientific community and have been found lacking in evidence. If you truly had significant evidence supporting your ideas the scientific community would embrace your hypotheses. But you don’t have such evidence and lists of supposed scientists who may or may not have doubts about the Theory of Evolution really doesn’t matter. I’m sure I could come up with lists of scientists equally large (if not larger) who fully support and embrace the ideas present in the Theory of Evolution.

            You’ve given dozens of supposed problems with evolution and I don’t have the time or ability to argue each and every one of them. Here’s my challenge to you. Pick ONE. Pick the one example you think is most damning to the Theory of Evolution. I’ll discuss that one.

          9. abel says:

            Mark This is for you.

            One more wall.

          10. Mark says:

            Really, Abel,
            Is that the best you have. A song of fables from the bible?

          11. ella says:

            Although Jackasses are mentioned in the Bible, I do not remember the armadillo. The Unicorn is a goat variation and was re-bred into existence by a rancher long ago. No one has managed to put wings back on a horse yet that I know of, but if they will ever try with a Lipizzan stallion – who knows. The point is that the species ceases to be reproductive before it can change into a different species. Or it becomes self replicating and can no longer reproduce within a diverse genetic pool.

          12. Mark says:

            ella, you either missed or ignored my previous post:

            Here’s another website:
            The observed speciation of cichlid fish in Lake Nagubago over the past 4000 years is a perfect example of the rise of new species.

            From the same page here’s another perfect example:
            “Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.”

            These are full of examples where new species arose and were fertile among themselves, but not with the original species or other species that arose from the same original species.

          13. ella says:

            That is an interesting paper Mark. Usually when cross breeding or inbreeding an infertile specimen occurs. That is why a new species simply cannot occur, that is outside of the genus. But I do see what you mean and would fit in what I call ‘revolution’ – did not take millions of years. I do not believe anything takes very long to make changes to suit environment and diet. If it did it would perish as they do all of the time today. Either the variation exists or it does not. But each genus is large enough to maintain survival in spite of the infertility models. New generations of flowers (an example you gave) are a professional business. Those changes in color and/or foliage are making people wealthy. Change/variation/revolution all prove the inaccuracy of the “millions of years” evolution hypothesis. Survival of the fittest is often survival of the most advantageously positioned individuals. A volcano erupts and kills 99% of a species, yet 1% were in a different place at that time. Not evolution over millions of years, but luck, or maybe the ability to escape. That is a good example. Just remember the individuals are still existing within their own speices.

          14. Mark says:

            Nothing above the level of species really has any biological/ecological meaning in the real world. The taxonomic grouping of species into Genera, Families, etc. is purely a human desire to categorize things.

            Two organisms are defined as being in the same species if they can mate and produce viable offspring. In the weed example from above there were 3 distinct species introduced to the US in the early 20th century. They could not produce viable offspring, although sterile hybrids had been observed. Then in the 1940s plants were observed that were obviously hybrids of 2 of the original species, but were viable. These new hybrid plants could breed among themselves and produce viable offspring, but could not do so with any of the original 3 species. So now, by definition we had 4 species of this weed.

            The variations in flower structure and color are indeed, simple morphological changes and are not enough to warrant calling them new species.

            I’m not arguing with you about your volcano example. Luck often plays a role. If the asteroid hadn’t struck the Earth 65 million years ago I would surmise that a species of dinosaur would have developed intelligence rather than a mammalian species. However, it does prompt a prime example of speciation. When events conspire to open ecological niches, organisms will adapt and evolve to fill those empty niches. Take, for example, the explosive speciation of finches on the Galapagos islands. None of these species exist in South America. They are all descendants of a few birds that survived the passage across the ocean thousands of years ago.

          15. ella says:

            Sorry, just can’t keep going much longer. Need rest so I can make sense, been a long several days.

          16. abel says:

            Mark I meant to say there are all kinds of life that is said to have evolved and yet it cannot breed,but yet there is alsolife that is said tohae evolved that can still breed,scientists already know this and they decide by discretion when something has evolved,the problem is that they are using normal variation in reproduction as evidence.They see what they want to see.Viruses produce viruses,bacteria produces bacteria,fruit flies produce fruit flies,finches produce finches,salamanders produce salamanders,frogs produce frogs,rats produce rats,and on and on,yet a scientist sees normal variation in reproduction and says it evolved.

  14. J Clifford says:

    Okay, at this point, a crucial thing has to be said.

    Creationists ask, “Where is a transitional form?” Scientists say, “Here, look at these many specific physical traces left over millions of years, which have been subjected to multiple forms of critical analysis that has been peer reviewed.”

    Non-Christians ask, “Where is this god that you keep talking about?” Creationists say, “Everywhere! But, you can’t see him with your eyes… usually… but we know exactly what political agenda he supports.”

    Creationists, I would ask you to get real, but I know reality is not what you’re into.

    1. abel says:

      J Clifford It makes no difference if you don’t believe in God because you can’t see then.You have never seen one fossil showing transition and yet still somehow believe life evolves which means it is hypocriticalof you to slampeple who believe in God they cannot see,the difference is they admit it while you don’t.When we look at dinosaurs,or trilobies,or roaches,or silverfish,woolymammoths,mastadons,giant deer,etc they are fully formed life forms that lived in the former world that perished before God made this world on the earth.The fossils have nothing to do with evolution and this is important because Charles Darwin acknowledged in his bookthat he seen no transistion in the fossils found so far but he insisted that if his theory of evolution was true geologists/pqaleontologists would find them but they never did,yet still held on to darwin’s theory and kept on pushing it because of money and researchh grants,yet still today there are no transitional fossils.William Buckland was right the whole time.Google William Buckland and he died three years before Charles Darwin’s The origin of species was published in 1859.William buckland was a geologist/paleonotologist who taught the earth is millions of years old and from examining the fossilized gut of life of the past with fecalmatter in it knew that the former world was a dangerous place to live which is why he called them “Satan’s creatures”.He discovered the very first dinosaur and eventually became Oxford’s very first geology professor teaching the gap theory from the bible ten Charles darwin came along and hijacked the evidence already known about and has fooled the modern scientific elite every since then.William Buckland is who I believe not Charles Darwin.

      1. J Clifford says:

        I have never seen one fossil of a form of life that represents a transitional between two other known species? How do you know that? You haven’t been tracking me. If you had, you would know that I have seen such a number of such fossils. I’ve been to museums. I’ve taken coursework in human evolution.

        Does the presumption that there are things that exist that nobody can see or sense in any way lead to this ability of yours to know what I do in my life without actually watching me? Is this a Creationist superpower I have never heard of? Can I get that power if I am bitten by a radioactive Bible?

        Science has advanced quite a bit since the early 1800s. I suggest you read up a bit outside of Creationist theology circles for a refresher.

        1. abel says:

          J Clifford You are seeing things then.I don’t have to be with you to look at the fossils found and see there is no transition.We can look at dinosaurs,trilobites,hominids,wooly mammoths,mastadons,giant deer,etc and see there is no transition.How can you see things that are not there? Even Archy the dinosaur with wings shows no signs of transition.They are all fully formed creatures that lived in the former world just like William Buckland believed and taught.You can hide behind that mountian of evidence for evolution but one thing you cannot do is show any peer reviewed evidence that demonstrates life evolves or show fossils that show no transition.Please explain how trilobites,roaches,silverfish,etc show transition.

          1. Mark says:

            What exactly do you expect with a “transition fossil”? Of course all fossils show organisms fully formed.

          2. Jim Cook says:

            Perhaps he expects evolution to produce the first half of a new creature, with the second half cut off?

          3. ella says:

            Well, what do you mean by “fully formed”. Egg fossils have been found, baby fossils have been found, and adult fossils have been found. Seldom are they complete, usually a jaw, and finger bone, maybe a leg bone. And then pieces of bone around the area which are assumed to belong all together. Sometimes (at some point in time) it is discovered that maybe two were fighting and both died, or maybe they died in an avalanche, or some such thing. In the past it was common for bones to be thrown into a mix all ‘belonging to the same’ creature. And then later, many years later, realizing that the reason they did not match up was because they didn’t belong to the same creature. Unfortunately, those mistakes didn’t get taken out of lower grade textbooks. Like Neanderthal ‘man’, who has long been proven to be an ape. Considering the size of his brain, it is easy to see why he was able to fool ‘humans’. 🙂

          4. Mark says:

            You wrote: “Neanderthal ‘man’, who has long been proven to be an ape”.
            Did you seriously mean that? All the recent research I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a lot) indicates that Neaderthals were closely related to Homo sapiens. They were far more advanced than apes. Just who has “long ago” proven that they were apes.

            By the way, I noticed you didn’t answer my question about what exactly constitutes a “transitional fossil”. I used the term “fully formed” in the way creationists do when arguing against the fossil record. “Fully formed” organisms represent a distinct species.

  15. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

    * Nobody Doubts Darwin They Say: Theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss told Real Science Radio that, “all scientists are Darwinists.” However, he forgot Ben Carson. When you hear consensus, consensus, you might have reason to doubt the consensus. And aside from Carson, there are about twenty highly-credentialed anti-creationists at The Third Way who, regardless, acknowledge that the natural selection mechanism of neo-Darwinism cannot account for the diversity of life. These “Third Way” scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, MIT, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton. RSR hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams review their ever-growing list of lists of educated and highly-educated Darwin doubters, including many thousands of Ph.D.s, scientists, and professors. The guys also have fun reporting on astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists who doubt the Big Bang. (Find this show summary at

    * Nobody Doubts Darwin, Except for These Guys: Those who have gone out of their way to declare their doubt about Darwin include the:
    – 100 Ph.D.s listed at Australia’s
    – 200 scientists with master’s degrees or Ph.D.s listed over at AiG
    – 300 medical doctors at Physicians & Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
    – 500 Ph.D. scientists at the Korean Association of Creation Research
    – 600 advanced degreed scientist at the Creation Research Society
    – 900 scientists who signified their opposition at
    – 3,000 scientists and professors, nearly, (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman

    * Another Scholar Doubting Darwin: A thousand evolutionists have incorrectly referenced Newsweek magazine to claim that 99.86% of scientists affirm Darwinism. (See RSR’s original reporting and debunking of that misinformation, below.) In contrast to false reporting, consider that the famed atheist professor Thomas Nagel who wrote Mind and Cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. And in addition to the 5,000 or so scientists, Ph.D.s. and scholars above, those who think that almost all educated people affirm Darwin, are forgetting about these folks, all identified by carefully conducted research conducted by pro-Darwin institutions:

    – 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class
    – 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that “intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution.”
    – 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans. Whereas Darwinsim is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science (see definition and applied science section below) within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are.

    * Honorable Mention: It is observed that “authorities” should not be counted, but weighed. So weigh them. (The two-thirds of a million PhDs, MDs, professors, and advanced degreed scientists doubting Darwin listed here would weigh more than 100 million pounds. 🙂 Speaking of gravitas, however, for honorable mention, consider the RSR list of the many fathers of the physical sciences, both before and after Darwin, who rejected naturalistic origins, including Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Huygens, Newton, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Dalton, Faraday, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Lister, and Carver.

    * Of Course There’s Overlap: Admittedly the lists above contain some overlap but the orders of magnitude difference in the numbers indicate that the vast majority are not duplicates.

    * Answering the Atheist’s Argument from Authority: This list above is not an argument from authority. Rather, it is a REBUTTAL to logical fallacy committed often by evolutionists (including Krauss) when they commonly make their invalid argument from authority. There is nothing wrong with quoting an expert on a topic. But evolutionists frequently use the bait and switch tactic of identifying experts in one topic and then without acknowledging the switch, proceeding as though they were experts in a different field, which is one way of committing the logical fallacy of an invalid argument from authority. Being a pilot doesn’t mean that you know how to make an airplane, let alone gravity. So we should take care not to commit the logical fallacy of argument from an invalid authority, like this:

    Scientists are experts in operational physics, chemistry, and biology.
    Most scientists believe in naturalistic origins.
    Therefore naturalistic origins must be true.

    Aside from the severe misrepresentation that “all scientists are Darwinists”, it is also a logical fallacy to imply that success in operational science translates to authority regarding origins.

    * Summary of the DI’s Scientific Dissent from Darwinism: The Discovery Institute describes the hundreds of scientists who have signed their statement of dissent as made up of those holding “doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines from such institutions as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford and University of California at Berkeley. Many are also professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as Cambridge, Princeton, MIT, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, University of Georgia, Tulane, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, and Ben-Gurion University in Israel.”

    * Non-religious Darwin Skeptics: As reported by Casey Luskin in the Christian Research Journal, the Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution include Rutgers’ Jerry Fodor, National Academy of Sciences member and biology professor Lynn Margulis, Thomas Nagel, molecular biology post-doctoral fellow at Columbia University David Berlinski, the University of Warwick’s Steve Fuller, and NAS member Philip Skell.

    * Oxford Biology Professor Rejects Neo-Darwinism: In 2013 a British biology professor, Oxford University’s Dr. Denis Noble, argued against Neo-Darwinism in the journal Experimental Physiology. Of great significance, partly because Noble remains a committed evolutionist, nonetheless, he acknolwedged, “that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved.”

    * Even Evolution Journal Admits Doubt of Primary Evidence: Many evolutionists including Dawkins (as in his extrapolation from canine diversity) oversell the claim to the public that small changes within species prove that over long periods, the species themselves arose naturally. However, out of the hearing of the general public, evolutionary biologists themselves are more honest. As in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology itself, “A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.” In house, this is a debate. Outside, Darwin marketing reps like Dawkins, Coyne, PZ Myers, and Krauss pretend this is settled science. As Nagel concluded “Mind and Cosmos”, today’s evolution “consensus… will come to seem laughable in a generation or two.”

    * Scientists Doubting or Rejecting the Big Bang: Unlike as with Darwinism, big bang cosmology is relatively insulated from real-world feedback because millions of professionals do not work in related fields as with biology. If hundreds of thousands of professionals received actual astronomical feedback in the same way that farmers, veterinarians, and physicians do daily while working with biological systems, then surveys might show a picture similar to that regarding Darwinism. That is, if professionals interacted daily with all the astronomical data that challenges and undermines the expectations of big bang theory, then the world would likely see a similar percentage of professionals in related scientific fields rejecting the big bang too. Cosmological dogma, further removed from human observation than are theories on anatomy, “benefits” in a backward sense, from the herd mentality that reinforces the tendency to believe authorities because most people lack daily experience with first-hand evidence that may contradicting (or support) the received account. Thus when that theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical), Lawrence Krauss told RSR that, “All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang”, he of course was ignoring all the apparently contradictory evidence. So he asks expects everyone to “Trust us”, i.e., trust those with the inscrutable knowledge. Scientists who doubt or outright reject the big bang include:
    – acclaimed astronomer Fred Hoyle, father of stellar evolution theory (whom Stephen Hawking pointed out also rejected Darwin; see biography, A Life in Science)
    – acclaimed astrophysicists Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge
    – the 50 astronomers and physicists at the 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference
    – the 100 Ph.D.s listed at Australia’s
    – the 200 scientists with master’s degrees or Ph.D.s listed over at AiG
    – the 500 Ph.D. scientists at the Korean Association of Creation Research
    – the 600 advanced degreed scientist at the Creation Research Society
    – the National Academy of Sciences which in 2003 published an alternative model for a bounded universe and the
    – hundreds more secular scientists who have signed the extraordinary declaration at including those working at leading institutions such as the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Sheffield University, George Mason University, Jet Propulsion Laboratory at CalTech, Cambridge University, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Penn State, Cal State Fullerton, University of Virginia, European Southern Observatory, and scores of other prestigious institutions.

    * Meanwhile, Back in the Real World: In 2013, 62% of Americans say that they believe that God either guided the development of, or specially created, human beings. This means, of course, that none of them believe in the central tenet of Darwinism, which is that the diversity of life on Earth is explained by undirected, natural processes.

    * Crichton on Consensus: Physician and Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton warned at CalTech: “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. … I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

    * RSR Asks Newsweek Reporters About Their 1987 Statistic: As often claimed by evolutionists, AronRa told Real Science Radio’s Bob Enyart that 99.86% of scientists affirm Darwinism, a statistic that is unintentionally fabricated by a confused misuse of a 1987 Newsweek article that reports no poll or survey but a “count” of 700 creationist scientists. (At the time the Creation Research Society had that same number, 700, as the size of its voting membership which was made up of scientists with advanced degrees.)

    By such an overtly invalid statistical method, atheists themselves would comprise only two-hundredths of one percent of 230 million U.S. adults if we calculated using “one count” of atheists, namely, the membership of the Skeptics Society. Of course that’s wrong.

    * Newsweek Reporters Larry Martz and Ann McDaniel: In 1987 Martz & McDaniel wrote, “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientist) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared “abruptly.” To a request for more details, on June 12, 2012 Ann McDaniel replied to Real Science Radio: “Bob – I wish I had the notes for that story, but I don’t have everything from 25 years ago, and I don’t remember. So sorry that I cannot help you.” On April 1, 2013 Larry Martz wrote, “Mr. Enyart, … I was the New York writer on this story, working from reports from Ann McDaniel and others who weren’t named in the byline, along with whatever telephone reporting I did myself. I don’t remember which of them came up with that figure, or what its provenance was. It might well have been Ginny Carroll, who was Newsweek’s principal reporter on Christian religious affairs; but sad to say, Ginny is dead. Your conjecture seems entirely reasonable, but none of us can confirm it… I think you are probably safe to use your conjecture for the source, along with ‘probably.’ best, larry martz”.

    * NCSE Also Sees CRSQ as the Source for this “Count”: From the anti-creationist group founded by Eugenie Scott, the National Center for Science Education, Glenn Branch writes, “As for 700, I speculate that it was chosen as the number of members of the Creation Research Society, which requires its voting members to have earned a ‘postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science.’ Its membership hovers around 700… So… ~0.75% would have been a better estimate of the prevalence of creation scientists in the U.S. life sciences and earth sciences communities circa 1987.” Branch admits that his “better estimate” is only a “lower bound” (because of the invalid statistical method used) yet concludes by referencing the “97%” of scientists who agree with the (highly ambiguous) statement that “living things have evolved”, a sentiment shared by most creation scientists. NCSE seems to consistently ignore, as documented over at, that “60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings.”

    See more on the Newsweek saga at

    Today’s Resource: If you enjoy Real Science Radio, we need your help to stay on the air! Please purchase one of our science resources, or make a one-time or monthly donation to RSR! You can either:
    – Browse through our Science Department in the KGOV Store! Or,
    – Donate at by way of our KGOV donation page! Or,
    – Call us at 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) to help us stay on the air!

    Our Annual September Telethon: Every year Bob Enyart Live (which hosts Real Science Radio) has a telethon to raise the funds that are absolutely vital to help keep RSR on the air! Please help us continue to encourage the troops and to reach more people with the truth that God is our Creator and we can only be reconciled to Him through trusting in the resurrection of Jesus Christ! So please, please, help us!

    1. Jim Cook says:

      1) This borders on spam. Write for yourself or link to others’ writing. Cutting and pasting multiple paragraphs of others’ boilerplate work in comments sections is rude because it attempts to overwhelm others’ actual comments with sheer volume. It’s like shouting at the dinner table.

      2) If this is an argument from numbers, it fails. I can find thousands of people who will insist that if you go swimming within an hour of eating, you’ll get a cramp… but that doesn’t make it any more true.

      3) If this is an argument from authority, it fails. Most of those listed are non-experts with degrees in non-biological fields. There are Egyptologists, philosophers, theologians and historians in there, signing their names as “professors” regarding a biological matter. This is disingenuous at best.

      1. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

        What? Jim this is the text from this link to the hard work of someone else, who, went to the trouble of collecting information on what all scientists (including evolutionary biologists) really think of the theory; who they are…their name and particular field of study…I dropped in the actual page for EVERYONE to read instead of just dropping in a link. You can call it want you want but the information is there nonetheless and it simply destroys your assertion(s) that most scientists or biological scientists hold to Darwin’s theory….when in reality a HUGE amount reject it. That’s it, Jim. If you prefer a link to the text I dropped in, here you go but I do NOT have the time to type in my own assessment of a work of this scope except to say….”lots of REAL scientists reject Darwin’s theory…here’s an example:

        1. Jim Cook says:

          If you don’t have enough time to do work of your own, don’t be a copy machine for someone else. Think independently. My criticisms of the substance of those lists remain the same.

          1. ella says:

            Jim Cook, could you provide us with some of your personal research; philosophical, educational, or private; on the origins of biological variation and how change was engendered?

          2. Jim Cook says:

            I don’t have any personal research on the subject. I’m not an evolutionary biologist.

      2. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

        Here’s another from a totally different source than the one above and quite a bit older, although the information is still very much valid. Again, this is for anyone else who comes to this thread thinking you have some how refuted what has been said here by Ella or that I have referenced. If you wanted actual debate arguements from someone responding to your original post about “Where Are The Transitional Forms” you got it from Ella, who needed no help from me. She understands evolutionary biology quite well and other sciences and other related topics too! And Ella handled each and every one of your responses with stunning answers that clearly show her deep understanding of the subjects discussed every bit as much as you, or Mark or Cliff. So between my posting of other people’s answers (which is a valid way to present information) you also got amazing responses from Ella, who understands the subject personally much better than I do.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            Choice quote from that link: “If high school science teachers aren’t really scientists, then we have to accept the fact that a large segment of the general public (specifically, people who have high school diplomas and no higher education) were taught everything they know about science from unqualified non-scientists. We consider science teachers to be real scientists.”

            There is nothing wrong with high school science teachers — my mother was a high school science teacher. But being a high school science teacher does not make you a scientist.

            I love it — this latest list of so-called scientists consists of mechanical engineers, high school teachers, and people with degrees in physics. This is a) an argument from authority, rather than an argument based on evidence, and b) a bad argument from authority, since the authorities aren’t good authorities.

            Dumping large volumes of text and declaring victory does not equal making a good argument.

          2. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Well Jim you are predictable! Of COURSE you opened the older link and found something in there to discredit (but not the stuff you can’t and there is MUCH in there you can’t) but I noticed you skipped the first link…a link to much newer information and an exhaustive list of scientists, including a HUGE list of biologists!! You have completely ignored this and instead focus on ME and my presentation style!! I’m sure that list must scare you, Jim, and I don’t blame you for skipping it but the info is there and waiting for you when you get the nerve to actually read it; until then, I dropped in the actual text to make it EASY for anyone seeing this post to understand just how bad it is in the world of Dawinism. It’s as dead as the Dodo Bird!! 😀

          3. Jim Cook says:

            1) You supplied the link; it is absolute dreck. Why did you supply absolute dreck?

            2) The “newer” link also includes physicists and historians as supposed experts endorsing evolution.

            3) Regardless, you’re still arguing from authority rather than evidence.

            4) The text of the article still stands: there are loads of transitional forms out there.

          4. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            Jim the title of the newer link is “RSR’s List of Scholars” who Doubt Darwin so first, you have to recognize that the word ‘Scholar’ is being used because this is a SERIOUS list that compiles literally THOUSANDS of scientists (including MANY biologists) who reject Darwin’s very flawed theory; until you recognize this you will always look like someone who is holding to a view that is best described as a sinking ship or someone whose house is on fire and you’re acting like everything fine so just carry on when it is NOT fine! Again, here is just a PART of the List of Scholars from the RSR link; to see all of them (and there is a significant number more) go to the link at the bottom of this post. The bottom line Jim is that you are either unaware of or are simply ignoring this MASSIVE defection of scientists from Darwin’s theory or from ANY theory that attempts to explain the origin of life by purely natural processes as part of a blind and random process: That said, once again, here’s the list:
            * Nobody Doubts Darwin They Say: Theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss told Real Science Radio that, “all scientists are Darwinists.” However, he forgot Ben Carson. When you hear consensus, consensus, you might have reason to doubt the consensus. And aside from Carson, there are about twenty highly-credentialed anti-creationists at The Third Way who, regardless, acknowledge that the natural selection mechanism of neo-Darwinism cannot account for the diversity of life. These “Third Way” scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, MIT, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton. RSR hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams review their ever-growing list of lists of educated and highly-educated Darwin doubters, including many thousands of Ph.D.s, scientists, and professors. The guys also have fun reporting on astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists who doubt the Big Bang. (Find this show summary at

          5. Jim Cook says:

            Actually, you link to a page that contains a number of links to a number of lists. Which particular list do you think is the serious one?

            … not that a list of names ultimately matters, because what actually matters is not following supposed authorities but following the evidence.

            Transitional forms exist. That is the subject of this article, and you have not shown that the transitional forms don’t exist.

            You can’t Gish Gallup like this and have me not point that out.

          6. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

            And here’s the link again to the RSR List I’m referring too:

        1. ella says:

          Oh my, I am so very humbled by your very high praise! You were so kind as to accept me into your discussion. Years of observation and education have nothing on plainly available facts that have simply not been presented to many of us for various reasons. There are some who really want to know these facts and will fish them out when they can. We are all probably guilty of that. I for one have learned a good bit from the experience of this informational ‘thread’. (I think that is what it’s called.) Everyone who has contributed, from all points of view, have done so with energy. Presenting both sides is what makes it a good discussion. There is truth in both sides, it was interesting to weave those truths into the basic facts. Thank you all for a rousing discussion. Creation first, and then everything else follows still stands as the dominant and outstanding fact throughout. That is my opinion. O:)

  16. Paul Glenn Cawley says:

    More “cut & paste” from Paul Glenn Cawley…a guy who has NO TIME for this but does it anyway…and uses “other people’s information” (wow imagine that…how strange) to challenge and inform those who would otherwise actually believe they stand unchallenged by the “dumb creationists” and simply post “peer reviewed” papers that no one wants to read except other Darwinian biologists because they know no one has the time to read a 48 page document written in scientific language without spacing! Wow they are SO smart! How do they do it! They are all just so much smarter than us….it’s sad for us really. All left out in the cold uneducated “creationist world” where no one has any peer reviewed work to lean on…(actually “peer reviewed” work on ID and while evolutionists still call it “silly and ridiculous” there really IS some serious published ID studies out there) and so I leave you with this additional info on the latest NDE research:

  17. ella says:

    Paul, relax, the Creationist have won this one. For the most part, folks, (plus or minus a degree) who write articles that agree with their point of view, do have a tendency to read materials that reinforce that view, us included. There are differences, like if a person is trying to make him/her-self believe that it takes MILLIONS and MILLIONS of year for any change to happen, well, they will overlook the obvious that is happening as they speak. If persons want to believe that God created every living thing, as-it-is-this-day, or as it was before it went possibly extinct, then they will overlook variations that are related to that same life form. So where is the proof that a giraffe ‘begat’ a monkey? That hasn’t happened naturally. Where is the evidence that a large mammal that once had leg bones, now has only traces of those bones in fins, and still the five finger bones in it’s hands. The whale, dolphin and others. How much have the changed otherwise. Not a lot, just what was needed to survive living totally in water and never leaving it for the land again. Both. A created being that has adapted, or evolved, to suit the new living conditions.

    A distinction being made between ‘evolution’ and ‘creation’ is that:

    1) Evolution: “Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.” Variations can occur quite rapidly, within several years, or has been recently proven within months. And that as defined, evolution, isn’t wrong, that is how variations develop.

    Creation: “…the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.” The genetic code was, no matter how you say it came about, by what circumstances, was created, otherwise it does not exist. The amazing variations within the DNA code allow for future creation in perpetuity, or until time ceases.

    So, it would seem, a conflict has been formed over the lack of understanding what is being said. Evolutionists, if they use that word to keep from saying they are Atheistic, use the word Evolution as a deflection of criticism for being Atheist. If a person is trying to make his livelihood by using a deceptive approach, says he has a different idea of life that makes another view, or Creation, incorrect. But that is only a deception if people buy into it and others perpetuate it. So they cannot seriously present any evidence of the ‘conflicting evolution’, because it does not exist. Variation of creation exists everywhere, in the historical record, in the present. By the same logic, evidence of ‘biological evolution’, by definition is the exact same evidence, being used to create conflict.

  18. Keneth Doliveira says:

    You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!