The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

"Evolution predicts that we should have a dog giving birth to a cat."

...Evolution is much more 'dramatic' in its claims than that... it actually claims that pondslime can produce a Human Being spontaneously and with nothing added but time ... and MISTAKES!!!!:D:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Evolution is much more 'bold' in its claims than that... it actually claims that pondslime can produce a Human Being spontaneously and with nothing added but time ... and MISTAKES!!!!:D:)

No it doesn't, it claims that basic self-replicating molecules can become more complex through mutations and that mutations that happen to be beneficial for the environment survive better so the selection of mutations is not "spontaneous". A perfect example is these moths:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution-moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html

Who turned black when the trees where covered in soot and turned white again when they were no longer covered in soot, all without any intelligent guidance.

But you can continue to straw man evolution all you want, it only serves to make creationism look even more ridiculous

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't, it claims that basic self-replicating molecules can become more complex through mutations and that mutations that happen to be beneficial for the environment survive better so the selection of mutations is not "spontaneous". A perfect example is these moths:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution-moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html

Who turned black when the trees where covered in soot and turned white again when they were no longer covered in soot, all without any intelligent guidance.

...at best this is an example of selection within a Kind ... and could I gently remind you that they were still moths at the end of the process ... and indeed had even 'returned' to the same colour!!!!!

...genetic oscillation within a Kind ... is not the type of 'evolution' that is capable of 'evolving' pondkind into mankind!!!:eek::):D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...at best this is an example of selection within a Kind ... and could I gently remind you that they were still moths at the end of the process ... and indeed even the same colour!!!!!

...genetic oscillation within a Kind ... is not the type of 'evolution' that is capable of 'evolving' pondkind into mankind!!!:eek::):D

I really should have handled this in my post because I knew this was going to be your response. You talk about evolution as if it's some kind of bonkers idea but as far as I can see the only difference between the creationist version and everyone else's is that they think there is some kind of barrier preventing a species changing. What evidence do you have that such a barrier exists?

And as Genghiz Cohen said, what is a human if not a slightly less hairy, slightly more intelligent ape? If you accept that evolution can cause enough change without divine intervention to change the moths from white to black and then white again, why is it so hard to accept that it could give ancient ape-like animals less hair and improve the efficiency of their brains?

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Evolution is much more 'dramatic' in its claims than that... it actually claims that pondslime can produce a Human Being spontaneously and with nothing added but time ... and MISTAKES!!!!:D:)

So you're not going to take part in the role swap then? That's too bad.
JC, we keep telling you that your understanding of evolution is severely miscontrued. Yet each time you are corrected you simply resort to same auld banter. If you have no intention to learn anything please say so.
We listen to folks message about the bible, try to understand them, but you don't try to understand a simple basic biology lesson.
If you understood evolution you would have no problem in playing part in our role swap. Anyways just for fun and to give the evolutionists someone "new" to argue with I'm going to stay with the the role.

"There are no transitional fossils."

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

So you're not going to take part in the role swap then? That's too bad.

... I was speaking as an Evolutionist in your 'role swap' ... you seem to keep forgetting that I was an Evolutionist before I became a Creation Scientist!!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You talk about evolution as if it's some kind of bonkers idea but as far as I can see the only difference between the creationist version and everyone else's is that they think there is some kind of barrier preventing a species changing. What evidence do you have that such a barrier exists?

...the 'barrier' is the quantum of total genetic information infused in each Kind at Creation.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

what is a human if not a slightly less hairy, slightly more intelligent ape? If you accept that evolution can cause enough change without divine intervention to change the moths from white to black and then white again, why is it so hard to accept that it could give ancient ape-like animals less hair and improve the efficiency of their brains?

These Moths ALREADY have grey and black phenotypes ... it is just the population ratios between these two traits that change depending on environmental/predation pressures.
An Ape is a fundamentally different creature to a Human ... with distinctly different CSI for each creature.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the 'barrier' is the quantum of total genetic information infused in each Kind at Creation.


These Moths ALREADY have grey and black phenotypes ... it is just the population ratios between these two traits that change depending on environmental/predation pressures.
An Ape is a fundamentally different creature to a Human ... with distinctly different CSI for each creature.

So your position is predicated on the belief that mutations cannot increase "information". Do you have any evidence for this claim? It's quite a grandiose claim to make I must say since you're trying to prove a negative. How can you be so sure that such a thing can never happen? Remember that we're not talking about an entire DNA strand spontaneously forming, we're talking about something as simple as the gene for "black" forming in a DNA strand that previously only had the gene for "white". Why can this never happen under any circumstances?

Please don't simply respond "because information can only come from a mind". If you do I will then ask you how you know that. A gene is just a particular chemical, it's not magical.


edit: Oh and an ape has about 98% the same DNA as a human. We are not "fundamentally different creatures". afaik we share about 50% of our DNA with a banana.

jpm4

Just a thought here from someone who occasionally looks in on this thread....is there any particular reason why it is still going 1000 odd pages later, save trying to make JC look more foolish than he already does? He does well enough by himself.

Or is a case of trying to see how many more pages it takes to crash boards.ie ?

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...the 'barrier' is the quantum of total genetic information infused in each Kind at Creation.

This is gobbledygook. In what sense can a "quantum of genetic information" be a barrier to speciaton? A quantum of genetic information is just thst - no more or no less. Your statement is just more pseudo scientific sounding gobbledygook that has no real meaning.

Also you could not have been an evolutionist before you 'became a creationist' as is clear from you complete lack of understanding of the claims of real evolutionary science. You may have thought you were an evolutionist, but you clearly were not

Sam Vimes

jpm4 wrote: »

Just a thought here from someone who occasionally looks in on this thread....is there any particular reason why it is still going 1000 odd pages later, save trying to make JC look more foolish than he already does? He does well enough by himself.

Or is a case of trying to see how many more pages it takes to crash boards.ie ?

My reasons to post in this thread are two fold:

1. Just in case anyone is taken in by J C's pseudo-scientific waffle I want to make it absolutely clear that it is pseudo-scientific waffle
2. To marvel and derive amusement from the inanity of it all. If you were to take him seriously you'd end up tearing your hair out but it's good for an occasional laugh

Sam Vimes

This guy makes a very good point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lCrpz2rhm4

Creationism doesn't really have anything to offer other of itself other than "god did it". Everything else about it is just a denial of evolution, geology, astronomy, anthropology, history, archaeology, chemistry, physics etc etc etc in the hopes that if they disprove these, somehow that will make their nonsense ideas true.

Giving them their own name gives the mistaken impression that there are two competing theories, that they have something more to offer than "god did it" so from now on (whenever I remember), creationists will be called by their correct term: denialists

Sam Vimes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E

Good old Dawkins :pac:

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E

Good old Dawkins :pac:

Creationists have an 'answer' to that too though. They say it is an indication of intelligent design to reuse (not sure if that's the right word) genetic code across species. I think the argument goes something like that :rolleyes:

Stercus Accidit

liamw wrote: »

Creationists have an 'answer' to that too though. They say it is an indication of intelligent design to reuse (not sure if that's the right word) genetic code across species. I think the argument goes something like that :rolleyes:

Divine ctrl+c, ctrl+v?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E

Good old Dawkins :pac:

...since when has it become a 'disgrace to the Human Species' for one of the leading geologists in the world to believe on and love his God and His infallible Word???

...anyway, the physical evidence is also overwhelmingly in favour of a YOUNG Earth!!!!

..and Dr Kurt Wise DID say that he would be the first to admit it if the evidence pointed to an old Earth ... he has written that "if all of the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." Would that ALL scientists were as willing to be as objective as Dr Wise ... he DOES draw a distinction between his faith position and his professional scientific endeavours...
...unlike some people I could mention!!!!:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This guy makes a very good point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lCrpz2rhm4

Creationism doesn't really have anything to offer other of itself other than "god did it". Everything else about it is just a denial of evolution, geology, astronomy, anthropology, history, archaeology, chemistry, physics etc etc etc in the hopes that if they disprove these, somehow that will make their nonsense ideas true.

Giving them their own name gives the mistaken impression that there are two competing theories, that they have something more to offer than "god did it" so from now on (whenever I remember), creationists will be called by their correct term: denialists

...a dude, who hasn't studied Evolution ... is calling for Creationists to be called 'denialists' ... despite the fact that it is the Materialists who are the ones in denial of reality on this thread ... and amazingly (even for a Materialist) he is now suggesting that Theistic Evolutionists should be called Creationists!!!

I sometimes wonder if the English language has lost all meaning for Materialists????

Interestingly, he said that the Evolution module has been 'dropped' from his Biology course ... probably because some of the 'thinking' Evolutionists are recognising that Evolution is merely genetic flux within kinds ... and they need to significantly re-write the Evolution module as a result!!!!:D:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...a dude, who hasn't studied Evolution ... is calling for Creationists to be called 'denialists' ... despite the fact that it is the Materialists who are the ones in denial of reality on this thread ... and amazingly (even for a Materialist) he is now suggesting that Theistic Evolutionists should be called Creationists!!!

I sometimes wonder if the English language has lost all meaning for Materialists????

Right so

J C wrote: »

Interestingly, he said that the Evolution module has been 'dropped' from his Biology course ... probably because some of the 'thinking' Evolutionists are recognising that Evolution is merely genetic flux within kinds ... and they need to significantly re-write the Evolution module as a result!!!!:D:eek:

Yes J C, that's why :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...since when has it become a 'disgrace to the Human Species' for one of the leading geologists in the world to believe on and love his God and His infallible Word???

...anyway, the physical evidence is also overwhelmingly in favour of a YOUNG Earth!!!!

..and Dr Kurt Wise DID say that he would be the first to admit it if the evidence pointed to an old Earth ... he has written that "if all of the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." Would that ALL scientists were as willing to be as objective as Dr Wise ... he DOES draw a distinction between his faith position and his professional scientific endeavours...
...unlike some people I could mention!!!!:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

It's a disgrace to the human species because he has plainly admitted that he is willing to dismiss the entirety of human learning if it disagrees with the bible. As I suspect is the case with many creationists, they claim that evolution has no evidence and science supports denialism (creationism) but that's completely irrelevant because even without that claim, they'd believe in creationism anyway. It's why I've said many times that there's little to be gained by arguing evidence with denialists because their belief is not based on evidence, the incessant pretence of it being based on evidence is just (failed) attempt to give them some semblance of credibility.

This guy is so sure that the bible is right that he is willing to believe that every single thing that humans will ever learn that contradicts it is wrong. He has so little faith in his fellow humans beings that he is willing to declare that they have got every single thing wrong since the dawn of reason. Given this complete lack of faith in the abilities of his fellow man, could he not consider the possibility that one of the almost infinite number of things they got wrong might just be the bible? He already believes that all of the other thousands of holy books got it wrong and that even the vast majority of christians who interpret the bible differently got it wrong so how can he be so sure that the one thing they ever got right is this one book from 4000-2000 years ago? Maybe, as he believes of all the other holy books, these guys just thought they were being inspired by god but, just like every other thing humans ever did, they got it wrong?

Mjollnir

J C wrote: »

... I was speaking as an Evolutionist in your 'role swap' ... you seem to keep forgetting that I was an Evolutionist before I became a Creation Scientist!!!!:D

That simply strains all credulity to the breaking point: from what I've seen you post here, you and science are utterly unacquainted.

It would be far more accurate to label yourself simply as a 'creationist', to say nothing of more honest.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's a disgrace to the human species because he has plainly admitted that he is willing to dismiss the entirety of human learning if it disagrees with the bible.

...the man has a faith position (in common with every other Saved Christian) that God's Word in the Bible is infallible ... and therefore the Earth is less than 10,000 years old ...
... and he has a professional scientific position that he would be the first to admit it if the physical geological evidence pointed to an old Earth.

I don't think that Dr Wise can be any fairer than that.

Who would you prefer as a scientist?
...a person who would be the first to admit it, if the physical geological evidence pointed to an old Earth
...or somebody in such denial that they insist on the Earth being billions of years old and Humans being descended from pondslime despite having absolutely no physical evidence or indeed logical basis for such a dogmatic belief...other than an overwhelming need to deny the existence of their Creator.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I suspect is the case with many creationists, they claim that evolution has no evidence and science supports denialism (creationism) but that's completely irrelevant because even without that claim, they'd believe in creationism anyway. It's why I've said many times that there's little to be gained by arguing evidence with denialists because their belief is not based on evidence, the incessant pretence of it being based on evidence is just (failed) attempt to give them some semblance of credibility.

...the total reverse is actually the case ...

Creation Scientists have a faith position that there is a Young Earth ... and a scientific position that they would be the first to admit it, if the physical geological evidence pointed to an old Earth.
Materialists have a faith position that there is an Old Earth ... and a scientific position that denies all evidence to the contrary ...
...and indeed many Materialists, on this thread, support blatant religious discrimination against any scientist who disagrees with them!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This guy is so sure that the bible is right that he is willing to believe that every single thing that humans will ever learn that contradicts it is wrong. He has so little faith in his fellow humans beings that he is willing to declare that they have got every single thing wrong since the dawn of reason.

...these are non-sequiturs ... most things that Humans have learned since Creation DON'T contradict the Bible!!

...and the very few things that do contradict the Bible have no physical evidence or logical basis for their validity!!!:eek::D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Given this complete lack of faith in the abilities of his fellow man, could he not consider the possibility that one of the almost infinite number of things they got wrong might just be the bible? He already believes that all of the other thousands of holy books got it wrong and that even the vast majority of christians who interpret the bible differently got it wrong so how can he be so sure that the one thing they ever got right is this one book from 4000-2000 years ago? Maybe, as he believes of all the other holy books, these guys just thought they were being inspired by god but, just like every other thing humans ever did, they got it wrong?

He doesn't have a "complete lack of faith in the abilities of his fellow man" ... just a scientist's skepticism of some of the wilder assertions of some people!!!!

It is of course possible that the Bible is as you describe...but the fact that all logic as well as the physical evidence supports the Biblical Account of Creation means that the faith position of Creationists is very well founded indeed!!!

J C

Mjollnir wrote: »

That simply strains all credulity to the breaking point: from what I've seen you post here, you and science are utterly unacquainted.

It would be far more accurate to label yourself simply as a 'creationist', to say nothing of more honest.

...why do Evolutionists deny the scientific qualifications of those with whom they disagree?

Creation Scientists don't do so ... we are happy to accept that, even though Evolutionists may be suffering from denial, in relation to the 'origins issue' ... they are fully qualified scientists, whose scientific research can be fully trusted on matters not related to the 'origins issue' ... and even where their research is conducted in relation to the 'origins issue' they are perfectly entitled to pursue this research on the basis of academic freedom.
Indeed, many research 'breakthroughs' by Evolutionists have turned out, on closer examination, to provide signifcant evidence for Creation ... thereby providing practical confirmation of the benefits of academic freedom ... for BOTH the person pursuing the particular research topic and for those who disagree with them!!!!

...why are none of these liberal virtues shared by the Evolutionists on this thread, in relation to Creation Science and its practitioners???

...could it be that Creation Science ALWAYS makes more sense ... when it comes to a 'head to head' with Evolutionism ... and some Evolutionists are 'sore' losers???

'Lighten up' guys and 'cut Creation Science some slack'!!!

...and stop this 'chicken licken' activity ... predicting that the 'scientific sky will fall in' ... if Creation Science papers (or even ID ones) are ever published in the Evolutionist Press!!!!

...all that would happen in such a scenario, is that the Creation Scientists might have to work a little harder to completely justify their scientific conclusions to some very able Evolutionists ... and the Evolutionists, in turn, might get some 'food for thought' in relation to their own scientific conclusions!!!!:D

...it's worth a try!!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

It is always a possibility that the Bible is as you describe...but the fact that all logic as well as the physical evidence supports the Biblical Account of Creation means that the faith position of Creationists is very well founded indeed!!!

That's completely irrelevant because he admitted that even if the faith position of creationists was not well founded he would still be a creationist. You can argue that it's well founded all you want but that is at best a happy coincidence because even without that argument he, and I suspect you, would be a creationist anyway

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's completely irrelevant because he admitted that even if the faith position of creationists was not well founded he would still be a creationist. You can argue that it's well founded all you want but that is at best a happy coincidence because even without that argument he, and I suspect you, would be a creationist anyway

...you are correct, that as a Saved Christian, I would be a Creationist because of my faith.
However, I once was an Evolutionist and I spent nearly 10 years in various stages of denial after I became aware of the evidence for Creation!!!!

Anyway, who would you think is the most objective scientist?
...a Creationist who would be the first to admit it, if the physical geological evidence pointed to an old Earth.
...or a Materialist in such denial, that they insist on the Earth being billions of years old and Humans being descended from pondslime despite having absolutely no physical evidence or indeed logical basis for such a dogmatic belief...other than an overwhelming need to deny the existence of their Creator.

...just listening to the Mooney Programme on RTE Radio 1 ... where they are talking about Darwins Finches, all of whom can interbreed ... and are therefore the one Species!!!
So one of Darwin's big 'flagship' examples of 'evolution in action' is merely genetic oscillation within (a subset species) of a Created Kind.

Darwin also ironically collected Mocking Birds on the Galapagos ... perhaps a case of 'mocking catching' ... or was it the other way around?? !!!!:D

...another interesting factoid ... Darwin apparently thought the Earth was only 300 million odd years old!!!!
...a case of pick a figure ... any figure, (other than 10,000 years) no doubt!!!:D

Mjollnir

J C wrote: »

...why do Evolutionists deny the scientific qualifications of those with whom they disagree?

Why don't you actually read what I wrote? You are clearly unfamiliar with what science is and how it's applied, from what you've posted. It's a dispassionate observation, not a judgment of any qualifications.

Creation Scientists don't do so ... we are happy to accept that, even though Evolutionists may be suffering from denial, in relation to the 'origins issue' ... they are fully qualified scientists, whose scientific research can be fully trusted on matters not related to the 'origins issue' ... and even where their research is conducted in relation to the 'origins issue' they are perfectly entitled to pursue this research on the basis of academic freedom.
Indeed, many research 'breakthroughs' by Evolutionists have turned out, on closer examination, to provide signifcant evidence for Creation

Except, of course, that:

A. they haven't, and
B. Evolution has zero to do with origins, so your attempt at obfuscation is pointless.

... thereby providing practical confirmation of the benefits of academic freedom ... for BOTH the person pursuing the particular research topic and for those who disagree with them!!!!

So what? I wasn't addressing academic freedom, I was addressing your lack of understanding of what science actually is and how it applies to 'creation science' or evolution.

...why are none of these liberal virtues shared by the Evolutionists on this thread, in relation to Creation Science and its practitioners???

While I see no evidence of that, what does that have to do with what I stated?

...could it be that Creation Science ALWAYS makes more sense ... when it comes to a 'head to head' with Evolutionism ... and some Evolutionists are 'sore' losers???

Irrelevant.

'Lighten up' guys and 'cut Creation Science some slack'!!!

...and stop this 'chicken licken' activity ... predicting that the 'scientific sky will fall in' ... if Creation Science papers (or even ID ones) are ever published in the Evolutionist Press!!!!

Irrelevant.

...all that would happen in such a scenario, is that the Creation Scientists might have to work a little harder to completely justify their scientific conclusions to some very able Evolutionists ... and the Evolutionists, in turn, might get some 'food for thought' in relation to their own scientific conclusions!!!!:D

...it's worth a try!!!!

Irrelevant.

Perhaps there's a local CC where you might be able to take some basic science course on the cheap? It might contribute to you actually making sense.

J C

Mjollnir wrote: »

Why don't you actually read what I wrote? You are clearly unfamiliar with what science is and how it's applied, from what you've posted. It's a dispassionate observation, not a judgment of any qualifications.

...the fact is I am a conventionally qualified scientist.
Equally, there have been calls on this thread to have the scientific qualifications of any scientist who declares themselves to be a Creationist rescinded.
So, you seem to also be in denial over your lack of objectivity, when you come to make observations/judgements on the scientific qualifications/abilities of Creationists, such as myself.

...and so my question remains unanswered ... why do Evolutionists deny the scientific qualifications of the scientists with whom they disagree?

Mjollnir wrote: »

Except, of course, that:

A. they haven't, and
B. Evolution has zero to do with origins, so your attempt at obfuscation is pointless. Denial.


So what? I wasn't addressing academic freedom, I was addressing your lack of understanding of what science actually is and how it applies to 'creation science' or evolution. Denial.


While I see no evidence of that, what does that have to do with what I stated?

Irrelevant. Denial.


Irrelevant. Denial.


Irrelevant. Denial.


Perhaps there's a local CC where you might be able to take some basic science course on the cheap? It might contribute to you actually making sense. Touché.

:):D

J C

Mjollnir wrote: »

B. Evolution has zero to do with origins, so your attempt at obfuscation is pointless.

...more use of weasel words...
... 'big picture' Evolution claims to explain how life deveoped on earth from the supposed 'first self-replicating molecule' ... so it does set itself up as an alternative 'origins' explantion to Creation!!

...and the motivation behind the use of 'big picture' Evolution is pretty transparent ... to anybody other than people with their eyes wide shut!!!
Please listen to the first question in this interview with Prof Dawkins ... where the interviewer leaves us in no doubt as to the role of 'Materialistic Evolution' as some kind of 'magic bullet' that can be used to disprove the existence of God...and not merely to disprove Creation ... as is sometimes said to be the case, when Materialists are talking to 'Theistic Evolutionists' ... and trying to keep them onside on Evolution.

The interviewer said "Do you think there could be one sentence that would convince let's say a Creationist to seriously doubt their Theory. Ideally if you could convince a believer in God to really doubt their beliefs" ... and he then added, rather ruefully "...but that's too hard"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

Anyway, who would you think is the most objective scientist?
...a Creationist who would be the first to admit it, if the physical geological evidence pointed to an old Earth.
...or a Materialist in such denial, that they insist on the Earth being billions of years old and Humans being descended from pondslime despite having absolutely no physical evidence or indeed logical basis for such a dogmatic belief...other than an overwhelming need to deny the existence of their Creator.

Neither would be objective. If the creationist admits that the evidence points to an old earth but still follows a belief system that contradicts that, he is not being objective. Holding a belief that is contradictory to the evidence is not objective be they "materialist" or creationist. The thing is that the evolutions don't see any evidence of a young earth. You can argue that they are in denial or they are wrong but the fact is they are following what they believe to be the evidence. On the other hand the creationist has admitted that he doesn't give a crap what the evidence says because he'd be a creationist regardless. If the evidence stopped pointing towards evolution, scientists would stop being evolutionists. Misinterpreting evidence can happen to anyone but this guy has admitted that he will deliberatly ignore any evidence that contradicts his religious beliefs.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the fact is I am a conventionally qualified scientist.

You really should stop saying that because although there is a very small chance that it's true and that you have the most unfortunate colleagues in the world, no one believes you because you have demonstrated hundreds of times that you have absolutely no knowledge of the scientific disciplines you try to rubbish

I'm not a scientist and I know far more about evolution than you. That's not an arrogant statement because the average 10 year old knows more about evolution than you

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You really should stop saying that because although there is a very small chance that it's true and that you have the most unfortunate colleagues in the world, no one believes you because you have demonstrated hundreds of times that you have absolutely no knowledge of the scientific disciplines you try to rubbish

I'm not a scientist and I know far more about evolution than you. That's not an arrogant statement because the average 10 year old knows more about evolution than you

...just like every other Evolutionist on this thread ... you have the right to be wrong ... about me ... and Creation!!!:D