Fossils showing stability over time...............
Many fossils, like this jellyfish fossil, actually show stability of some species over time rather than change and there is a lack of intermediates. Species that are the same as their fossil ancestors are called "Living fossils".
Sigh, the un-extinguishable revolt against reason and science rears it's excruciatingly ugly head again, there's more truth in a page of Dawkins or Gould than in the entire mass of creationist twattle. Get a life and offline. Posted by Ian 15.1.04
Response to above. Yes Ian, it is an un-extinguishable revolt because there isn't any reason, logic or science involved with the theory of evolution. There would be only if you re-define reason, logic & science. If there was any evidence that showed mutations could accumulate in the way needed by the ToE then we wouldn't be having this "revolt". Take care. Poster by Joe G. 15.1.04.
This website is the perfect example of the weakest kind of Christian faith; the kind which requires the validation of science to be credible. It's even more sad that people think that somehow, even if Darwin was wrong, and the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have accumulated evidence of the last 150 years are also wrong, and all of the corroborating evidence from Geology, Genetics, Palaeontology, Astronomy, Physics, and many other fields is also wrong, this doesn't make Creationism correct. Reject the entirety of science in favour of your religion if you will, but realize that this is exactly what you must do if you accept Young Earth Creationism. Posted by Schrafinator 7.3.04.
Response 1 to above. If self-formation by non-teleological forces is statistically improbable to the point of accounting it as an absurdity, then the only option left is Creation. Interesting how some will proclaim the alleged evidence for any little facet of macro evolutionary hypothesis is enough to topple the Genesis account, yet they will turn around and claim that the destruction of the foundations of materialistic cosmology is not enough to do away with the particularly infeasible possibility of macro evolution. Are we leaving any avenue of escape open here, or just refusing to accept the inevitable? Posted by Kyle 7.3.04
Response 2 to above. Schrafinator, If it were true that hundreds of thousands of scientists have gathered evidence for evolution, then why are there sound biologists like Behe and Denton writing books (see shops page) to suggest otherwise. Evidence and extrapolation of evidence are not the same.
I have nothing against you personally, of course, just the misrepresentations of science and scientist's words you post on your website. You have been shown, several times, where you have done so, with good, strong evidence.
Have you not ever read ANY scientific papers at all?
We have, however, observed evolution both in the lab and in the field. See adapt and mutate page.
I do, however, object to false and misleading statements regarding science or scientist's views, which is what your website does.
The reason biological evolution is presented as fact is because it is the best supported scientific theory in all of science. Can it be shown to be in error? Of course. Has it been shown to be in error with evidence? No.
Nearly all of the predictions, for example, made of the relatedness between species based upon morphology (pre-discovery of DNA) were confirmed when their genes were mapped. See homology page.
My comments have never been false, and you know it.
I know what I am talking about and can and do back up my statements with solid evidence and sound logic. This kind of thing is anathema to what you are trying to achieve on your site. Ignorance, not knowledge, is your friend.
What scientific progress, what new scientific discoveries, what new advances in knowledge or technology have come from Behe's or Denton's supposed "revolutionary" claims?
Science is the real issue for me.
As proof of macro-evolution Schrafinator sent the following links by E-mail:-
Below is a response from Craig Hampton (18.1.05). "You then attempt to suggest that MACRO-EVOLUTION has been observed and site a couple of talk origins URLs as proof. Well, in example one, the starting organism was a Drosophila paulistorum and the end result was a Drosophila paulistorum, in example two, the starting organism was a fireweed and the end result was a fireweed, in example three, the starting organism was a Faeroe Island house mouse and the end result was a Faeroe Island house mouse, in example four, the starting organisms were cichlid fishes and the end result were cichlid fishes. This is your proof for macro-evolution? That Drosophila paulistorum actually can and did produce non-Drosophila paulistorum, that fireweed can and did produce non-fireweed, that cichlid fishes can and did produce non-cichlid fishes, that goatsbeards can and did produce non-goatbeards (reality check #2, this is what Darwinian evolution claims is possible and is what you believe!)? You've got to be kidding me"!!
And when we decided to only take approved posts in the Guestbook, Schrafinator commented as follows:- "When it comes right down to it, your site isn't actually interested in honesty or intellectual integrity, just in propagating your preferred view. Not surprising. That's the case with most Creationists and religious Fundamentalists. Stamp out the dissenters, right"?
Intolerant comment of 2009, sent by E-mail to the site on 25.05.09 by Yohan Gilderstern.
Subject: Darwin's theory has been validated by the new found fossil, now what?
Hello my stupid religious friend, Now that Darwin's theory has finally been proven, will you just shut up?
cooperation will be highly appreciated :D (I piss on your bible, would you like to sue me?)
I have just finished reading the treatise on Ape Language and I found it to be quite insightful. I do however have a few concerns that I would like you to address. First and foremost: failure to communicate does not indicate lack of intelligence. A great portion of human behavior is learned, if humans were not taught to clean their "cages" they wouldn't. Creativity can manifest itself in animals even if not reinforced (Peter Dews 1959). If creativity in animals is reinforced animals will produce an astonishing amount of novel behavior. Humans which are not rewarded for novel behavior rarely produce novel behavior. Many humans have limited capabilities, and are not capable of "reasoning from premises to conclusion in a logical fashion" but make selections based on immediate and affective needs. Non sexual interaction with other animals is not considered by many to be an immediate sensory award. Computers have no capacity whatsoever of producing novel behavior (not random behavior), animal intelligence may be limited but computer intelligence is nonexistent the two are simply not comparable (one might as well compare a falling rock to a chimpanzee) because computers have no capacity for improvisation, they cannot act outside of given laws. The responses given by a computer are either random or predictable. A computer on its own cannot learn, learning is defined as a change in behavior due to experience, it is therefore lower than the humblest amoeba. Computers cannot be programmed to learn, but to compensate for forecasted stimuli; this is accomplished with no effort on behalf of the computer itself seeing as the program is a product of human learning. Humans predict the stimuli and the appropriate response, the computer merely acts upon this forecast. All behavior (organisms) is executed upon the promise of reward, it is the motivation that lies behind all, whether this is achieving oneness with God, going to heaven, or eating a banana is of no consequence at all. Posted by Daniel on 24.4.05
Response from Professor Bonnette to above post from Daniel on 24.4.05. To respond to Daniel’s excellent enquiry: First, you say failure to communicate does not indicate lack of intelligence. That is correct. But you must reread my section on Woodbury’s positive demonstration of the non-intelligence of apes. Since they fail to exhibit in the wild intellect’s necessary four formal effects, namely, (1) true speech, (2) genuine progress, (3) knowledge of relations, and (4) knowledge of immaterial objects, apes lack intelligence. Second, the fact that “Many humans have limited capabilities, and are not capable of 'reasoning from premises to conclusion in a logical fashion' but make selections based on immediate and affective needs” proves nothing except that many people do not rise to the fullest perfection of their human nature. Still, even sloppy reasoning entails specifically human capabilities not shared by mere animals, who do not, properly speaking, reason at all. Third, the fact that much human behavior is learned proves nothing, since it is those peculiar manifestations of intellect alone that distinguish man from lower animals. The ability to form universal concepts, make judgments, reason, and make free choices is unique to man alone among all animal species. Concepts such as “creativity” and “novelty” are subject to multiple interpretations and often confusing. If you concentrate, instead, upon those intellective acts mentioned above, proper understanding of them demonstrates that they are found in human beings alone, and not in the rest of the animal kingdom. The article focuses upon the essential distinction between the sensory image, which man shares with brutes, and universal concepts, which man uniquely possesses among all animals. Based on these distinctions, neither brute animal nor computer possesses true intelligence. It is not a question of one having more or less than the other. Whether computers can learn is debatable, depending upon one’s definition of learning. You define learning as “a change in behavior due to experience.” Of course, computers experience nothing since they lack even a sensitive soul. But to avoid any irrelevant confusions here, I must point out that I did not say that computers could learn as well as apes. What I said was that, in principle, we can design and program computers to imitate, or even exceed, language-trained apes’ skills. The comparison was restricted to language skills alone. I have no doubt that animals are well equipped by their Maker to exhibit marvelous learning skills not shared by a computer. To top
Even if the theory of evolution is not completely correct, it is at least based on scientific observation. Unlike the Bible which was written by people, and contains thousands of stories most of which can and have been proved to be fiction by science. Posted by Jeff on 6.03.04
This is an interesting website, but an ultimately futile one. You have evolutionists attempting to sway creationists (not gonna' happen) and creationists taking shots at Evolution Theory in a collective attempt to make themselves feel better (wholly understandable, but sorry, doesn't qualify as "science"). Creationists do not visit websites like these to learn "the" truth, they visit them to learn "a" truth (which just happens to be "their" truth). You can't argue with a mindset that says "The Bible is the irrefutable history of the universe. How do I know this? Well, it must be because it says so in the Bible!" Posted by Robert Stroud on 1.8.05
Response to Robert Stroud's post of 1.8.05 from Peter. Hi Robert, I agree it is futile for evolutionists and creationists to take pot shots at each other, and this can lead to anger on both sides. However, if science is about investigating the data, then is it futile to explore if the evidence REALLY supports evolution, or has evolution itself become a religious dogma that won't be questioned. Life is here on planet earth, very few would dispute that, but as scientists realise how complex living things are, many are questioning whether they could all arrive by chance. I would argue, to question and wonder is not futile. If that questioning leads us to believe life did not arrive by chance, then this may lead us to ask other important questions. To accept the dogma of evolution is also to close the door to further investigation. To top
THE BIOTIC MESSAGE — The book evolutionists don't want you to know about. ISBN 0-9637999-0-8. I've been reading some of ReMine's debate on the Internet with much interest. Posted by Paul Taylor on 29.4.04To top
If self formation by non-teleological forces is statistically improbable to the point of accounting it as an absurdity, then the only option left is: Creation. Interesting how some will proclaim the alleged evidence for any little facet of macro evolutionary hypothesis is enough to topple the Genesis account, yet they will turn around and claim that the destruction of the foundations of materialistic cosmology is not enough to do away with the particularly infeasible possibility of macro evolution. Are we leaving any avenue of escape open here, or just refusing to accept the inevitable? Posted by Kyle 7.3.04
Something from nothing? I have pondered long and hard over the idea of evolution, reading everything I could, both for and against. The mathematical argument against (tornado in a junkyard) seems pretty convincing, but it still leaves the tiniest room for doubt. Though the odds are astronomically against it, creation by chance may still actually be possible. The clincher for me finally came in the form of a very simple fact, which is absolutely indisputable, and that is; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET MORE OUT OF A THING THAN IS ACTUALLY IN IT. It is generally accepted in the world of technology that, say, television evolved from radio, radios increased in complexity and efficiency from the earliest crystal sets, which in turn evolved from telegraph, etc. These are obvious technical developments of increasing complexity, and it is feasible to say that all modern forms of telecommunication have a common ancestor (jungle drums?). No doubt Darwin observed, and was influenced by the Victorian obsession with progress: No doubt Darwin observed, and was influenced by the Victorian obsession with 'progress', and theorised that the natural world must work in the same way; but the fact remains that, however much the elements of a radio (randomly or otherwise), it is utterly impossible to produce a TV set. The additional complexity, organisation, functions, and components are just not there. Evolutionists would have us believe that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones. How? Where does the additional complexity come from? Indeed, a caterpillar can develop into a butterfly, but the 'blueprint', method, and materials to achieve such a transformation have to be there in the first place. For me, this has to be the ultimate problem with evolution. Please excuse if you have mentioned this point somewhere on your site - I haven't read everything yet. Posted by Ted Moody 25.6.2004 To top
Junk DNA. The theory of evolution predicts that 95% or more of human DNA will be ‘junk’, the leftovers of millions of years of evolutionary trial and error. And while evolutionists have been using this as an argument against design, Creationists have never accepted this as a valid prediction and are now being proved right by the findings of real science. Just do a Google search on ‘Junk DNA’ in the last three months to see the many and varied findings that show that non-coding DNA does have real purpose and is essential to life. Posted by Paul Taylor on 24.2.04To top
If someone can come up with evidence against evolution the idea would be dead in the water. A scientific theory is not like the term theory that most people accept, it means it is supported by fact. Posted by Scott on 11.12.03To top
The theory of evolution is ambiguous at best. It can refer to anything from the simple change in allele frequency over time, which is basically variation, to the vast changes some people insist have occurred. However there isn't any biological or genetic evidence that supports the premise that single-celled organisms can evolve into multi-cellular organisms or any of the other alleged great transformations that evolutionists want us to believe have occurred. Posted by Joe G on 13.12.03
I'd just like to say that this site truly doesn't have enough supporting evidence to prove the theory of natural selection...or to prove the inadequacy of what Christians believe. I myself am a Christian and I've recently been looking into the evolution today...and frankly, it's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. You said it yourself, there are too many loopholes and inexplicable areas of evolution for it to be an accurate theory. Posted by Evan Griffin on 02.03.04To top
In reply to Matt, 4/4/2004 Creation by the wisdom and power of God contradicts neither logic nor any laws of nature. It simply maintains a sufficient cause for the known effect. The works of Shakespeare represent an ordered selection of words that no naturalistic operation of scientific laws can explain. That is why we know, even if we did not have any historical records of the author and his works, that there is an author and that he authored those works. The history that we do have and the evidence that can be found in the books themselves corroborate each other. In the same way, the evidences from all of creation, including that from mankind, points to a wonderful designer with great wisdom and power beyond our ability to conceive. The bible record is simply an historical record of His works, both in creation and in His efforts to help mankind to recover from a disastrous fall from the original condition in which God created us. Faith in God is simply a right response to the evidence from both observable creation and discoverable communication from God to us. It is both reasonable and intelligent. It both ennobles us and enables us to live rightly, in relation to God, in relation to others and to ourselves. Posted by Paul Taylor on 13.5.04
God anti. I wish people would spend less time thinking about religion and god. It is 2004 after all, and we as human kind or the civilization should advance and start focusing on discovering the true facts. If we all focus and devote our time to the correct things we can know much more and advance much faster. I can not believe how many minds still spend precious time focusing and believing in something so unreal as god. If religion did not exist we would be so much further along as human kind. It is unfortunate that humans do not see the big picture and still become victims of religious thoughts. Any one that believes in god and spends any time thinking about god or praying is really not using his or her time to help us the human kind to live better. Using your brain to think about god could be compared to using the most powerful super computers for playing solitaire. Absolute waste of great minds and time! By doing so, one just wastes the one thing that can not ever be replaced. Time. Posted by Mark on 22.4.04.
Response to above. Mark, Wishful thinking on your part. You need to give some thought to the fact that it’s the people that don’t think about God (not “god”) that we should worry about. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot didn’t think about God and I wouldn’t exactly say their actions were beneficial to human progress. If it weren't for religion (specifically Christianity) and God, I submit you would have no idea what the "correct things" are. Posted by Craig Hampton on 22.4.04To top
I've read your history section on the website and I took special interest in reading the claims at the bottom of the page that pick out some "evidence" which is supposed to support biblical claims. I just have one question. Since the Bible is a written down collection of oral tradition isn't it possible that by the time some of the stories were written down that the writers had taken some elements from the cultures that they came from or cultures that had existed before them and mixed them into their views on Christianity, instead of the other way around? To me this is the most likely explanation for this, it happens with art and other elements of culture so why not religion? Posted by Jeff on 24.3.05.
Response to above. There was no need for Moses to copy histories from other cultures, or for the other cultures to copy histories from Moses. At that time, the Flood was a relatively recent event and everybody knew about it. All the ancient accounts affirm that there was a Flood and I have not found any that deny it. Posted byMike Gascoigne on 6.4.05.
I have felt for years that things like common genetic code amongst species could just as easily be attributed to intelligent design as to evolution. If I were designing a universe I'd make re-useable pieces. But so would evolution. However, first we should stop calling intelligent design creation because the term is too loaded and specifically linked to the Christian mythology, and secondly those wanting to teach children about intelligent design in schools invariably have a religious agenda that includes indoctrinating children in their particular view of the potential designer (do you really think the nutters in the White House have thought design versus evolution through or that they want it taught because it makes sense rather than being tied to a religion they wish to promote). I am all for children being told about both intelligent design and evolution from nothing - REST REMOVED AS TOO LONG FOR OLD GUEST BOOK. Posted by Ian on 7.6.2004. To top
This excerpt from "Darwinism, Design and Public Education" gives an interesting insight into the impossibility of evolution at the molecular level - where it has to happen or not at all.
Laboratory experimentation shows that more than one mutation in the DNA that codes for a protein is almost certain to render the protein useless for the purpose it normally fulfils. Since many mutations would be required to move from one protein to another protein in small random steps, as required by the theory of evolution, the vast informational gaps that have to be traversed ensure that degradation of usefulness will always kick in long before any supposed 'improvements' that offer the organism a survival advantage can be found.
Design, by an intelligent Creator, of course can easily traverse these vast informational distances, just as language routinely does. When we think of an idea and express it in language we show the ability to select sequences of letters in seconds that could not be selected by random methods in billions of years.
The above sentences, for example, contain 1047 letters and spaces. Taking each letter or space as equally likely by random allocation, the likelihood of randomly selecting the letters that I have typed in a few minutes, in the same order, is one in 27 to the power 1047. Since any event with a likelihood of less than one in 10 to the power 150 has been used as a benchmark for an event that is outside the realm of possibility in this universe, one can safely say that the above was composed by an intelligent being. Taking all the millions of bits of data composed into the DNA of an organism, the likelihood of that occurring by random events is infinitely less likely in a billion universes. That evolutionists insist that, nevertheless, all this data came about by random processes is an example of extreme faith, without proof or evidence, that makes religious faith pale in comparison!
Therefore, on the basis of mere probability, the evidence from proteins and the DNA that encode for them, the likelihood of them arising by random events is approaching infinitely small while the probability that they were designed by an Intelligent Being are inversely approaching unity [i.e. absolute certainty]. Only an a priori decision to reject all evidence that points to a Creator can prevent the logical conclusion that, as the Bible says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” as well as each form of life that has ever existed. Posted by Paul Taylor on 23.1.05 To top
Question posted on 26-6-2006 from Michael to the Guestbook - see Six days page for points (a), (b) etc.
I support your comments against evolution and theistic evolution- well done. May I refute, though, your points regarding 24-hour days in Gen 1.
(a) The word 'yom' in Genesis 1:3 surely refers to a 12-hour period; it says (using the NIV Interlinear) "God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night".
In 2:4 it means a far longer time period (quite consistent with, as you acknowledge, the normal Hebrew understanding of 'yom' as any period of time) when it says in the actual interlinear text, "God Yahweh to-make in-day when-to-be created-them and-the-earth". This could mean any period of time, concatenating all the individual 'days' together as a 'yom'. It would be easy to miss this reference to 'yom' if you only read the English translations such as NIV or KJ, instead of the underlying [original] text.
Standing back from the textual argument, there is overwhelming evidence (as some of your other posters have mentioned) that the 'days' of creation were far longer than 24 hours; light-years; tree rings; geology; etc! Your God would effectively be a confidence trickster if he had falsely made these things only appear to be as old as they evidently are.
(b) not an issue.
(c) 'context' of Genesis, as stated above, surely supports the idea of different lengths of time for 'yom', as you say "can mean any period of time". Also as stated above, there is really no 'implying' that the first day was 24 hours, when the introduction of the word 'yom' actually refers only to the daylight hours. Note also that the 7th day has no signing off with 'an evening', as though it is still running after that as an unfinished period!
(d) 'Sabbath/savot' actually means any period of 6+1, as the Israelites maintained a weekly, 7-yearly, and 7x7 yearly 'sabbath'. Christians surely are also interested in the 'greater sabbath' or real sabbath (of which the Israelite one was only a prophetic pattern) referred to in Christian Scripture at Heb 4:9.
Response posted 26-6-2006 to the Guestbook.
Michael, please see below response on behalf of Andy McIntosh, and he regrets that he has not time to respond to future posts on this subject.
Michael - Thank you for the posting at the ‘Was Darwin right?’ web site. We would refer you to Dr. McIntosh’s book Genesis for Today (2001, Day One) where these arguments are developed in detail. The word ‘Yom’ from its context can always be ascertained as to what is being referred to. Gen 1:3 would certainly mean the daylight part of the normal solar day. Gen 2:4 is referring to the time when God made the heavens and the earth. The word ‘yom’ is indeed used similarly as we would use ‘day’ in English. the context always makes it clear. The references to evening and morning, first day. evening and morning, 2nd day and so on in Gen 1 are undoubtedly referring to normal 24 hour solar days since all other passages in scripture where the word ‘yom’ with a list, or with evening, or with morning, or with both, mean a normal 24 hour solar day. Thus 1 Sam 17 when the children of Israel are challenged by Goliath. It says that he came morning and evening for 40 days challenging the Israelites. The context immediately shows that this guy was coming every day at sunrise and sunset to challenge them for a duel. Check in your concordance and you will find no exception in all the OT. Take a look at the web site http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/days.asp for further details here. On the Sabbath in Ex 20:11 there is no doubt that this is to do with the institution of the weekly Sabbath and not to do with the 7 yearly cycle or 7X7 yearly cycle. It is simply saying that God rested on the 7th day (agreed that it does not expressly say that this must be Sat, hence later the change to Sunday carried the principle over) and so man needs to do the same. The word ‘yom’ in that sentence has to mean an ordinary day to make sense of what even liberal scholars acknowledge is the institution of the weekly Sabbath. The fact that the 7th day is not recorded as having a signing off ‘evening and morning the 7th day’ is not relevant when it comes to Ex 20:11 which is certainly referring to something happening every week. Granted that there is certainly a heavenly rest of Heb 4:9 and a rest for believers to come – all this is allowed, but the original Sabbath of Ex 20:11 was every week on a Saturday as every Jew has testified to for millennia. Thus the import of Ex 20:11 as to the reason for this is always that God worked for 6 normal solar days and rested the 7th day and that man should also.
As regards the scientific evidence that you say gives the appearance of age, in all the investigations of rocks and fossils, there is nothing that suggests great ages. Rather the more evidence that is produced the more it strongly suggest rapid burial a few thousand years ago – you cannot get large creatures fossilized slowly! We encourage you to get hold of the books which look at the same evidence and show it fits very well with a young earth scenario. The recent findings concerning Helium in the rocks are a strong indicator of the rocks only being a few thousand years ago - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp; http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp God has given us minds to think carefully and the rocks properly understood speak of the Flood judgement 4-5000 years ago, and warn us of the impending judgement by fire to come. The confidence tricksters are in the camp of those who try to make out the earth is millions of years old, and remove the teaching of the worldwide flood. God would have us have confidence in the book of Genesis and its strong connection with the coming judgement (2 Peter 3) and the importance of believing in God’s word the Bible, and the living Word – Christ.” To top
I've been reading you website. I'm frustrated that I'm asked not to teach ideas about a very old Earth. It is amazing that the arguments that seem so right to you seem so wrong to me...None the less I feel I need to be educated in your arguments. I'd love your side of this one: We should agree that light travels at about 186,000 mps. You must also agree that the light you see from the Sun takes about 8 minutes to reach us...Therefore that radiation is 8 minutes old when it reaches our eyes...You probably see where I'm going with this but I digress. Your argument ends when we jump to M31. M31, our closest galaxy neighbour is 2.3 million light years away. So if you look at it through a pair of binoculars tonight you will be see M31 as it was 2.3 million years ago because the light reaching your eyes will be 2.3 million years old! Of course there are objects that are billions of light years away...and so on...and so on! Thank you for your time. Posted by Paul on 21.4.04.
Responses to the above (1 and 2).
1. Paul, please see some of the links below which suggest that the speed of light has been slowing down. If this is so, this could affect all you say with respect to the age of the earth as measured by the speed of light and distances from stars.
Posted by Simon on 21.4.04 with corrections added later.
2. In reply above “So if you look at it through a pair of binoculars tonight you will be seeing M31 as it was 2.3 million years ago because the light reaching your eyes will be 2.3 million years old! Of course there are objects that are billions of light years away...and so on...and so on!” Young-earth creationists aren’t the only ones with a problem here. For if the light from the far-distant objects represents what they were like billions of years ago, then this would reveal what the universe was like in an earlier phase of its ‘evolution’. What astronomers actually do observe in these far-distant regions, however, exactly matches what they observe nearer at hand. So the supposed ‘evolution’ of the universe could not have taken place as is supposed by those who espouse the Big Bang theory. Posted by Paul Taylor on 23.4.04To top
"Thank you for your interesting website. How good and important it is to proclaim the good news of a creator and designer God in an age when people refuse to look for a divine hand in cosmic and personal circumstances. What a privilege it is for us to know this wonderful Saviour God and to be able to share His story with others. I have recently been struck by God's perfect timing in both the bigger picture and the smallest details in our lives. Our triune God who not only effected a perfect creation in six days and saw that it was good, is at work in us to will and to do according to His great pleasure. His timing is not our timing regarding the plans and purposes He has for us. Just as the apostle Paul said in Galatians 4:4: "But when the time had fully come God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons", so I think it amazing how in His time God works things out in His plan of universal redemption and in our personal salvation and sanctification. Solomon said (Ecclesiates 3:11): "He has made everything beautiful in its time, He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." With the increasing antagonism towards Christian truth, also levied at born-again Christians, I am encouraged that like the psalmist we can say "But I trust in you, O LORD, I say You are my God; My times are in Your hands." Please continue to exploit this modern technological phenomenon of the internet to broadcast the timeless truth of a creator and Saviour God, through whom and in whom only can be found Life and acquittal from eternal death and wrath. Moreover, as you faithfully serve Him in this way, I pray that you know His protection and help for the website and indeed a deep-rooted joy that the God who made heaven and earth is the One who is able to immeasurably more in our lives in His time, than all we ask or imagine (Ephesians 3:20). Every blessing to you. Anonymous, 28.11.05.
"Found this site a couple of hours ago and have been amazed at the weight of evidence you've gone to the trouble to find and accommodate. Thank you for putting it together, who knows, one day we may eventually emerge from the modern dark age into more enlightened times. Regards, Nigel." Posted 24.10.2005 by Nigel King.
"This is a wonderfully done site! I am very interesting in this topic personally, and have found it to be a great site for use with my 16 yr. old son's home schooling. You have presented the information very clearly. Thank you !!" Posted 18.2.04 by Carla.
My Google search for "origins of man" got me this fabulous site!
"This is a great site, very informative, it helped my a lot with my Darwin assignment, thanx." Posted by Rebecca on 23.2.04
"I just wanted to tell you that your pages regarding evolution and creation are simply wonderful! I was searching for information just like this to teach my 12 year old grandson why the theory of evolution is incomplete, wrong, and actually takes more faith to believe in than the truth of creation. These pages are a great help to me and to my grandson". E-mail from Sharon Hansen 17.3.04
"Thank you so much for the site, the articles provided excellent research for a presentation I am doing in my College Biology class ." Posted 4.12.04 by Rebekah Maldonado.
Talk about a well organized web-site. I am simply a junior in high school researching the vast possibilities and fallacies of evolution, but this is one of the simplest and scientifically based websites I've yet to encounter. It is open to all suggestions by evolutionists and simply bases evolutionary possibilities upon fact rather than blanket statements refuting evolution. Thank you for your contribution to science. God bless you. Posted by Ryan on 16.12.04.
I found your article very humorous, but a refreshing change to the ever-growing number of sites online that promote fallacious claims about evolution and the origins of man. Too many people, both atheist and Christian (unfortunately) follow along behind the evolutionary drumbeat, never bothering to check to see if the facts, really are the facts. The day modern science, finally admits that it is supporting a teaching that has very little factual evidence to support it, is the day that the rest of us, are freed from the quackery and false claims that keep us scientifically ignorant and directionless. It is not factual science that is in question - it is evolution, presented as a factual science, that is in question, and resoundingly demolished by your very informative site. Thank you for sharing that with the world. We deserve it, I assure you. Thanks so much. Posted by playing_in_the_dangerzone1 11.1.05To top
Evidence for change can be found in various vestigial characters in many animals. Blind cave fish with non-functional eyes is one good example. Or flightless beetles that still form wings. Even us humans have what remains of a vestigial tail in the the form of our coccyx. Posted 8.12.14 by Jeff.
Response to above by Mandy 8.12.04. From http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/Irish_Times.asp. The so-called vestigial organs. In ignorance, evolutionists once paraded a multitude of these, but one-by-one they disappeared when functions were discovered for these organs. So, it is wrong (and dangerous) for Reville to claim that the coccyx is a ‘rudimentary vestige of a tail, indicating we are descended from a tailed form’. The coccyx is a vital anchor for certain muscles needed for our upright posture — an excellent design feature. For more information, see also Q&A: Vestigial organsandhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/446.asp
Response to Jeff from Mandy 9.12.04. Jeff, quickly looking at your link I copied below as three examples of animals with vestigial organs:-
A. Hypocritical ostrich with its wings extended.
B. A blind cave salamander - look closely for the eyes buried underneath the skin.
C. Astyanax mexicanus, the Mexican tetra, a blind cave fish.
However, each of these possibly just represent loss of original intended function. For example, the cave fish perhaps originated from a mutant fish that was blind and was selected for in this very specific environment, but loss of eyesight or loss of the the ability to fly can hardly be described as evolution, it is loss of function, not gaining of new function. In fact the reverse of evolution. We would hardly see individuals with cystic fibrosis (caused by mutation) as a wonderful example of the creative power of evolution? To top
"Excellent presentation. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that he died for my sins. I am struggling with the Creationist viewpoint however. But I know several practicing Christians who work in the physical sciences who are able to accept Evolution and the Christian faith. Why can God not have created a universe that was capable of growing and evolving? I am undecided either way but resent people (I'm not accusing this site) who tell me that because I don't accept a young earth then I am not a true believer. There are many speakers who are creating a divide when there isn't one as far as I can tell. I do wonder what God makes of it all". Posted by Samantha 23.12.04.To top
PLEASE HELP THIS SITE GET KNOWN. IF YOU HAVE APPRECIATED THE SITE, THEN PLEASE E-MAIL ITS ADDRESS AND BRIEF DETAILS TO THOSE IN YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS BOOK. THANK-YOU.