Richard Dawkins disappoints again

Jeff S said:

evolutionist Ernst Mayr

Click to expand...

Mayer talked about unity. Gould Dawkins and atheistic evolution talks about selfish genes. There are evolutionists that carry on the tradition of evolutionary paradigm of people like Mayr.
The Evolutionary Synthesis
Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, With a New Preface
Ernst Mayr

NobleMouse said:

I can also quote that Wood believes the earth is 6,000 years old as a matter of faith (as do I), but I'm more interested in results of research than personal opinions.

Click to expand...

Then why do you ignore the vast amounts of research that show conclusively that the Earth is billions of years old and that common descent is true? Why can I predict what I will find when I compare the genomes of two species and a creationist can't, if all I have is an opinion?

sfs said:

Then why do you ignore the vast amounts of research that show conclusively that the Earth is billions of years old and that common descent is true? Why can I predict what I will find when I compare the genomes of two species and a creationist can't, if all I have is an opinion?

Click to expand...

I also ignore the vast amounts of religious beliefs of people who do not follow Christianity (currently ~5 billion people). So, volume and vastness of research/effort doesn't directly correlate to truth as the only possible outcome. Neither does "predictability" correlate to common descent as the only possible explanation. This is no more convincing than the alleged predictability of faunal succession where research has shown the majority of the time is missing layers, out of order, inverted, et...

Jeff S said:

I don't know how that can be. The evidence that animals can change but within only specific limits does undercut the argument for common descent because common descent supposes that simple organisms evolved into multi-celled organisms and then eventually man. Saying there are limits to change in animals undercuts evolution between different animals just like limits to change in a bicycle and motorcycle and car undercuts common ancestry connecting bicycle to motorcycle and car (i.e. some bicycles eventually evolve into motorcycles that evolve into cars). If we were to find evidence that, say, bacteria or any other one-celled organism cannot change to anything other than a one-celled organism that would be evidence against common descent.

So how exactly does what I presented in my quotes earlier where I alluded to my article about Gould not falsify common descent?

Click to expand...

Because, as I explained to you earlier, the "limits" implied by those quotes are not fixed limits of phenotype.
Selection, whether natural or artificial, depletes the information content of the gene pool of the species. If the information content of the gene pool declines, then the random variation on which evolution depends also declines and with it the abilty to evolve, even in the face of strong selective pressure. The example of selective breeding is instructive, because it shows what happens when strong selective forces deplete the information content of the gene pool faster than natural mechanisms can replenish it. There is a "limit" but it is a speed limit, not a boundary.

KomatiiteBIF said:

some people insist that "dogs will always be dogs", but there is nothing to anyone's knowledge that would ever prevent genetic change from continuing to occur up to and beyond a genus level.

Click to expand...

This is similar to Trekies believing in traveling at velocities beyond the speed of light, even though modern, mathematical models show us that to do so would mean that all matter becomes energy, thus the impossibility of achieving a any greater velocity beyond light speed, which is known as "C".

Imagining what might be, and yet is still unobserved and is unobservable, that STILL places it all outside the realm of genuine science.

Mutations occur at observable rates and accumulate at observable rates. No mathematical model demonstrates any issue with the accumulation of genetic changes over a long period of time.

Its like saying...

some people insist that a turtle will always stay within 10 feet of distance of the place it lives, on the basis that it walks too slow to go further than 10 feet ( no one ever saw a turtle walk that far, it must never go that far). And yet, no mathematical model demonstrates any issue with the possibility that a turtle might in fact walk 20 feet or more from its home in the span of its life.

We may never actually see the turtle walk 20 feet, because its too slow. But theoretically, there is nothing stopping it from being possible. And there isnt anything mathematically impossible about it either. In fact, all the evidence indicates that it happened and is still happening (turtle footprints ranging 40 feet in distance). But its just so slow, people cannot see it because they live and die faster than it takes the turtle to walk 20 feet.

So, people say well, the dog will always be a dog. But only their imagination exists as a barrier to the accumulation of genetic change.

And the difference between breaking the speed of light and evolution is that yes, there are mathematical issues with breaking the speed of light. However, there are none with the theoretical occurrence of the accumulation of mutations. In fact, it is observable. Our lives are simply too short to observe it over long periods of time.

SwordmanJr said:

This is similar to Trekies believing in traveling at velocities beyond the speed of light, even though modern, mathematical models show us that to do so would mean that all matter becomes energy, thus the impossibility of achieving a any greater velocity beyond light speed, which is known as "C".

Imagining what might be, and yet is still unobserved and is unobservable, that STILL places it all outside the realm of genuine science.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In the general theory of evolution, the assertion is that all life has a common ancestor; however, this assertion has never been observed, cannot be measured, and has never been successfully reproduced as the result of a laboratory experiment. To observe, measure, experiment... these are all part of the scientific method and scientifically evolution falls below this standard, hence as you have put it - evolution is outside the realm of genuine science.

From what I've read, what has been observed, measured, and produced as the result of experimentation is that created kinds do diversify and do adapt to the environment (classic example: finches of the Galapagos), new species/subspecies will occasionally show up within the boundaries of a created kind (a new kind; however, is not created), and species/subspecies will occasionally go extinct - that's it. A well-known experiment on evolution involves the E.Coli bacteria, led by Richard Lenski. In this experiment to date, the E.Coli bacteria has adapted aerobic growth on citrate. This; however, has resulted in E.Coli remaining as E.Coli (not a new kind). From a Neo-Darwinism perspective where genetics would be used in support of evolutionary theory, the E.Coli have not developed new genetic information but instead "turned on" or engaged genetic information that already existed in order to survive on citrate (the assertion of the general theory of evolution is that evolution occurs through the creation of new genetic information by way of mutations + natural selection). This experiment to date, has not demonstrated that process. This is what has been observed, measured, and resulted from experimentation - this is not 'imagined' only in the minds of creationists, it's real.

To take this then to the level of saying all created kinds arose from a single-celled protozoa over billions of years is what requires imagination, conjecture, and speculation. It's not that it's an illogical thought process; however, it is an extension beyond what is actually observed - it is the conclusion reached when operating under the uniformitarian/evolutionary paradigm. Scientifically, it is not supported unequivocally by either the fossil record or genetics, and falls below the standard set by the scientific method. The science aside though, the most convincing reason to be skeptical of the assertions made by evolution is because the word of God tells us He created every kind and gave the command to be fruitful and multiply, and we were created in His image, His likeness - in the beginning we were created both male and female just as Jesus said in Matthew 19:4. We didn't "evolve", we were created.

God bless and have a great day brother!

NobleMouse said:

I also ignore the vast amounts of religious beliefs of people who do not follow Christianity (currently ~5 billion people). So, volume and vastness of research/effort doesn't directly correlate to truth as the only possible outcome.

Click to expand...

Okay, you only ignore the scientific research that disagrees with your religious belief (i.e. 99.99% of it). So when you said, "but I'm more interested in results of research than personal opinions," what you meant was, "I don't care what the results of research are if they disagree with my personal opinions."

Jeff S said:

Well, I took to keeping up on my evolution once again and recently (well, last year) purchased a used copy of Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth. Dawkins is obviously the well-known evolutionist spouting what he thinks is conclusive proof of evolution when my opinion is that it is not. Dawkins, in one of his chapters, talks about evolution we can observe (the origin of new breeds of dogs, for instance) and everything he talks about can be understood as a change within "kinds" (to use the Biblical phrase) or perhaps change within species, if you like. Then Dawkins nails it down. Dawkins suggests that if we just extrapolate the evolution he believes in will happen. Quoting Dawkins:

"What lessons do we learn from the domestication of the dog? First, the great variety among the breeds of dogs . . . demonstrates how easily it is for the non-random selection of genes – the ‘carving and whittling’ of gene pools – to produce truly dramatic changes in anatomy and behaviour, [sic] and so fast – the difference between breeds so dramatic – that you might expect their evolution to take millions of years instead of just a matter of centuries. If so much evolutionary change can be achieved in just a few centuries or even decades, just think what might be achieved in ten or a hundred million years"

Well, by golly, this evolution is sure impressive. But then again, if you extrapolate anything you are bound to find the evidence you seek. Maybe after millions of years all the dogs will be just different breeds of dogs and not undergo changes wider than that. We wouldn't know from Dawkins who just assumes evolution can produce whatever he demands. How about opera singing unicorns? Betcha evolution can produce that too if we just give it millions of years. Dawkins gives us no reason to think his extrapolate argument is correct other than assuming the fact of evolution.

In my library I have a book by Norman Macbeth who, back in the 1970s, surveys the evolutionist literature and found evolutionist Ernst Mayr who said animals have a resistance to change Mayr calls “genetic homeostasis.” Mayr is further quoted by Macbeth as saying "Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability. . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment.” This book, quoted by lawyer Phillip Johnson in his book Darwin on Trial, should be known by Dawkins but Dawkins doesn't mention any such claims about the limits of evolution. Mayr is not the only evolutionist to point out such limits either. Why? Probably because Dawkins doesn't want to believe such limits exist. BTW Macbeth's book is Darwin Retried.

That's not the only problem with Dawkins, but that should get you going on doubts about Dawkins.

Click to expand...

Their arguments are based on "When given a lot, a lot of time, anything can happen". I still think theory of evolution is nonsense.

In the field of statistical probability, there is a law called "the law of large numbers". It states that in the long term, the cumulative probability will be close to the expected value. So, given a lot a lot of time, certainly extraordinary things would happen, but the frequency they would happen would be limited, the overall proportion (within a period) would be very close to the theoretical proportion. For example, if you throw a coin 10 times, you would not get 10 heads in a row. But if you throw it 10000 times, certainly you might have 10 heads in a row sometimes. Still, you wouldn't have that happen constantly, it would still be a small number.

The same for evolution. If evolution were true, what we see today would be full of living things which look like they are incomplete or have design flaws. The number of perfect designs (or close to it) would still be very small.
This is my humble opinion, correct me if I'm wrong.

Martin Tom said:

Their arguments are based on "When given a lot, a lot of time, anything can happen". I still think theory of evolution is nonsense.

In the field of statistical probability, there is a law called "the law of large numbers". It states that in the long term, the cumulative probability will be close to the expected value. So, given a lot a lot of time, certainly extraordinary things would happen, but the frequency they would happen would be limited. For example, if you throw a coin 10 times, you would not get 10 heads in a row. But if you throw it 10000 times, certainly you might have 10 heads in a row sometimes. Still, you wouldn't have that happen constantly. How often that happens depends on the expected probability value. The same for evolution. If evolution were true, what we see today would be full of living things which look like they are incomplete or have design flaws. This is my humble opinion, correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen the bizarre variation of the Burgess shale?
burgess shale fossils - Google Search
burgess shale fossils - Google Search:

Does this look complete to you?

Martin Tom said:

Their arguments are based on "When given a lot, a lot of time, anything can happen". I still think theory of evolution is nonsense.

In the field of statistical probability, there is a law called "the law of large numbers". It states that in the long term, the cumulative probability will be close to the expected value. So, given a lot a lot of time, certainly extraordinary things would happen, but the frequency they would happen would be limited. For example, if you throw a coin 10 times, you would not get 10 heads in a row. But if you throw it 10000 times, certainly you might have 10 heads in a row sometimes. Still, you wouldn't have that happen constantly. How often that happens depends on the expected probability value. The same for evolution. If evolution were true, what we see today would be full of living things which look like they are incomplete or have design flaws. This is my humble opinion, correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Happily -- you're wrong. Or more accurately, you haven't made an argument. You have a correct premise, "As the sample size increases, the mean value of a set of random variables approaches its expectation value", and you have a conclusion, "Evolution is nonsense", but you failed to make any logical connection between the premise and the conclusion.

sfs said:

Okay, you only ignore the scientific research that disagrees with your religious belief (i.e. 99.99% of it). So when you said, "but I'm more interested in results of research than personal opinions," what you meant was, "I don't care what the results of research are if they disagree with my personal opinions."

Click to expand...

What I really meant was, "I don't care what the results of research are that are not actually from observation/are measurable/are testable (ie. the scientific method) and do not agree with the word of God." If you want to call that "personal opinion", then yes, yes that is correct.

See post #50 above - the theory of evolution is sub par to the standard of the scientific method. It has never been observed, cannot be measured, and has never been reproduced in nature nor the optimal conditions of a laboratory experimentally.

I'm seeing an interesting dichotomy: on one hand we have uniformitarianism that suggests all things gradually happen as they do today at present rates with present processes. This is the geological argument against catastrophism/biblical creationism. Now flip that upside down (or turn it inside out) and evolutionary theory says that just because we cannot observe something "evolving", it doesn't mean it didn't happen and that anything can evolve into anything given the right selection pressures, mutations, and the magical pixie dust of deep time. This is an odd mental splitting because what is actually observed is that catastrophies do happen in geological processes (ex. Mt. St. Helens, creating many rock layers in a short amount of time), and life is observed never evolving with the emergence of a new kind (baramin/family) - instead we just get the occasional new species/subspecies within an already existing created kind.

NobleMouse said:

What I really meant was, "I don't care what the results of research are that are not actually from observation/are measurable/are testable (ie. the scientific method) and do not agree with the word of God." If you want to call that "personal opinion", then yes, yes that is correct.

See post #50 above - the theory of evolution is sub par to the standard of the scientific method. It has never been observed, cannot be measured, and has never been reproduced in nature nor the optimal conditions of a laboratory experimentally.

I'm seeing an interesting dichotomy: on one hand we have uniformitarianism that suggests all things gradually happen as they do today at present rates with present processes. This is the geological argument against catastrophism/biblical creationism. Now flip that upside down (or turn it inside out) and evolutionary theory says that just because we cannot observe something "evolving", it doesn't mean it didn't happen and that anything can evolve into anything given the right selection pressures, mutations, and the magical pixie dust of deep time. This is an odd mental splitting because what is actually observed is that catastrophies do happen in geological processes (ex. Mt. St. Helens, creating many rock layers in a short amount of time), and life is observed never evolving with the emergence of a new kind (baramin/family) - instead we just get the occasional new species/subspecies within an already existing created kind.

Click to expand...

You have demonstrated multiple times that you lack the knowledge necessary to judge scientific work. You critique geological science, and yet you cant even read a geologic map.

Your words are meaningless with respect to science.

It is one thing to critique science from a perspective based upon interpretation of scripture. But, its another to attempt to critique science, on scientific grounds, when you are unable to genuinely due that, due to a lack of understanding.

KomatiiteBIF said:

You have demonstrated multiple times that you lack the knowledge necessary to judge scientific work. You critique geological science, and yet you cant even read a geologic map.

Your words are meaningless with respect to science.

It is one thing to critique science from a perspective based upon interpretation of scripture. But, its another to attempt to critique science, on scientific grounds, when you are unable to genuinely due that, due to a lack of understanding.

Click to expand...

Broth KomatiiteBIF! Hope all is well friend. I do enjoy these debates, especially with you... so here we go:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please demonstrate using evidence from observation or recreation in a laboratory.... something beyond the usual conjecture and illustrated diagrams you use... something that actually aligns with the scientific method, that evolution (by evolution, I mean the creation of a new and distinct kind/baram/family of life) has ever actually occurred (beyond what God obviously did on days 3, 5, and 6 of creation)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In following your discussing with @dcalling in "Can an old earth be proven?" (and from my own experience) you've done a very good job of showing examples of speciation within a created kind (ex. Crown of thorns starfish among 'ordinary' starfish). You've also done an excellent job of describing some of the environmental forces/selection pressures that come into play as living organisms adapt to their environment. Your exhibits and illustrations are almost unparalleled in quality by others here that use visual aids in their responses. What I still haven't seen though is where you've provided evidence that would come from actual scientific observation, something beyond speculation and imagination (don't feel bad though, the famous Richard Dawkins has yet to do so either).

From one of your more recent posts (#401 of Can an old earth be proven?) to dcalling, you said:

"But you also need a basis for your proposition of limitations. You need evidence for such a thing. But as far as anyone is aware, there is no limitation preventing something like eukaryotic organisms evolving from something like a fish to a brachiosaurus. Sure it might take 300 million years, but time is no limitation when earth spans over 4 and a half billion years old."

To this, the proposition for limitations (not evolving outside of a created kind) is that what we see today is diversification of created kinds (not a new kind showing up). This is observable, scientific evidence. We have the E.Coli experiment where E.Coli adapted to being able to survive on citrate (though it remains E.Coli and genetically, activated existing DNA to do this... did not use new DNA that resulted from mutations + natural selection). This is observable, scientific evidence. In contrast you suggest fish become dinosaurs and might point to something like Tiktaalik as a your linchpin transitional form that makes this claim "irrefutable." But in reality, the idea that Tiktaalik, as a fish, was anything other than a fish is really just conjecture. Just because someone calls the fins of a lobe-finned fish "legs" doesn't make them legs. Trick question: If I call my arms legs, how many legs do I have? 2, just because I called my arms "legs," they're still arms. Further, we have living fossils today of "walking fish" (ex. mudskipper and blind cavefish to name a few)... guess they missed the evolutionary boat? No environmental selection pressures for them I suppose...

Further, some of these living fossils don't show up in the geologic column until what is conventionally dated to be 10's or even 100's of millions of years ago... guess that just goes to show that just because something isn't evident in a given geologic period doesn't mean that it didn't exist at that time. This has major implications for the entire geologic column and the conventional view of when life came to be and when/if it has gone extinct. Is there really any wonder why scientists have convinced only about half of the world that evolution is true and why those like myself who are of average intelligence still aren't convinced??

I'd say that people will unequivocally believe evolution is an absolute fact when pigs fly, but I think you'd just reply that we only need another "300 million years" and maybe pigs will fly. Ha ha! Alright, your turn.

"did not use new DNA that resulted from mutations + natural selection"

But the ecoli has changed, phenotypically and genotypically, as a result of mutations that have produced new DNA, ^ and it was observed.

Are you denying this?

The research is of directly observed beneficial mutations that increase fitness and their fixation through 66,000 generations. They are in fact using new DNA that has resulted from mutations and natural selection.

You really aren't in a place to critique anything geology or paleontology related, if you aren't knowledgeable of the subject. Not from a scientific stance at least. Your words really are meaningless.

Also, I am doing well, thanks. Hope you are as well.

KomatiiteBIF said:

"did not use new DNA that resulted from mutations + natural selection"

But the ecoli has changed, phenotypically and genotypically, as a result of mutations that have produced new DNA, ^ and it was observed.

Are you denying this?

The research is of directly observed beneficial mutations that increase fitness and their fixation through 66,000 generations. They are in fact using new DNA that has resulted from mutations and natural selection.

You really aren't in a place to critique anything geology or paleontology related, if you aren't knowledgeable of the subject. Not from a scientific stance at least. Your words really are meaningless.

Also, I am doing well, thanks. Hope you are as well.

Click to expand...

Hi KomatiiteBIF, I guess we are going to jump thread again

anyway, according to E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, other people were able to produce the citr+ e.coli in just 12 to 100 generations, meaning the ability is most likely one of the variations of e.coli, but in natural environments, the citr+ ability is likely causing more harm then good so they got selected out by natural selection. So in this sense @NobleMouse is correct, that this is just one of the existing permutation of the possible mutations of e.coli, nothing new.

dcalling said:

Hi KomatiiteBIF, I guess we are going to jump thread again

anyway, according to E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, other people were able to produce the citr+ e.coli in just 12 to 100 generations, meaning the ability is most likely one of the variations of e.coli, but in natural environments, the citr+ ability is likely causing more harm then good so they got selected out by natural selection. So in this sense @NobleMouse is correct, that this is just one of the existing permutation of the possible mutations of e.coli, nothing new.

Click to expand...

The research isn't all centered around one mutation. The above response is without meaning.

I don't think either of you has actually read the research to understand this, and neither of you appear to have any clue what you're talking about. I've asked you to read the research, multiple times, yet here we are.

And this is what I am talking about with noble mouse. Neither of you appear to be scientifically literate. Both of you are making this arguments, yet neither of you have actually read the research and you have no idea what you're talking about. Noble mouse also cant read geologic maps, and you know what, i doubt you can either. So whenever either of you starts talking about geology and paleontology, it never makes any sense, because neither of you understand the subject.

I don't mean to be offensive, but you two just don't understand the science you are arguing against.

to demonstrate, what do either of you see in the map below? Be descriptive.

KomatiiteBIF said:

"did not use new DNA that resulted from mutations + natural selection"

But the ecoli has changed, phenotypically and genotypically, as a result of mutations that have produced new DNA, ^ and it was observed.

Are you denying this?

Click to expand...

What you have stated regarding phenotype and genotype does not correlate to evolution of a new kind with new functional systems; however, evolution leading to new kinds with completely new functional systems is exactly what is required to evolve from a protozoa to a human (the broader assertion of the theory of evolution).

Exerpt:
"So, did Lenski’s bacteria evolve? Well, mutations did help them [E.Coli] use more citrate, but only by losing healthy regulation. Molecular biologist Michael Behe wrote,

This is evolution by degradation. All of the functional parts of the system were already in place before random mutation began to degrade them. Thus it is of no help to Darwinists, who require a mechanism that will construct new, functional systems."

Full Article:
Evolution's Top Example Topples

In other words, the mutation did not create new genetic information that was utilized, it actually disabled an existing function. So here's where proponents of evolution seem to stop: "E.Coli developed the ability to use more citrate." As you even said, which seems to affirm this way of thinking, "...directly observed beneficial mutations that increase fitness...". Let's stop here for a moment. These statements demonstrate a bias towards the evolutionary paradigm and are not statements of fact - they are a bias of opinion. As molecular biologist Michael Behe wrote (I quoted above), this is a loss of normal (or as he put it, "healthy") function. This would be like saying someone born with a defect where their nervous system does not function properly and prevents them from feeling any pain is "evolved" with an increase in fitness and that this is a beneficial mutation. It is neither; it is a loss of normal, healthy function and actually represents a danger to the person because now they can possibly injure themselves and not realize it immediately. But to the evolutionist, this kind of dysfunction is viewed as "beneficial", or "advantageous". In the same way here, a mutation did not create a new kind, but the mutation led to a dysfunction that resulted in the loss of ability to regulate within the E.Coli bacteria. This is not a new functional system, as is needed to go from a protozoa to being a human, a fish to a dinosaur, a dinosaur to a bird, etc... Instead, this is consistent with death and decay as the result of sin - a foundational doctrine of the Bible.

The research is of directly observed beneficial mutations that increase fitness and their fixation through 66,000 generations. They are in fact using new DNA that has resulted from mutations and natural selection.

Click to expand...

Again, loss of function is not the result of "using new DNA" - it is a loss of function due to mutated DNA - not beneficial. Also, as I stated before in post #57 (and numerous times before), the E.Coli is still E.Coli. This is not a new "kind", not a new "baramin", not a new "family" of a living organism. This is a variation of an existing E.Coli bacteria, not a wholesale new living organism - this is not an example of evolution of a new kind observed either in nature or observed/repeated in a laboratory. This is why not only creationist scientists, but also why some other scientists (and I do stress it is only some) have dissented from Darwinism, including some who are Atheists and have no religious agenda, and why despite all of the research and illustrations and arguments for evolutionary theory, that only about half of all people accept it. This is why I've said that evolution takes things like the E.Coli experiment and extends what is seen (loss of function in E.Coli) into supporting what is never seen (evolution of new created kinds) - it is "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information" - the very definition of conjecture.

You really aren't in a place to critique anything geology or paleontology related, if you aren't knowledgeable of the subject. Not from a scientific stance at least. Your words really are meaningless.

Click to expand...

I've not made anything up, these are true statements from discoveries made in recent decades and over the last 100 years. "Living fossils" really have been found for life that has been said to have gone extinct millions of years ago as conventionally dated by the fossil record within the geologic column. It is true. I generally provide support for any critique I have against science, these are not critiques I've thought of or invented in my own isolated mind... and I'm always happy to provide support upon request. As for evidence for living fossils, here are a few references:

Wollemia nobilis: A Living Fossil and Evolutionary Enigma
'Living Fossils' Point to Recent Creation
The Institute for Creation Research

AiG, Creation Ministries, and others have information on this topic as well as various secular sources - I'm sure this is not news to you.

I understand the strategy being employed here (and it is a good one): "if you don't have an advanced degree in a field of science you are talking about then please be quiet" as a debate tactic, but here in Christian Forums, anyone is more than free to believe the biblical account of creation and is more than free to support this position both scripturally as well as pointing out the deficiencies of scientific assumptions and the unsupported biases that try to negate the word of God. Do not go on believing that spreading assertions that go against the word of God will go unchallenged here in this forum. Having said that, you and others here are equally free to believe evolution is true and it is my opinion that this does not make you or anyone else less of a Christian because you do. We just have different views on origins and my critique is never of you brother, but of the assertions and assumptions themselves.

As we've all heard before, Christianity is not a blind faith. There is evidence of a creator, there is evidence for the person of Jesus Christ (both from Christian and non-Christian sources), eye witness accounts of the miracles He performed as well as His death, burial, and resurrection. The observable evidence is that life does diversify, but does not evolve into new created kinds. Conversely evolution requires a larger degree of faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). For evolution and the wholesale creation of a new kind, this has never been observed, but yet some are convicted it is still true. Evolution is a blind faith.