We are all a little bit stupider for having read this.

You are a little bit stupider for making that comment

Name calling and insults do nothing to advance an idea.

You can't date a rock or a fossil with carbon-14 dating. And that's the high point of this stream of nonsense. The DERP, it burns.

For theot58: I am jumping in late here (must be due to the time zone difference).

For
an actual understanding of how science works (I am not devoloving into
name calling here, I am simply assuming you have a lack of
understanding), I would recommend Richard Dawkins's new book for teens,
"The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True."

Science
did not evolve because of the church, it evolved -despite- the church.
There is a reason they call them the Dark Ages. It was in the
Reconquista in Spain when Castille captured the science and philosophy
books of the Ottomans that science got started in Christian Europe.

Newtonwas
a member of the church because the church still controlled scientists
in his day. According to the Church of England, the goal of Natural
Theology was for science to prove and support the existence of God. It
was not until Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" (yes, the same Paine that
wrote "Common Sense" that helped kick off the US revolution -see, Paine
was an atheist, and jailed for it in France), and Darwin's "On the
Origins of Species" did science in the West finally throw off the
shackles of religion that allowed science and technology to flourish.

When
a plague of smallpox broke out in Boston, it was Cotton Mather (the
same fellow from the Salem Witch Trials) who hit the science books of
the Ottoman Empire to find a way to stop the epidemic, not the Bible,
thus introducing inoculation in Massachusetts (with the help of
physicians, the Congregational Church ministers did everything they
could to stop it).

Even
if someone could oust the Theory of Evolution entirely, show all of it
to be inadequate to explain the extant evidence (and thus collect the
Nobel Prize, and major theories have been overthrown before, always by
science coming to a new understanding, never by religion, which never
changes), that does not mean "God dunnit." You get to hold your claim up
as true when you can support it with evidence, and account for all of
it.

Evolution by natural selection is far past the day of Darwin
today. There are so many interlocking sciences that provide
collaborative proof that evolution is a fact: even without Darwin's
seminal book, without his theories (and those that came before him),
evolutionary theory stands on its own. Much like the Theory of Gravity
(you do believe that is true)?

And the argument I have read so
many times before, and even with only a high school education I can only facepalm over it, "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" dies with the counter "If the United States of America evolved from England, why is there still an England?"

Fundamentalist evolutionists? A fundamentalist is a person who "sticks to the fundamentals, unchanging," such as religions. Evolutionary theory continually changes and evolves (as more evidence is gathered and understood). It in no way can be a fundamentalist dogma, any more than any other scientific theory.

Macro/micro evolution, as you alluded to, shows you have a lack of understanding of evolution. There are no such things, there is only evolution, on a continuum. With my
paltry education I can understand that. Faith is belief without proof. It is the province of religion, not evolutionary science.

Thanks Chris for cluing us in regarding your god's intentions. I'm sure your god couldn't live without you. Evolution is to creationism as gravity is to levitation.

Theot58 - I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure, like me, you're a good person who take joy in your daily life from the same things I do: friends, family, a job well done, images of beauty, etc. So we have much more in common than we have differences. But on the question of whether current life on Earth evolved from earlier life, or was magically created by the Hand of God we differ. On your side you have a fairly recent interpretation of the ancient stories of a wandering desert tribe, widely believed by many people. On my side I have observation, physical evidence, and 99.9% of relevant scientists. You've listed "scientists" who disagree with pure naturalism - Kenyon, Wells - but even they (1) don't disagree that species evolve and (2) belong to the same political lobbyist think tank as pretty much every other "scientist" who has written a book questioning evolution in the past 15 years.

So here's the thing from my perspective. Out of an overwhelming field of evidence and example, you are carefully selecting (and apparently really believing) a minuscule set of radical, ideologically-motivated voices and shutting out all others. Let me give you an analogy: if out of all the Christians I know in my life and see in public, I could decide that Charles Manson most exemplifies Christianity. I would be joining a very tight-knit, highly convinced set of fellow believers who are certain Manson is Christ reborn. I could really convince myself that Manson is the walking example of where Christianity leads. And I could use my belief to ignore all those other examples in the world.

If I did that I would certainly be strongly defending my particular ideology. But would I be honest? Would I be seeing an honest man in the mirror?

I think it is more important to be honest, to be accurate, to align with what is factually correct than it is to support a particular interpretation or a particular ideology. In other words, if I'm wrong about a topic, no matter how strongly I feel about it, I hope I have the strength of character to let the facts change my mind.

My question to you is: are we different in that regard, or do we share that hope as well?

Rick_K, I have just read your comment and thought I had replied.

My response:

1) The issue is one of truth
- It is obviously more comforting being on the side of many, but truth is not a popularity contest.
- Truth is not negotiable

2) What is the real issue?

- The definition of "Evolution" is vague, and changing.

- It can be clarified by the question: Who was your great...... great grandfather? was it a self replicating molecule (as evolution asserts) or was it Adam as Christians believe?

3) What does the scientific evidence really say?
- The observable evidence has been INTERPRETED by evolutionists to support the evolution myth; however my analyisis of their interpretations leads to me to conclude that they are incorrect.

- There interpretation is not based on scientific considerations but on philosophical ones. Evolution is the key doctrine of atheism.

- The key evolutionary assertion that systems natually go from simple to complex is fundamentally flawed - we do not observe this. We observe things going the other way. Things run down, fall apart, die. If I don't maintain my garden it does not get more ordered, rather it degenerates.

- The scientific evidence CONDEMNS Darwinian/macro evolution.

4) Thomas Nagel
Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recognizes that Darwinism is not true. In his book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False " he said

“.. for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works.

The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. …

It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response not in favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples”
(pp. 5-6).

“My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative.

It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life. … I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science” (p. 7).

" It can be clarified by the question: Who was your great...... great grandfather? was it a self replicating molecule (as evolution asserts) or was it Adam as Christians believe?"

The Bible is poetry, not journalism. The Bible has nothing to do with the science of evolution, just as the Bhagavad Gita has nothing to do with evolution, and the Pyramid Texts have nothing to do with evolution and the Diamond Sutra has nothing to do with evolution. Introducing Adam and Eve into a discussion about evolution makes as much sense as introducing Moses into a discussion about quantum gravity. This isn't about Bronze Age campfire stories that earlier humans used to explain things they didn't understand. This is about accepting facts and embracing a reality that we DO understand much better than the ancient creators of the campfire stories.

For you to deny that current species evolved from earlier species, you must first UNDERSTAND and then systematically dismiss evidence found in patterns of morphology, co-evolved relationships, convergent evolution, observed speciation, Lenski experiments, shared DNA, inherited ERV markers, molecular biology, vestigial traits, atavisms, genetic mutation, embryology, the fossil record, paleontology, archaeology, transitional species predictions, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence dating, ice core dating, biostratiography, archaeogenetics, biogeography, plate tectonics, geology, chemistry, and physics.

If you can just brush all that away as meaningless, then you are much better than I am at filtering out reality and seeing only what you wish to see. That's not a skill that I value, so you will always be better at it than I.

"The scientific evidence CONDEMNS Darwinian/macro evolution."

Keep at it tard boy. Maybe your sucker friend will write more comments for you to ignore.

Thanks for the encouragement Human Ape; I will do as you suggest.

Can I suggest you watch a few debates about evolution and actually scrutinize the so called "moutnains of evidence". Or are you happy to just blindly believe what you have been told?

Try this link as a start http://www.fishdontwalk.com/

HumanApe - do you think your insulting, intensely emotional approach actually convinces anybody? Are you convinced by the guy who yells at you the loudest or insults you the most? Do you ever ask yourself this: do you participate in these debates because you want to support your argument and convince others that you're right and they're wrong, or are you just here to express rage anonymously that you are unable to deal with in your daily life?

Rick-k, you must be incredibly naive if you think your idiot friend actually read your comments. His goal was to waste your time and you accommodated him. The only thing you accomplished was letting a moron get away with wasting your time.

Wimpy suck-ups like you disgust me. But do you what you want, just don't expect me to imitate your wimpiness.

Rick_K, have you done any convincing after wasting an enormous amount of time with your patience? I didn't think so. Stupid can't be fixed and I refuse to suck up to it. You have your methods and I have mine. I don't tell you what to do and in return you can have the decency to not boss me around.

Did you actually use the word "debate"? Do you think there's some debate about reality? You should know better. You are not debating anyone. You are trying to teach. You are trying to teach somebody more stupid than a dog. You don't debate dogs, do you? So why would you debate a science denier? You must enjoy being a sucker.

On the contrary, the first chapter of Genesis MUST be taken literally.
All of God's Word must be taken literally. It's mankind's refusal to
learn and understand that is the problem.

The only correct
rendition of Genesis is the "Observations of Moses". Everything else is
false and foolish doctrine, which misrepresents the Genesis text.
Foolish mankind has refused to take to time to learn the truth for the
past 19 years. They'd rather crack jokes.

Herman Cummings

ephraim7@aol.com

If life did not evolve from a small number of cells, please explain how the organization of homeoboxes came about and why complex organisms have psuedogenes. If you can not do that, perhaps you should temper your statements on science.

Excellent article - totally agree with the key assertion that Darwinian/Macro evolution is based on FAITH not scientific evidence.

The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion - this is baloney!
The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.

The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great .... Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?

Ah, thank you for the lesson in what is and is not science. There are a large number of astronomers, geologists, climatologists, epidemiologists and others that will be glad to know that you don't consider them scientists because their theories can't be repeated in a lab.

All those crime scene investigators will also be glad to know that the DNA they rely upon is useless. After all, DNA tells us that macroevolution is truth.

(sarcasm off)

Your idea of "repeatable" in the scientific method is mistaken. Testing a theory can be "repeatable" by testing it against new evidence - but that evidence can be observations of nature. Science is NOT limited to the evidence a researcher can cook up in a lab.

You share ancestry with all life on Earth. This is not "dogma", this is not revealed wisdom from some ancient scroll. This is the result of thousands of scientists looking at millions of pieces of data. And what's more - most of those scientists were and are religious. They can handle the truth - so should you.

Macroevolution (evolution of species, common descent) is fact. However much you hate it, however much you deny it, however much you cling to the tales from humanity's childhood, we are the product of evolution from earlier species.

Your statment: "You share ancestry with all life on Earth. This is not "dogma", " IS DOGMA.

It is faith disguised as science, just because you say it does NOT make it so.

Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits” 03 February 2010

“Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.

The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered.

Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin's theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object.

The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
Scientific evidence should be the core issue in scientific controversies like Macro evolution.

Do a youtube search for "Persuaded by the Evidence" and consider the experience of 6 scientists which where once Evolutionists but became skeptics because of the evidence they saw in their respective fields.

Mindlessly repeating the mantra that their is "mountains of evidence proving evolution" does not make it so.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said .

“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,

you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.” /S: Kansas school board hearings

Against your youtube, I offer the shared genome and DNA of all known life on Earth.

Against your single creationist botanist (Sanford) I offer the biology departments of every accredited university in the United States.

Against the Kansas schoolboard hearings (where scientists didn't even show up because they thought it was too absurd) I offer the overwhelming, crushing defeat of the school board in Dover PA when the scientists DID show up.

Against your religiously-based denial I offer the evidence found in patterns of morphology, co-evolved relationships, convergent evolution, observed speciation, Lenski experiments, shared DNA, inherited ERV markers, molecular biology, vestigial traits, atavisms, genetic mutation, embryology, the fossil record, paleontology, archaeology, transitional species predictions, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence dating, ice core dating, biostratiography, archaeogenetics, biogeography, plate tectonics, geology, chemistry, and physics.

Against your "misspellings" I offer gene duplication and divergence - google it.

Every mystery ever solved turned out to be NOT magic. Every century has its battle over some natural phenomena - is the cause natural or the direct hand of god. Naturalism has won every such debate for 1000 years and never lost once.

Cherrypicking crackpot quotes is not how truth is found.

Rick-K, thanks for the best list of evidences for evolution I have ever seen. I'm especially interested in inherited ERV markers which is better than finding a smoking gun after a murder. I bet the science denying idiots Hollins and theot58 don't know anything about it.

Hey Hollins and theot58, since you uneducated morons know nothing about biology or any other branch of science why don't you shut the **** up.

1) Interpetations is not proof

The evidence you suggest (morphololgy, etc) are all INTERPRETATIONS and in no way prove that our great .... great grandfather was a self replicating molecule

2) Kansas school board hearings

- The evolutionists were too scared to come under scrutinity, that is why they did not come

- If their evidence is as strong as you say it is, why did they not come and clow the others out fo the water.

3) Mispelling do not create information

- Your brazen assertions about gene duplication etc is nothing but bluster.
- it is easy to damage the DNA but is really tough to effect improvement
- The evolutionary assumption that undirected nature will go from simplicity to complexity - is stupid as. No amount of rhetoric and scientific gibberish will overcome this.
4) Richard Lenski has disproved evolution
- He has tried to replicate Darwinian/Macro evolution using bactaria BUT HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CREATE NEW BODY PART
- After millions of generations THE BACTARIA IS A STILL A BACTERIA
You are talking rubbish.

Oh my goodness, you're getting very heated about this.

Well, let's look at your assertions.

1) Your dismissal of the consensus of thousands of scientists certainly takes chutzpah, but is proof of nothing. However, we use DNA every day to PROVE critically important things in our lives: the relationship between parent and child, the guilt or innocence of a defendant, the identity of human remains. And it is this same DNA that proves your relationship to African chimpanzees, to Central American agouti, to Pacific salmon, and to all other life on Earth. If by "interpretation" you mean the mathematical certainty found in DNA analysis, then you're right. There is no room for any interpretation other than the fact that you and those chimpanzees share common ancestors.

2) Re the Kansas school board hearings - it is public record that the scientific community intentionally boycotted the hearings to avoid giving them legitimacy. A bunch of school board members together with a few representatives from a hyper-conservative creationist think tank lack legitimacy without the scientists in the room. Again, it is public record.

After the Kansas decision, the scientific community realized that the "Intelligent Design" phase of Christian creationism was getting too much air play. So when the Dover, PA trial came up, the scientists showed up and embarrassed the creationists in one of the most one-sided displays of truth versus fiction ever seen in American courts. The debate was so one-sided it was often humorous. That too is a matter of public record.

3) There's nothing "brazen" of my stating what every geneticist studies in school. Genetic information is increased through several means, the most important being gene duplication and divergence. I told you to google it, and I repeat it. The information is available on line and in textbooks.

If you care about truth, you'll follow the evidence. If you care only about the position you've staked, then you'll avoid evidence, but you won't find truth that way.

4) Richard Lenski demonstrated, in a lab, in that repeatable scientific way you so admire, that evolution through random variation and natural selection works. Those factors: random variation and natural selection, caused a species to change its shape, size, metabolism and primary food source in a dramatic display of evolution in action. And all of this happened in only about 30,000 generations.

Oh, and your assertion about "millions" of generations is (to use your word) rubbish. The E coli only reproduce about 2500 generations/year.

Why do you care so little about the actual truth? If you sat on a trial jury, would you determine guilt or innocence based on the religious faith of the defendant, or would you look at the actual evidence? How can you treat facts with such contempt and still convince yourself that you see an honest man in the mirror?

Theot58, I just came across something interesting. Please google "Powell Science Pie Chart". That chart is for global warming. A similar chart for evolution would show a black area 10 times larger and an even smaller red portion. I'm speaking for the portion in black. You're doggedly defending the area in red. Why are you so very resistant to the truth?

The science of the Sun has moved on, it's not Helios driving a chariot.

The science of the stars has moved on, they're not on crystal spheres.

The science of volcanoes has moved in, it's not the god Pele in a bad mood.

The science of lightning has moved on, it's not Zeus on a bad day.

The science of disease has moved on, it's not an imbalance of humours or a magical curse.

The science of schizophrenia has moved on, it's not demonic possession.

Human origins are the result of evolution, not Genesis.

It's time for you to move on.

I am starting to like you Rick_K, you seem to be serious about pursuing the truth - i think we have that in common.

My response:

1) Genetics

- My understanding of genetics is limited so I must refer to the experts

- Your arguemnt about DNA matching etc is an interesting phenomenon, but what does it really prove? Does it prove that our great.... great grandfather was a self replicating molecule? - I don't think so

- The DNA molecule has gigabytes of information. 2 negative mutation is all that is required to kill the organism, and you are asserting that the DNA molecule was formed by purely natural undirected, random fornces - are you for real?

-Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said .

“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
Go to attached link for a 10 min audio interview with Dr Ben Carson.

He is a world famous neuro surgeon and created much controversy recently when he expressed his rejection of Darwinian evolution.

I commend the link to you;

http://intelligentdesign.po...
2) Richard Lenski
- I stand by my statements
- He has tried for years to replicate Darwinian/Macro evolution
- He had tried to get a bacteria to replicate the path that Evolutionists have been claiming for years.
- After years of trials and thousands of generations the BACTERIAS IS STILL A BACTERIA
- Macro evolution is BELIEVED not observed
3) EVOLUTION IN ACADEMIA
- Evolution is a popular theory due to the propaganda and deception which is being perpertrated on the population, not because of the science
For too long the Evolutionists have been harassing and intimidating anyone who questioned the Evolution myth. There are many cases where people have been bullied and harassed for no other reason than because they questioned Evolution. (See Expelled - No intelligence allowed, or the Kansas School Board - Evolution hearings for documentation). Questioning/scrutinizing is a key tennant of the scientific method, it should be encouraged not punished.

Look forward to your response

theot58 wrote "I am starting to like you Rick_K, you seem to be serious about pursuing the truth - i think we have that in common."

You idiot, you're only interested in wasting people's time. You don't want to learn anything, probably because you're too stupid to understand.

Tard boy, if you really were interested in pursuing the truth you would read a book about evolution written by a real biologist. Why Evolution is True by University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne would be a good place to start. You won't do that because you want to be a willfully ignorant cowardly idiot.

I thank Rick_K for his patience because at least I am learning something from his comments. Mr. tard boy (theot58) isn't learning anything because stupid can't be fixed.

By the way idiot, biologists are called "biologists". When you call them evolutionists every educated person knows you're a god-soaked coward who knows nothing about evolution.

Incredibly you invoke the idiot move Expelled. Do you think normal people are going to waste their time watching people almost as stupid as you are?

Your stupidity burns. The world becomes a better place whenever one of you tards drops dead.

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

1) You said: "Your arguemnt about DNA matching etc is an interesting phenomenon, but what does it really prove? "

It proves relationships. It proves who is a blood relative of who, and how closely they are related. If you are so quick to dismiss DNA, then my friend

THROW OPEN THE PRISON DOORS

If God can magically poof DNA into existence in millions of species that just "looks" like it supports common descent, then God can certainly magic up small amounts for the occasional crime scene. If you dismiss what DNA tells you about evolution, then you can dismiss all DNA evidence in criminal trials.

Stop ideological cherrypicking. You're just avoiding the truth rather than facing it and dealing with it.

Oh, and stop quoting Sanford. You find one guy with a genetics background who co-authored ONE paper that says something you agree with, and you ignore 100,000+ papers that support evolution.

There's that dishonest cherrypicking again. Stop it.

2) LOL! You said it "is still a bacteria". But that's like saying "it's still a mammal". Lenski's experiment demonstrates evolution through random variation and natural selection and that's undeniable.

3) Utter baloney. Science reserves its highest rewards for those who are able to overturn the current paradigm. Over and over you've seen prizes awarded to the scientists whose data proves the consensus wrong. Just think for a moment the rewards that would come to the scientist who proved divine intervention in human origins, who proved "intelligent design". There's BILLIONS of dollars available from the 90% of the God-believing world for the person that can do that.

But they must first clear the hurdle of evidence and proof. You don't get a free pass. And this is where they fail. Why? Because species evolve.

I know it's hard to face that truth, but to see an honest man in the mirror you're going to have to do it some day. So why not start now? Stop your cherrypicking, stop claiming ignorance of DNA and other evidence, and just learn it.

Rick - I applaud your effort in bringing concise facts to the table, but this is the cesspool of the far right - TWT - where outlandish conspiracy theories and religious zealotry is the only accepted form of commentary. Don't bother trying to educate these inbreds because it won't work; just come here for the laughs like the rest of us.

I am investigating your first point about DNA proving relationships and will withhold comment.
As for you other points they are utter baloney.
Regarding point 3:
Go to youtube and search for:
Dean Kenyan
or Kansas Evolution heartings
or watch Expelled No intelligence allowed to see what happens to scientists who challenge the Evolution myth.
Evolution is a religion which is being jealously guarded by its priests, no dissent is allowed regardless of the evidence.
What ever happened to academic freedom.

"Kansas Evolution heartings"

You bloody idiot. Didn't you read what Mr. Rick-K already wrote about your Kansas hearings? It's obvious you're proud of your stupidity and it's obvious you're only interested in wasting people's time. You're a typical Christian ***hole. Drop dead you stupid piece of scum.

The ***hole for Jeebus calls the strongest fact of science a myth. The drooling moron probably believes in a magical heaven and who knows what other supernatural fantasies he believes. But he has the nerve to call the foundation of biology a myth.

Extraordinary stupidity.

"Evolution is a religion"

Your stupidity is burning out of control. Evolution equals biology. You are calling an entire branch of science a religion.

There is only one possible cure for your disease: several kicks into your tiny head to knock some sense into you.

I also forgot to mention that:
- I have gone through Darwins book "on the Origin of Species" (twice). It was boring as batshit but I perservered. I was looking for the "mountains of evidence" I am contually told about. But alas, it was not there either
- I have read through the NAS booklets on Evolution
- I have read through countless articles
- I have listened to dozens of debates
And you call me ignorant. Perhaps you are the ignorant one!
Just because I disagree does not make me ignorant; it just makes be bold enough to say APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD FULLY.

Human Ape, you need to calm down before you have heart attack.
Let us disagree honorably.
I will go through Jerry Coyne book if you go through "Icons of Evolution " by Jonathan Wells.
Is it a deal?

theot58, I should read a book by one of your favorite crackpots to get you to grow up and study real science? Why should I care what you do? Even if you did read Coyne's book you're too ****ing stupid to be able to understand it.

**** off. You disgrace the entire human race.

Does that mean your answer is no, you will not read Icons of Evolution?

What about watching to some debates on Youtube?

Scientific evidence should be the core issue in scientific controversies like Macro evolution.

Do a youtube search for "Persuaded by the Evidence" and consider the experience of 6 scientists which where once Evolutionists but became sceptics because of the evidence they saw in their respective fields.

Mindlessly repeating the mantra that their is "mountains of evidence proving evolution" does not make it so.

Sorry for being away - see my post in the main thread.