Fact Check: Did Bill Nye Tell A Huge Lie About The Fossil Layers?

Share on Facebook4.8kTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest9Share on Google+0Share on StumbleUpon22Print this pageEmail this to someone

Ken Ham Bill Nye Debate

Did you get a chance to see the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye “the Science Guy” the other night?  It was definitely entertaining.  Unfortunately, it didn’t do much to clarify the issues that millions of Americans tuned in to learn more about.  In fact, viewers got a lot of information from Bill Nye that simply is not true.  For example, Bill Nye made it sound like science has discovered fossil layers all over the earth that are neatly stacked on top of one another with less evolved creatures in the earlier layers and more advanced creatures in the upper layers.  He also made the incredible claim that you cannot find a single fossil which is in the wrong layer.  This is such an elementary mistake, and exhibits such a complete ignorance of what the fossil record actually shows, that he should have been laughed off the stage.  This is exactly the kind of extreme anti-intellectualism that Nye was supposedly trying to warn people about.  Sadly, our society has been so “dumbed down” that there are lots of people out there that will actually believe him.

During the debate, Bill Nye said that if we could find “just one” fossil that was out of place that we could change the world.

Well, apparently he is either completely ignorant or he purposely told a huge lie to the American people.

According to Dr. Donald Burge, the curator of vertebrate paleontology at the College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum, mammal fossils are found in nearly every dinosaur dig that he has ever been associated with…

“We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”

By the way, Dr. Burge is an evolutionist.

Not only that, a whole host of modern creatures have been found in “dinosaur rock layers”.  The following is an excerpt from an article by Calvin Smith

To the surprise of many, ducks,1 squirrels,2 platypus,3 beaver-like4 and badger-like5 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rex walking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!

In fact, a total of 432 different mammal species have been identified in rock layers containing dinosaurs.

So does that mean that mammals have been around for tens of millions of years?

No, what it could mean is that the way that evolutionists have been dating the dinosaurs is fundamentally flawed.

Most people do not realize this, but T-Rex bones have actually been discovered that still contain soft tissue inside of them.

If those bones truly were “millions of years old” that would be impossible.

And carbon dating also provides strong evidence that the evolutionary timeline is seriously messed up.

Due to the rate that it decays, there should be absolutely no measurable radioactive carbon left in any fossils that are “greater than 100,000 years old”.

But we find it in all of the ancient fossils that we dig up that get tested.  We even find it in coal, natural gas, diamonds and in dinosaur bones.

If Bill Nye wants to believe in the theory of evolution that is his choice.  But he should quit calling it “science”.  Those that choose to believe in the theory of evolution are choosing to have blind faith in an ancient pagan religious philosophy despite what the scientific evidence actually demonstrates.

If the theory of evolution was actually true, there should be millions upon millions of transitional fossils in the rock layers that show the development of one species into another species.

Instead, we find just the opposite.

But don’t take my word for it.  Just check out what one of the most famous evolutionists in the entire world has to say about the matter

The most famous paleontologist in the world, Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould, said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” (Note” “extreme rarity” is Harvard-speak for “nada, zilch, zippo.”)

So what does the fossil record actually show?

It actually contains remarkable evidence for a sudden creation.  The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Bryan Fischer

What the fossil record teaches us, in contrast to the theory of evolution, is that increasingly complex life forms appear fully formed in the fossil record, just as if they were put there by a Creator. This is especially true of what is called the “Pre-Cambrian Explosion,” the vast, overwhelming, and quite sudden appearance of complex life forms at the dawn of time. Evolutionists are at a total loss to explain the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.

The biblical record indicates quite clearly that all things, including increasingly complex life forms, came fully formed from the hand of God.

Thus the fossil record is a powerful argument for the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer while at the same time being fatal for the theory of evolution.

Science is supposed to be about what you can observe, but nobody has ever seen Darwinian evolution take place.  You cannot see it in the fossil record and you cannot see it in the laboratory.

Just consider this quote from evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago

“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

And consider this one from University of Bristol scientist Alan Linton

“Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.”

For much more on all of this, please see my previous article entitled “44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults“.

Once again, please feel free to believe whatever you want to believe.  Bill Nye certainly does and Pat Robertson certainly does.  I definitely strongly disagree with both of them.

But I hope that everyone out there will quit claiming that evolution is a “proven fact” like Bill Nye has been claiming.

He is only embarrassing himself in front of the entire country.

And the truth is that Bill Nye even admits that there is a vast array of things about human origins that he does not know.  Here is more from Bryan Fischer

Where did the atoms that made up the Big Bang come from? Nye has no idea. Where did man’s consciousness come from? Nye has no idea. How can matter produce life? Nye has absolutely no idea. This surely is all one needs to know to recognize the utter bankruptcy of the theory of evolution.

In the end, by making a ridiculous spectacle of himself and mocking Christianity, Bill Nye is actually fulfilling Bible prophecy.  The following was written nearly 2000 years ago…

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Bill Nye can scoff at the Bible all that he wants, but he can never change the truth.

So what do you think about all of these things?  Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…

*About the author: Michael Snyder is the founder and publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog and End Of The American Dream. Michael’s shocking new book about the last days entitled “The Rapture Verdict” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com. It is shaking the world of Bible prophecy to the core, and it is being called one of the most controversial Christian books of 2016.  If you would like to check it out, you can find it right here.*

The Beginning Of The End - The New Novel About The Future Of America By Michael T. Snyder
Share on Facebook4.8kTweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest9Share on Google+0Share on StumbleUpon22Print this pageEmail this to someone
  • DJohn1

    I think the biological code in our cells is so complicated that it is virtually impossible to have formed on this planet in a random sequence of events.
    I think that that same code if manipulated in things like chickens can produce scales like a reptile instead of feathers. The code by which these things reproduce is also a thing that could not occur naturally. It is biology but it is a chemical code that reproduces itself in an almost random manner so that each human being produced is different from every other human being. It is almost like every conception is a shuffle of a deck of cards and each of us is dealt a different genetic hand.
    How old is the Earth? When did life first occur on this planet? According to Genesis, we are dealing with a series of invasions as each form of life took its place. Eventually after 6 unknown lengths of time the entire ecology of the planet came about. That is generally called terraforming. Terra Forming is a plan to turn a planet into an Earth similar to the one we have. The term “day” is a mistranslation. Age or Eon might be a closer translation in the English language of what was described.
    What was described? The formation of the Heavens and the Earth is what I think was described. What was described was also the beginning of time as we know it.
    Science cannot explain it. Right now our observations of the Universe say that it is incredibly big and very old. Anything else is still being discovered.
    Scientists think(guess) that the current version of the Universe is 15 billion years old give or take. They think it started with a super dense object called a singularity.
    Right now we live in something called the Milky Way Galaxy. It contains an unknown number of stars. They are still counting. It probably has an enormous number. Now just to make things interesting, there are currently billions of galaxies out there.
    Again they are guessing. Part of the guess is somewhere out there is the edge of the universe. They are now saying that edge is at least 100,000 billion light years edge to edge and I think that number is way low. So if the universe is 100,000 billion light years across, and the universe is only 15 billion years old, something does not add up. The only way that could happen is if the universe exploded into being and traveled much faster than the speed of light. By Einstein physics that should not even be possible. The universal speed of the universe is the speed of light according to the physics department.
    What is more, the same physics department and astronomy state that the universe is expanding at a rapid speed.
    So either time and space have stretched in the past and all these objects stretched relative to one another or all these stars blew out there at extraordinary speeds.
    I know the numbers are wrong. But the numbers are so enormous as to be almost beyond our ability to conceive of just how enormous things are. And the numbers put out by the scientists are constantly changing upwards as we discover more and more about the place we live in and its relationship to the Universe. And that Universe is very big.
    What is more there is an enormous number of stars with planets around them. How they are able to figure that out is beyond me. But I concede that it is very possible.
    That means that just by the enormous numbers involved that life possibly exists elsewhere in the universe besides the Earth. I think Jesus said something about it when he talked about his Father’s house(the universe) having many mansions in it.(Planets? containing life similar to our own?)
    How old is the Universe? I don’t know. I do know that the God I worship claims to be the Alpha and Omega. That God has been here at the beginning of time and will also still exist at the end of time. To conceive of an intelligence that enormous is also beyond most of our imaginations.
    So for the entire thing to be created in an instance is not really beyond what science has already discovered about the space and time we perceive.
    Science still doesn’t know everything and is still seeking to learn all about it.
    Now if we can learn to live with each other maybe we might learn enough to change things for the better. Without a whole lot of help from God and his agents, I doubt seriously if the Human Species will survive long enough to be come a problem. We will most likely ruin the planet and destroy ourselves and most of the life on this planet with it.
    True scientists realize how little we really do know about everything out there. It is humbling to know just how small we are in the way things are.
    If we survive the technology we do have, then this planet has the capability of being a lot better than it has ever been in the past. We are children running crazy with weapons we should not be messing with at all.
    Personally I want God back here ruling this place and us. Like all children we need help as we grow up. And God is just the parent we need to do it.
    Right now I feel we are being left much to our own devices and left to develop our own destinies. The truth is we are lost without guidance from an older and much more mature intelligence. That intelligence created the entire universe.
    Science is discovering the truth eventually. Evolution is not that truth. The discovery of the chemical patterns called genetics and DNA is much closer to the truth. Eventually we may even discover how to conquer most of the miserable diseases that plague mankind on this planet. We may even discover how to lengthen the lifespans of most of us beyond 120 years.
    The trick is going to be bringing our understanding of everything into line with our creator. Because about 90% of the religions on this planet do not have the truth of what really happened. Neither do they have a good concept of the true God of Creation.

    • blackciti_fo5

      Amen! Wow this was good.

    • Edward

      Many things are complicated when we don’t understand them. To believe it is so complicated that only the “God must have done it since it is so complicated” explanation is no explanation at all, merely a cop out. All you can really say is “I don’t understand.”

    • alfalfa31

      That is the most nonsensical thing I’ve ever read. 90% of all religions are exactly like the other 10%. They’re all nonsense, and your version of special pleading doesn’t make your version of god any more valid than the rest of the gods which have come and gone throughout history.

      • Collin

        Evolution IS a Religion ! You BELIEVE you evolved -Cant prove it ! can you understand that is what a religion IS or are you to brainwashed !

        • alfalfa31

          Evolution is not a religion. It’s a scientific theory. People who try as try might to overcome the abject lack of scientific literacy (such as what is encountered in places like this) constantly have to hear this nonsense argument, so let me put this as gently as possible. If evolution is a religion, so is gravitation. Since you would never call gravitation a religion, you’re proving your scientific illiteracy by calling evolution a religion. There is such a vast amount of data and evidence in support of evolution that you people simply won’t look at, that this discussion is like arguing with a coffee table.

          If you refuse to look at the evidence, kindly shut up about it. You know nothing but speak from a position of authority. You, and all those like you, are like a 3 year-old insisting that rain is god’s tears. Your ignorance shines through every word you say and it’s tiresome.

          • Collin

            NO bonehead ! Gravity we KNOW exists WE can prove it ! you really are brainwashed !

          • alfalfa31

            We also know (and with a higher degree of certainty) that evolution occurs, and resulted in modern life. Your inability to understand this doesn’t make it false. Again, though, I must re-direct you to 1 Peter 3:15-18. If you believe your book, why not start acting like you do instead of flinging baseless
            personal insults.

          • Collin

            Micro evolution does macro does not ! Micro is minor adaptations not changing from a dog to a horse !

          • alfalfa31

            There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. Those are made up terms with no scientific meaning. Creationists made them up when they had to concede that evolution occurs. Also, dogs don’t become horses. Again, you are demonstrating your scientific illiteracy.

          • Collin

            You said it ! dogs don’t become horses MABY you can learn the truth ! just like organisms don’t become monkeys and monkeys don’t become MAN !

          • alfalfa31

            You’re so far down the road of ignorance, I think you might be lost.

          • alfalfa31

            You’re right, but you’re right for the wrong reasons. No one says monkeys become man except misguided and scientifically illiterate creationists. No one says dogs become horses, ducks become crocodiles (or crocoducks) or any of the other nonsensical and purposeful straw man arguments your kind like to use. Every time you make statements like that, you’re proving your scientific illiteracy, and basing it in personal incredulity.

          • Michael

            I do not really understand why you keep referring to these verses in the Bible they have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

          • alfalfa31

            Michael, the verses I’m posting are the ones that tell you to behave like a civil human being and not resort to name calling when someone challenges your beliefs. Read back a little and you’ll see why I posted that reference. If Collin can’t be bothered to follow his own book, he may as well not claim to have read it.

          • Collin

            Evolution IS a fairy tale!

          • alfalfa31

            No, evolution is one of the most prolifically proven theories in all of science. You simply refuse to look at the evidence.

          • Collin

            What a bonehead ! listen to yourself ! If it was proven it would no longer be a theory -NUMBSKULL !

          • alfalfa31

            You clearly have no idea what the word theory means, so let me spell it out for you.

            “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

            Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.” — National Academy of Sciences

    • SupahSang

      Are you seriously pulling out the “too complex” argument again?…. *sigh*

      Imagine having a stack of magnets, and shuffling them in a bag. they’ll never stack, cuz the likelihood is too small. Now, take one, move it around above the others, and slowly watch the stack grow. THAT’S increasing complexity of DNA.

      School yourself you idiot.

      • DJohn1

        I was schooled to ask questions like: How, Why, What, Where, Who, When. That is how reporting works. To acquire facts you have to ask those questions.
        What we are talking about is a system of four chemicals in some very complex combinations. That at least is what the genetics people talk about. I get most of my information because I read quite a bit. I would love to know what books you are reading.
        We are all learning. I am willing to learn from other people. Are you?
        One thing I have learned is to at least be civil about it and mind my manners.

  • Tim

    “Through faith we [believers] understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

    Hebrews 11:3

    “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.”

    Psalm 33:6

  • While I generally believe in Science myself, a lot of people don’t realize that in todays science community a lot of peoples who lives, careers, their positions are staked on people believing in this stuff. Piltdown man was a hoax that lasted for 50 yrs that thousands of people wrote their doctorates theist on, and spent years researching.

    The reality is, the modern scientific community is starting to resemble the christian church at the height of its power and oppression.

    • Jason Forson

      Actually Mike, that’s not true. While it’s true the full scope of the hoax wasn’t exposed for 50 years – Piltdown was never really accepted. We have 1915 dissertations (a mere three years later) about how it is an obvious hoax.

      It’s not the scientific community that’s cultish – it’s the evolution deniers who’ve developed such cult-like a fixation that they’re willing to give such blatant lies.

  • Ken

    Having faith in magical shape shifting fish that turn into reptiles, birds, cows, lions, humans etc.. after death; is akin, to having faith in magical shape shifting humans that turn into Angels after death. Most humans are mind raped by false dichotomies that are laid out to ensnare and enslave them. How many lemmings also believe in the laughable Holocaust Lies or Moon Walk Lies or 9/11 Lies? The World is full of these mind raped suckers.

  • blackciti_fo5

    I love debates. Especially ones that talk about the existence of God or creation vs evolution debates. They are so informative. However, this debate, Ken Ham vs Bill Nye, I could not watch.

    I am a Christian. I am a creationist. I am neither a young earth creationist or an old earth creationist. Im just a creationist. I believe the earth was created in 6 days as God said in His word but I still don’t know the exact age of the earth.

    I like Bill Nye. When I was younger I used to watch his show “bill Nye the science guy”. It was fun to watch. But Nye isn’t a scientist. He understands it. But he isn’t a scientist.

    I like Ken Ham as well. I heard about him only about 2 years ago. He has a website, answers in genesis (AIG for short). I been there. Read a few articles, but I no longer visit his website. I agree with his beliefs but for some reason his arguments don’t seem convincing to me. As I said I am already a Christian but if I were an Atheist or Agnostic I don’t think I would be swayed by his arguments for creation.

    Both debaters, from what I read online, never really answered each others questions. Nye pulled a machine gun question style at Ham and most got ignored. When Ham made claims Nye also ignored them. Neither of them touched on the subject of DNA I heard.

    Ham did preach the Gospel of Christ to the audience and from what I read Ham also had a great understanding of Biblical scriptures.

    At the end of it, creation vs evolution was more about worldviews and less about science.

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      I agree heartily about the comment about worldviews. However this is NOT about theism vs atheism. Rather, YEC is a truly recent phenomenon, dating back only to the early 1960’s. Even the Scofield Bible and the early 20th century fundamentalists acknowledged the great age of the earth. Modern YEC is a reaction not against atheism, but modernism.

      • blackciti_fo5

        I am just going off what the Bible says, or rather lack thereof. The Bible does not give an age to the earth so I am neither a YEC or OEC. I am just a creationist. I believe man is 6000 years old but as far as the earth or the universe is concerned, I don’t know.

  • Frederick Jacob Kohn

    I don’t understand the point of this article. OF COURSE mammals are found with dinosaurs: mammals are ancient. But we find ANCIENT mammals along side dinosaurs: we don’t find monkeys, lions, and elephants.

    Wikipedia is always a good place to start: “The evolution of mammals has passed through many stages since the first appearance of their synapsid ancestors in the late Carboniferous period. By the mid-Triassic, there were many synapsid species that looked like mammals. The lineage leading to today’s mammals split up in the Jurassic; synapsids from this period include Dryolestes, more closely related to extant placentals and marsupials than to monotremes, as well as Ambondro, more closely related to monotremes.[1] Later on, the eutherian and metatherian lineages separated; the metatherians are the animals more closely related to the marsupials, while the eutherians are those more closely related to the placentals. Since Juramaia, the earliest known eutherian, lived 160 million years ago in the Jurassic, this divergence must have occurred in the same period.”

    The article seems to be perpetuating an old myth: that evolution is linear: that fish were first, then amphibians, then reptiles, etc. Evolution is not a tree, it is more like a bush, with many different branches.

    The phrase “not one fossil out of place” IS, admittedly, a bit misleading. There is always the possibility of contamination. But such contamination is extremely rare, and usually explainable. Contamination, BTW, is why some coal layers contain more C14 than expected. Geologists know THAT it is contamination, but what causes that contamination remains a subject of investigation.

    Who’s lying now?

    • Randy Bobandy

      Thank you. The stupid from this article burns….

      • Frederick Jacob Kohn

        Stupidity is not so much the question as whom you trust as an authority. The author of this article is clearly not stupid, but why is a lawyer writing about science? He is going on the authority of Ken Ham, whose own authority is at stake. Ken Ham has said that he is worried that if people believe evolution, they will disbelieve the Bible. The truth is, that when people find out that evolution is true, they turn away not from the Bible, but from Ken Ham! St. Augustine famously said that if what you believe about the Bible goes against clear reason, it is not the fault of the Bible, but of your interpretation of the Bible.

        • Kenny

          Funny, I didn’t see one quote by Ken Hamm.

    • Lighthope

      Interesting that you don’t refute anything the article says. You just make up an argument and use it to support your conclusion.

      • alfalfa31

        There is no reason to refute what the article says. A google search will tell you that the article is nonsense. The fact that you believe it without taking the time to look for yourself says more about you than Sandbagger’s silence on the idiocy of the article.

        • John H

          oh, ok. so just do a “google” search and you will come to your senses and find the article to be ‘nonsense?’

          ouch, buddy, but you are without substance. like an obama clone – no substance, just a stupid sweeping statement with ur alinskyesque attacks.





          • LarzFurst

            Argumentum ad hominem is the attempt to win a debate by attacking the opponent rather than the subject matter. Do you see how your post doesn’t actually say anything? It’s just a bunch of childish name-calling. You can call people names all day if you want, but it won’t prove that you’re right.

          • alfalfa31

            There is a reply to this article which puts it succinctly. There was no misrepresentation, because mammals existed with dinosaurs. Modern mammals did not. Saying you found mammals with dinosaurs is like saying you found crackers and canned beans in the pantry. Completely unsurprising, and absolutely not news. Bill Nye referenced the fact that, at no point in history, has a fossil been found in a layer corresponding to a period in which it could not have evolved.

            Read a book.

      • Collin

        Great point -Lighthope !

      • Frederick Jacob Kohn

        It’s not a question of refuting what the article says. It’s a question of the conclusion of the article not following from its main premise. It is common knowledge that there are mammal fossils among dinosaur fossils, and there are certainly no scientists trying to cover it up. Why should they? This fact is completely compatible with evolution.

        We all have confirmation biases that cause us to latch on to arguments that reach the “correct” conclusion no matter how faulty the argument is. I once heard the argument: The apparent size of both the sun and the moon is 1/720. 720= 6! Therefore, God exists. Even those who believe God exists MUST admit that this argument is utterly ridiculous.

      • LarzFurst

        Do you debate with maggots? Why not?

    • Jason Forson

      Why is it always the people who argue for the “godly, moral” position that display the least intellectual ethics?

      The Truth will indeed win, but the Truth is defined by its relationship with factual reality. The Truth doesn’t care about what you feel about it, let alone is defined by it. This site may as well be called “The Webmaster’s Personal Feelings and Religious Dogma Will Win Out Regardless Of How It Lines Up With Reality Because They Say So”. Though I realize that doesn’t exactly roll off the keyboard.

    • TheGhost

      Then you obviously must have skipped over this >
      To the surprise of many, ducks,1 squirrels,2 platypus,3beaver-like4 and badger-like5 creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ rock layers along with bees, cockroaches,frogs and pine trees. Most people don’t picture a T. rexwalking along with a duck flying overhead, but that’s what the so-called ‘dino-era’ fossils would prove!”

      Perhaps you should read more closely next time.

      • TheFounderUtopia .

        Says the guy who thinks a duck is a mammal.

        • TheGhost

          So, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures, aren’t mammals either? Sure buddy, whatever you say!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Apokalupto Aletheia

          If you think about it, a duck in the age of Dinosaurs has more implications than mammals (at least to the current pop-evolution theory).
          For if dinosaurs evolved into birds, what is a fully formed and specialized bird doing in a rock layer where no bird, primitive or specialized, should exist?
          Two possibilities:
          1- the rock layers got mixed, making them unreliable for dating purposes or..
          2- dinosaurs did not evolve into birds

          However silly this sounds it is true, you date fossils by the rock layer you find them in; you date the rocks by the fossils you find in it. If the rock layers are all jostled together then the dating method is flawed (not to mention circularly reasoned).
          The dating method follows the law of superposition which states that material laid down first is at the bottom and newer layers are on top of that. That is all well and good if nothing disturbs the pile (Static environment). Think of this as a pile of dirty clothes. The clothes you wore last week and threw on the pile first are near the bottom of the pile.
          The earth is not static it is dynamic. The piles get disturbed all the time. Earthquakes, erosion/deposition, volcanism, meteor strikes, etc.. all mix up the rock layers. Keeping with the clothes pile analogy, your pet comes in and jostles the pile, you rummage through the pile looking for your favorite shirt, clothes settle in time moving from the original position to a lower level due to gravity. In other words the pile shifts and moves and the layers of clothes get mixed. The clothes you wore last week are on the same layer as the clothes you wore two days ago. It is a dynamic system.
          This goes to what the article was saying, the rock layers are not neatly laid out as the artist rendering shows. In fact, it is quite a mess.

          • Frederick Jacob Kohn

            Actually, it would be shocking NOT to find birds in with dinosaurs. How could birds evolve from dinosaurs AFTER the dinosaurs died out? One of the earliest birds is Archaeopteryx, which lived about 85 million years before the dinosaurs went extinct. So the “duck” in question (which lived 70 million years ago) was the product of 80 million years of bird evolution.

          • John H

            uh, ok, genius, and why would a “duck” just start to “evolve?” just ….’start’ ….to …..’evolve’ …..because?
            because it got ‘bored’ being a duck?

            do you people have any idea how utterly STUPID u sound?

          • LarzFurst

            Because of the laws of physics.
            That was easy.

          • Frederick Jacob Kohn

            Well, obviously I’m no genius because I can’t even figure out what it would mean to “start to evolve.” Evolution is a characteristic of life: the definition of evolution is change over time. All we are saying when we say life evolves is that life changes over time. Evolution (change over time) started when life started.

          • MyNameJeff

            You’ve made it clear that you don’t even understand evolution.. No surprise here. You’re attempting to criticize something that you know absolutely nothing about. Genius!

          • Apokalupto Aletheia

            Then birds with dinosaurs means nothing to the debate. Both Creationism and evolutionism then both believe that birds and dinosaurs lived that the same time.
            Your problem remains that evolution takes millions of years even for a small change to occur. And we are talking many many large changes occurring. No doubt some of these changes could be simultaneous but then some of these changes require the other changes so they must be sequential. I just don’t see the evidence these changes are even possible let alone occurring. And you even want to put in species diversity and specialization into the mix. Even billions of years is not long enough to accomplish that.
            We just do not have the evidence to support reptiles changing into birds. And with the hoaxes and fabricated evidence and dishonesty within the evolutionist camp I would call into question feathers on dinosaurs (a skilled artist could carve feathers into the stone around a small fossil without issues).
            I am the consummate skeptic. I believe nothing not completely proven. God completely proved Himself to me to be real (long story, in short: dog gets hit by truck, X-rays show shattered bone and severed tail. Prayer = dog 100% healed in seconds, second set of X-rays show complete healing).
            Evolution falls way short of that evidential mark.

          • Frederick Jacob Kohn

            Yes! That has been my main point all along: that both birds and mammals alongside dinosaurs mean NOTHING to the debate. Yet isn’t the main point of the article is that this is a big problem for evolution?

            You bring up points that are beyond the main thrust of the article, and are too complex to address in a forum like this.

          • Surfnut

            WHERE is your evidence sir for your ages? It is not in the rocks. You have absolutely no proof for Archaeopteryx being that old (160+ MA). -Funny that some who have looked closer at that fossil (and some like it) have found real organic material, just as the other dinosaur fossils bone beds have fresh and elastic proteins present still. (not just the Mary Schweitzer ones). Carbon dating HAS been successfully carried out on a lot of others around the world, and although you guys will deny it, the presence of C14 in ANY good quantity precludes contamination and denotes ages less than 100KA. It really does. Now, we don’t claim the actual age, but we DO claim that it cannot be much more than 75KA for obvious reasons. In fact we seem to be talking ranges of 20 to 35KA here (a little less that 70 Million). The gelogists admit their dating methods provide RELATIVE ages and not actual ones. Come on Fred. Stop creating more trouble. It’s not science.

          • John H

            dinosaurs DID NOT SPONTANEOUSLY EVOLVE INTO birds, idiot. so you checked your brains at the door huh?
            THERE SHOULD BE TENS of thousands of fossils of the “TRANSITIONAL” nature if evolution were true. (Especially of something this radical – Dinosaur to Bird), but of course THERE ARENT.
            you evolutionists are deceived, deceived, deceived. plus you are intellectually prejudiced to a fatal stupid degree. The fossil record DICTATES this, but you choose to believe the opposite.
            idiots galore.

          • Apokalupto Aletheia

            John H.
            I am a Creationist. Proudly and boldly. God has proven Himself to be real to me (quite scientifically I might add). There is no way I would deny His creative powers not call Him a liar by saying He did so in millions of years rather than the six days He claimed.
            My comment above about dating and rock layers is to prove that dating methods are flawed (and even illogical).

            If evolution is true, nature is very conservative and hates to change. To nature, if it works it stays. There is no reason for dinosaurs to grow feathers, there is no reason to get rid of teeth in favor of a hard bill. What the dinosaurs had worked very well and change is unnecessary.

            Besides, all change is a loss of information never a gain of information. Information (such as in DNA and genes) cannot create itself nor can it get jumbled and still be informative. For example, take a word. A word is a piece of information, even a simple word. However, it means nothing if the reader does not know the language or the meaning of the word. So if a change to the DNA or genetic information was to occur it would be meaningless to the reader. Take the word “IT” jumble it to “TI” and it is meaningless in English.
            Study Information Theory to see why DNA sends evolution to the bottom of the sewer pit of stupid ideas.

          • John H

            Apok, the Lord bless u. Keep up the good work defending truth.

            People are frighteningly blinded to simple truth. They would rather believe lies than the truth, the truth that Almighty God is the Creator, and wonders like DNA COULD NEVER have just spontaneously evolved. You would think that with the dawn of the DNA age, the human genome and all this that evolutionists would hit their knees and repent for the foolishness that they have believed. the more that is revealed, the more it all points to a holy & awesome Creator.
            Ultimately, it is a spiritual battle. satan blinds the eyes of the folks who believe & vociferously defend such preposterous lies.
            honestly, i cannot believe that any serious “scientific” person can believe in the stupidity of evolution. the fossil record proves that evolution is nothing but a satanic sham. but still they defend it. Glory to God our Creator who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light. And that Jesus Christ has translated us from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of the Son of His Love.
            We are so blessed, so fortunate.

          • LarzFurst

            lol you just got done criticizing him in your last post because you thought he disagreed with you (not because you had evidence to prove that he is wrong).

            Now you realize that he is “on your side” and you automatically write him a four paragraph love letter.

            It looks to me like you aren’t interested in learning anything here. Why are you here?

          • LarzFurst

            Please show proof that there must be tens of thousands of fossils of the “transitional” still in existence, and that we have the ability to find them and dig them all up.
            Otherwise you’re making things up.

          • MyNameJeff

            Every fossil is a transitional fossil, you’re an absolute imbecile.

          • Surfnut

            Precisely so. Delusion, via an absolutist faith in the principle that all of life MUST have come from some kind of early life. Why? Because for those who hate even the idea of the authority and power of a Creator God, that is all they can accept. Their eyes have been blinded by the Prince of this world; the religion of self, of “me first” and “so long as no-one gets hurt everything is acceptable”. The amoral hatred of truth, combined with a pretence to ‘science’ which is not scientifically sound at all. Evolutionism – the worship of the creature and not the creator – is the most diabolical lie man has ever yet devised to excuse himself from seeking after the One who made her/him and who loves us all, just as we are.

      • Frederick Jacob Kohn

        Perhaps you should follow the footnotes. The “duck” found in dinosaur rocks is Vegavis iaai, an ancient ancestor of the modern duck: modern ducks are of the family Anatidae, not Vegavis. Again, it is no surprise to find ancient birds in dinosaur rocks: Archaeopteryx, probably the first bird, is 60 million years older than Vegavis iaai.

      • LarzFurst

        Please provide reference.

      • Surfnut

        Indeed so. Evo-nerds pretend (as Freddie the duck dino lover) does below) that these are of course all primative creatures, far removed from today’s highly evolved organisms..!! LOL what a lauging stock they are!!

        ” you will find that the “duck” found in dinosaur rocks is Vegavis iaai, an 70 million year old bird considered most closely related to, but not ancestral of, modern ducks”…

        Freddie my lad: It has a BILL (just like a duck). It has FEET of a bird. It has the WINGS like a duck.. Nice big strong ones. It was found in a “very old rock” which you cannot “date”, but which you are SURE is 70 Ma old. So, what is it?

        That’s RIGHT Freddie!!! IT IS NOT A DUCK! Well done. You know evolution SO well! Someone give that man a gold star!

    • Dan

      “Wikipedia is always a good place to start:”
      Every college course I have taken will deduct major points for using Wikipedia as a reference. Gee, I wonder why…

      • Frederick Jacob Kohn

        Because Wikipedia is a good place to START, not to finish. It is a bare bones sketch for people wanting a quick overview. However, Wikipedia often has footnotes worth looking into.

    • rpflix

      “Wikipedia is always a good place to start”

      I quite literally laughed out loud.

      Oh the ignorance, oh it hurts…

      • Frederick Jacob Kohn

        See my reply above. Thousands of professional reference librarians will consult Wikipedia today as they field reference questions.

      • LarzFurst

        I have found plenty of accurate answers from wiki. It is a good place to start. Do you have any actual point, or are you just trolling?

    • LarzFurst

      Following. I appreciate your surrender to logic.

      • Frederick Jacob Kohn

        Thank you, Larz. I appreciate the nod. However, I do feel constrained to point out that the power of science is its two pronged approach: it combines the use of logic in constructing hypotheses with the power of observation to confirm these hypotheses. In science, either prong is useless without the other.

        Sure, it’s tempting to belittle the creationists, but to them, their conclusions ARE logical. Just as there is nothing inherently illogical with believing that the sun goes around the earth, or that the earth is flat, it is not inherently illogical that the earth is 6000 years old. It is only when we try to conform these apparently logical conclusions to our observations that they run into trouble.

        • LarzFurst

          I almost wish that I disagreed with you, so that we could debate.

    • Bad Conduct

      Stupid is thick in the air.
      Info wars linked to this article, and the people defending Ken Ham have a serious problem.

      Why do people have so much difficulty understanding the science?

      • JoBrown85

        Because the “science” is actually a fairy-tale in disguise. Evolutionism isn’t true science anyway, because it is nothing but speculation about the past and “just so” stories to explain various anomalies, whereas true science requires observation (can’t see the past happening!) and repeatability (can’t repeat evolution of a cow or wolf into a whale or whatever) and objectivity (evolutionists discard radiometric dates that don’t agree with their paradigm).

        • Bad Conduct

          The problem is, evolution never claimed that a cow turned into a wolf or a whale. You just made that up, than declared yourself right.
          You can see the past, look at the night sky. The light from the stars takes years to reach earth.
          You can repeat evolution. You can find fossil samples in areas you expect them to be, at the layer you would expect.
          I’m not sure about objectivity. A few oddities of nature does not throw out the massive amount of predictability the theory provides. Being objective to radiometric dating would be considering how rock formations moved quickly (such as lava flow), or if man has already contaminated the sample years ago in our past.

          • JoBrown85

            Sure, distant starlight is a window into the past of a distant star. But you can’t use that argument or technique to look into the past of a fossil. It exists in the present and any measurements you do are done in the present. What follows then is speculative interpretation of the results.
            As for the cow or wolf to whale evolution… it’s been a few years so the ole’ memory’s a bit hazy, but I do seem to remember some article claiming that whales evolved from wolves or cows, But I wasn’t trying to be dogmatic about what evolved into what, just that the point was that you can’t repeat that process.
            The lack of objectivity is evident when wildly discordant (to evolutionary time-lines that is) lab results are rejected while agreeable results are accepted. I read about a scientist who claimed to have found the world’s oldest rock. Samples from the same rock were tested and returned figures from a few million years to about 6 billion years. They picked the 4.3 billion year sample as the “oldest” rock because “everyone knows the Earth isn’t 6 billion years old”. But of course, a few decades ago, everyone “knew” the Earth was 2 billion years old, and a few decades before that everyone “knew” the Earth was 400 thousand years old. If you find a rock 6 billion years old, shouldn’t that indicate the Earth is at least as old as that? So why reject that figure? Because it must be wrong? If it is, how can you be sure that any of the other readings are right? His samples returned many widely different results, so how can one be confident that ANY of the results are accurate? I also remember reading that if test results agree with expected/predicted figures, they are put in the main body of the scientific paper. If they are somewhat discordant, they’ll go in a footnote. If they are wildly discordant, they won’t even mention them. That’s not objectivity, is it?

      • Frederick Jacob Kohn

        Oh that is easy to answer. The vast majority of them have never taken a college level course in geology in their life. How can you understand what you never knew? It’s not so much stupidity as arrogance. It’s the American way: “My opinion is just as good as yours! Even if my opinion is based on 5 minutes of reading on a YEC website and yours is based on decades of study!”

        • Bad Conduct

          It just bothers me that people point out such stupid things and call it a hole in the theory. I’ve known since Grade school that there were mammals during the dinosaur age.

          Like the JoBrown comment below clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understand of evolutionary theory, and claims that’s evidence against it. I’m trying my best to hold myself back from arguing.

          • Frederick Jacob Kohn

            I try always to give people the benefit of the doubt. There are few genuinely stupid people, but there are a lot of uneducated, arrogant people. Perhaps the person below went to a school where teaching evolution was suppressed. Sadly, 60% of teachers in public schools are afraid to teach evolution because of political backlash. The cure for ignorance is not debate, but education. The cure for arrogance is the golden rule.

          • David England

            I applaud your patience. Many of these people have simply refused to recognise your statements due to the fact that it contradicts their previous opinions, which have apprently been set in stone, all while hurling petty insults. Thank you for setting a good example on how to properly disagree.

    • Surfnut

      Contamination? What rubbish. How can you describe fossils mixing with each other as contamination? This is mass death of animals, and it is hard to see what that word could be used for, usefully relating to fossilization of many animal and plant kinds in the same grave. Mammals live with dinosaurs, and so they were I quote from the main article Fred..
      ‘ “We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.” By the way, Dr. Burge is an evolutionist. ‘
      You are not listening Fred, but you do like the sound of your own head talking. It is an inescapable fact that fossils are indeed well mixed in some places. We don’t really need to know WHY this is (but it would be interesting to find out), except that these animals certainly lived alongside one another in time, if not in space. In the catastrophe that ensued, at least once globally, it is not surprising at all to anyone with some common sense.
      I was a trained scientist in the UK and believed evolution with my whole heart, but I was not quite stupid enough not to question the complete lack of evidence for the so called tree of life. There was never a tree of life. That is a religious idea based on the faith of Naturalism. As you know so well, since you taught the theory, this idea has no basis in reality Fred. You have no evidence in this world, and you will never find any. Don’t waste your life. It is a fascinating world, and all the more thrilling and amazing to find that it has indeed been planned with a purpose for mankind, and for his eternal destiny.

    • lorrie.hogan@mail.ru

      I was paid 104 thousand bucks in 2016 by freelancing from home a­­n­­d I was able to do it by w­orking part time f­­o­­r 3+ hours /day. I was following a money making model I came across from company that i found online and I am so thrilled that i was able to make such great money. It’s newbie friendly a­n­d I am just so happy that i discovered this. Here’s what I do… http://www.wzurl­.­me/UhyySA

  • Bjorn Thompson

    If the layer theory was true wouldn’t that mean that earth is getting bigger all the time? Where is all this extra matter coming from?

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      Generally speaking, erosion. Mountains are thrust up via plate tectonics, and then eroded by water, rain and glaciers. Basically there is constant recycling.

      The fact that there are layers at all is a big problem for flood geologists. If there was a violent flood that churned everything up in a violent vitamix, why do we have multiple layers, instead of one big layer?

  • DJohn1

    What you are describing in the “Word of God” is a form of magic. My own thought is that God has to be the operating system of the Universe and anything commanded by God becomes so. Given that argument, then yes, God can command anything to happen and it will happen.
    As we learn more and more about the universe we are realizing just how limited our perceptions of things are.
    At the very small level apparently our scientists have figured out there might be 11 dimensions not the customary 4 we were taught as children. That brings about whole layers to physics that were not perceived before.
    The Math is way beyond my level of intelligence. But I know it is there.
    Just about everything we think we know about the world and the universe is being upset these days. More and more I see the logic of a Creator behind the entire thing. The question becomes are we in communication with that creator or in the past have our ancestors been the victim of a huge hoax that kept a bunch of technologically advanced critters bossing over us. If that is so, our role was one of slaves.
    I think there is a lot more to be discovered in our history than what the learned people are willing to admit.
    That other plains of dimensions consisting of a perceived Universe might also be there is being explored by our scientists. This is also an offshoot of the very atomic small science with an entire different set of rules than those we are used to dealing with.
    The Greek people at one time thought that there were actually seven Earths and seven Heavens and passage between them was possible. Where would they come up with an idea like that unless some small particle of truth were involved and maybe their scientists knew about it.
    Our understanding of what time is has changed. Theory has it that things move in more than one direction in time.
    All of this is only possible to perceive with advanced mathematical skills way beyond most of us.
    Needless to say, I believe a Creator of all of this exists and we worship that Creator. When Jesus was on this planet some very strange things occurred. I don’t pretend to understand how that is possible. I do understand that anything is possible in the universe that I do perceive and understand(which is very little). I think none of us really understand the rules.
    I only understand that if I pray and He listens, sometimes some very illogical things occur and usually to my advantage. If God speaks, the universe follows.

    • Rastus

      Dr. Chuck Missler would be just up your alley Djohn if you have not already heard of him. Check out the “Beyond Series” study at khouse dot org.

      • DJohn1

        Thank-you. Dr. Chuck Missler does explain it and much better than I can do. The first article in the series on physics and Quantum Physics was explained in easy English and was done very well.
        This person obviously has a good background in discoveries made. That time has a limit as to how small an amount of time it becomes the limit of how small amount there is. That was genius.
        His explanation of DNA was very good also.
        I think I will subscribe to the site.

        • Rastus

          You are welcome, The information that he has put out over many decades is absolutely astounding. I’ve went through nearly all of his expository commentaries and briefings over the years. I wish I had a fraction of his IQ. Happy studying 🙂

  • Sandbagger

    Anyone wanting a thorough look at Evolution vs. Creation should watch Kent Hovind.

    • Collin

      Yes Kent Hovind covers a TON in I think 7DVD series ! Go to you tube and watch the Age of the earth !

      • alfalfa31

        Every one of his conclusions has been thoroughly debunked, and usually without even resorting to advanced science. He’s a fraud, a charlatan and a crook. Ask him, just as soon as he gets out of prison.

        • Collin

          Name some Bonehead !

          • Collin

            See alfalfa31 Your a BLOWHARD you don’t know Squat !

          • alfalfa31

            Kent Hovind makes the claim that a single chromosome contains enough data to make an entire human being. This is so far from false as to be laughable.

            He claims that a base pair is a gene. Also completely false.

            He claims that the inaccuracies of C-14 dating (which is actually incredibly accurate) mean that the dates of dinosaur fossils are false. There is no C-14 left to date, making his claim nonsense.

            He claims that water stops neutrinos. Also completely false.

            So much of what he says is on the scale of idiocy that the stuff he says that’s true (such as his PhD) is called into question.

          • Collin

            Then why does carbon dating give different dates for different parts of the same mammoth ? and you just say its false get specific !

          • alfalfa31

            You’re making a specific claim now. Show me where you get the different dates from the same mammoth nonsense.

          • Collin

            One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the ‘wood immediately around the carcass’ was 9-10,000.” Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing ofice, 1975) p. 30 GOOGLE SEARCH A Mammoth LIE !

          • Collin

            Search evolution vs creation a mammoth lie

          • alfalfa31

            I don’t know if you’re aware of this or not, but even the AIG guys have a list of arguments you’re not supposed to use. This is one of them. Maybe you should go check that out before continuing. The reason you’re not supposed to use it is that it’s been thoroughly debunked as a valid argument.

          • Collin

            So us don’t make empty clams!

          • Collin

            “The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY (radio carbon years), while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.” Harold E. Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze,” Natural History, Sept. 1949, p. 300
            “The two Colorado Creek, AK mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 plus or minus 670 and 16,150 plus or minus 230 years respectively.” Robert M. thorson and R. Dale Guthrie, “Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska.” Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, March 1992, pp. 214-228

          • LarzFurst

            Childish name-calling proves nothing.

          • alfalfa31

            Resorting to ad hominems… Typical of the religious. Perhaps you should go to your precious book and look up 1 Peter 3:15-18 and come back when you have learned a little decorum.

          • Collin

            I’m not a bible thumper !

          • alfalfa31

            I didn’t call you a bible thumper.

          • Jason Forson

            That he has a legit PhD in Science. His degree, and I use the term loosely, is actually in Christian education. From a school you didn’t actually have to take any classes from, whose faculty and staff are only four people who are all blood related, the curriculum is only half formed, the accreditation only requires republican votes, and even then he never finished his dissertation.

            Kent Hovind not only makes scores of fraudulent scientific claims, but he’s lying about his very identity and qualifications.

          • Collin

            People Go to you tube and watch the age of the earth by Kent Hovind and decide for your self !

    • alfalfa31

      Kent Hovind is a fraud (currently in jail for fraud, mind you), and he has no idea what he’s talking about. If you choose to learn from idiots, you’ll be an idiot.

      • Collin

        He was railroaded ! Facts are facts no matter where they come from !

        • alfalfa31

          And Hovind supplies NO facts. See below.

      • John H

        lots and lots of good people, innocent people, have been put in ‘jail’ so that is no argument. when u live in a police state, almost everyone is a lawbreaker. i am sure alfalfa has broken the law quite a number of times in the last month. throw alfalfa in jail. declare him a fraud.

        • alfalfa31

          He was jailed for tax fraud (lying to the feds). whether or not he was justly jailed, his lies concerning biology, geology and cosmology alone rate him jail time.

      • JoBrown85

        No he’s in prison for not handing over enough taxes to Uncle Sam. While not everything Kent says is correct, many things he says are correct and show that evolution (stellar as well as biological) is dead in the water. It’s easy to attack the man, not so easy to refute his points about evolution being a dud. You should also read the book “Evolution Cruncher” – over 900 pages of evolution-busting info!

        • alfalfa31

          A liar is a liar is a liar. Nothing that man says is valid, as evidenced by the fact that most of what he teaches is in direct violation to what is currently taught in high school biology and earth science. He’s in prison for, lying!

          • JoBrown85

            “nothing”, “most”… generalisations like that weaken your argument.
            Plenty of what Kent Hovind taught is valid and true, even if he doesn’t get everything right. And whatever is taught in high biology is not an authoritative measure of what is true. After all, for many years (100+) after Haeckel’s embryo evolution fraud was uncovered, they were still teaching it in high school biology. One of the professors that Kent Hovind debated even used Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo “science” to “prove” evolution is true! Clearly that professor wasn’t exactly up with the times. By your own logic, NOTHING that professor says can be considered valid.
            Kent Hovind’s imprisonment is for tax evasion, and mis-statements about tax liabilities naturally form part of that, but that has no relevance to the accuracy of his statements regarding the flaws in evolutionism.

  • Collin

    UNIVERSE ! UNI= Single Verse=Spoken sentence AND GOD SAID LET THERE BE LITE ! Even our words come from scripture !

    • Stephan

      That must be the most stupid thing I’ve read that you’ve typed, so far.

    • Stephan

      That has to be the most stupid thing I’ve read that you’ve typed so far.

      • Collin

        Tell me where our language came from Stephan? -as if you know! You really don’t have a clue do you?

  • Collin

    In the beginning what did the first life form feed on? It sure did not feed on its self rite? And no other life exists yet so what did it feed on ROCKS? You see ! It had to be SPONTANEOUS ! Because everything feeds on each other! It’s called the food chain! That’s the only way Its going to work! You see life cant wait a MILLION years for DINNER ! like the Evolution fairy tale try’s to make you believe !

    • alfalfa31

      That is the most asinine anti-evolution argument I’ve heard yet. Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it false. Personal incredulity is no excuse for not reading a book.

      • Collin

        Your ALL talk and no FACTS Dummy! name some facts that I don’t understand

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      There are life forms that create their own food from light, water, and carbon dioxide. They are called plants.

      • Collin

        Plants require carbon dioxide that animals exhale ! And plants require insects to pollinate them ! and how did a first plant pollinate if there were no other plants or insects ? You didn’t think this one through ! were talking about the impossible scenario that evolution says happened ! in a primordial soup beginning !

        • Frederick Jacob Kohn

          Kudos for asking questions. That is the first step to knowledge! But there are two types of people: those who throw up their hands and say such questions can never be answered, and those who pursue the answers to those questions. We call the latter group scientists.

          It would be rather silly to try and teach even the elementary facts of evolution via the comments section of a YEC website. Perhaps you can just google “oxygen catastrophe” for part of the answer? And not all plants are flowering plants. Flowering plants evolved quite late in the game.

  • Collin

    So Bill I used to watch your show with my kids and had a ball doing it ! Now years later I see you support the global warming fraud . And the fairy tale evolution THEORY ! But you BELIEVE ( Can’t prove) you evolved from a ROCK ! And to make such a fairy tale plausible you BELIEVE (Can’t prove) that the earth is MILLIONS of years old ! Why cant you Government Grant paid so called scientists be honest ! ( Because you’ll lose your easy grant money ) The oldest things in the world cant be proven older than about 6000 years! And things like carbon dating have ben proven to NOT WORK ! Carbon dating say’s different parts of the same mammoth are different years old ! So we know it doesn’t work! So if you were a honest guy you would admit these things ! And the global warming SCAM is a way to rob the people of MORE money ! The sleazy politicians Fraudulent solution to the non existing warming is a TAX ! And that’s what it’s really all about! Another TAX ! You can pollute all you want as long as you pay us LYING freeloading control freak lawmakers! It’s to bad you did not do your homework on these things and decided to go along with the scam artist’s Its not to late to come clean and do what’s right !

    • alfalfa31

      You BELIEVE the first man was made from dirt, and the first woman was made from dirt boy’s rib.

      Evolution isn’t a fairy tale, and you have no idea what the word ‘theory’ means or you wouldn’t say such silly things.

      • Collin

        Your a FOOL ! come on you BELIEVE YOU EVOLVED FROM A ROCK !

        • alfalfa31

          You’re (<-see how I spelled it right) a fool. The fact that you say such idiotic things as 'evolved from a rock' shows you know absolutely nothing about evolution. Evolution is not even an origins theory. Read a book instead of listening to morons like Ham and Hovind.

          • Collin

            Hey ! dummy I just sent you the definition of Theory

          • Rastus

            You cannot have evolution without some kind of origin in which to evolve from. So the origins theory is pertinent to the conversation. Actually it is the foundation to the whole debate. Evolutionary theory collapses under the weight of what is known about the origin of the universe and life; information, which comes only from a mind not matter. Evolution is a debunked elementary argument not even worth debate. Move into the informational sciences: quantum mechanics, particle physics, chaos theory, hyper spaces, etc. Reality and information are not, in the strict sense, tangible. Grasp the truth of a holographic universe or quantum’s (digital simulation) and you will start to understand you know nothing about anything!

      • Collin


        : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

        : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

        : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

        • Jason Forson

          You realize that there’s a difference between a “Just a” theory and a Scientific Theory, right?

          A scientific theory is defined as a predictive model derived from empirical testing and repeatedly tested and refined until it’s accurate for an entirely field of study.

          Your posts only prove that you have no idea how science actually works, go take a science class then try again. XD

          • Collin

            OK ! show us some scientific theory’s That HAVE proven to be FACTS !

          • Collin

            I didn’t think so ! Another brainwashed Blowhard !

          • Jason Forson

            Collin, are you 12? Because basically, by definition, if it wasn’t proven with at least 99% certainty we wouldn’t call it a scientific theory. And no theory is proven 100% including things like Gravity. I don’t see you jumping out of a window.

            Meanwhile your feelings toward the bible don’t prove anything. You’re literally asking us to ignore something that’s 99% proven for something that is a complete shot in the dark.

            So again, your posts only prove that you are completely incompetent at science. Go take a class then try again.

            Amusing how you accuse us of being blowhards while you are the only one acting like a blowhard. That’s called projecting in psychology.

          • Collin

            It”s either True or false or a theory to say its 99% is generalizing to get a false realty And I wouldn’t go to your brainwashing so called science class if you paid me ! You probably believe everything you here on the NEWS and from Washington still even after they have LIED to you over and over and over !

          • Collin

            You can lead a mule to the truth but you cant make him THINK !

          • Jason Forson

            Really, we’re the ones that have been brainwashed? xD

            Thanks for the good laugh Collin, because there’s no way you can think science is brainwashing but the bible is not without being too dumb to work a computer without hurting yourself.

            Little tip though, in the future the trolling works better if it’s not quite so obvious.

          • Collin

            REAL SCIENCE IS SOMETHING YOU CAN TEST AND DEMONSTRAITE AND REPEAT WITH THE SAME RESULTS ! Not this theorizing crap you call scientific theory ! Go listen to OBAMA tell you more BULL that I’m sure you’ll believe hook line and sinker !

          • Collin

            /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
            a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
            systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
            any of the branches of natural or physical science.
            systematized knowledge in general.
            knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

          • Collin

            Like I said your so brainwashed you don’t know what science is !

          • Jason Forson

            Yeah, definitely too obvious a troll if you really think Obama has anything to do with this. xD

            [Though for reference of other readers, The whole idea that Evolution doesn’t provide repeatable tests is a flat out lie Creationists tell. The yearly flu vaccines for example.]

          • Collin

            What a crock ! be specific so I can come back and shoot holes in your BULL !

          • Collin

            BULLFEATHERS !

      • Steve Yna NY

        Theory unproven is not fact, not repeatable and cannot be claimed as truth until it is proven and repeatedly so. The scientific method requires this before a statement of truth can be made. This not the case with evolution – it’s not been observed or repeated first hand – it’s just a theory that has not grown up to the point of scientific truth . So clearly you seem confused as to the significance of mere theory.

  • Jason7189

    Knowledge is increasing exponentially and Science will come to the realization the Bible’s accounts of events did happen….but sadly they would never risk their funding and grants, more or less admitting all their work and past theories, were shots in the dark at explaining life.

    Daniel 12:4 “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”

  • TheGhost

    NONE of you have refuted this article.

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      Well, of course we haven’t! As William McAdoo said, “It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.”

    • alfalfa31

      Yes, we have. There are no MODERN mammals found in dino digs. Mammals existed at the time, thereby making the premise of the article utter nonsense.

  • With Fortitude

    Hey Michael, You should post your ” 44 reasons why evolution is just a fairy tale for adults” with this article just for grins . It seem your casting pearls before swine with some in this group. Check out the guy that wants you to check Wikipedia for facts. He’s a smart monkey eh !

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      Sir, you insult me! I am a CHIMP, not a monkey.

      Of course I don’t expect that a gang of evolution deniers is going to accept the sketch of mammalian evolution in Wikipedia. I posted it to debunk the idea that mammals being contemporary with dinosaurs is somehow a dirty little secret that Bill Nye and mainstream science have kept hidden away in a dark little corner because they are such evil people. You can EVEN go to Wikipedia and find that mammal fossils are mixed in with dinosaurs. It is, frankly, common knowledge.

      • Steve Yna NY

        Your insults and name calling render your point of view non-credible. If you can’t make a point based on a simple stream of logic pls find another audience for your hyperbole

      • With Fortitude

        Apologies sir quite right you are a primate.
        The point the author made; that no revelation came from this debate is true.
        And, evolutionist like yourself should stop making claims that are not fact as fact.
        Mr. Ham coincided there are things that just can not be proven. He did this more than once in this debate. Mr. Nye however smugly refutes this ;like many chimps do,and instead remain defiant to the idea of an intelligent design that by the way comes with a book. A book that was inspired by said designer . The book we know for a fact is over 6000 yrs old itself .

        • Randy

          Can anyone provide a single piece of evidence which proves there is a creator or that the “Book”, first collected and printed as such at the council of Nicaea by order of Emperor Constantine to establish the First Riech, was indeed inspired by a creator? And can anyone explain how this “Creator” could possibly have come into being itself?

          • Rastus

            Though not a fan of Augustine, he once opined:

            “Men go abroad to wonder at the height of mountains, the huge waves of the sea, the long course of rivers, the vast compass of the ocean, the circular motion of the stars… but they pass by themselves and don’t even notice.”

            A sad truth ever more prevalent today even with the knowledge we have of the complexity of our bodies.

            The proof you ask for is with you at all times. Not just your infinitely complex body, but your conscience also bears witness of His existence.

            I know that a conscience can be seared over time by many means to believe that God does not exist, but it was not so at your start. Similarly like a baby losing their natural ability to tread water from lack of exposure to the water, so a child who instinctively knows there is a creator loses this insight from the lack of exposure to the truth. Yet one thing remains that is not lost, and that is the law written on your heart which your conscience still recognizes.

            You may think I am nuts and I am ok with that, but you are not an accident of nature nor some random creature. You are of infinite worth to a Creator that just wants you to first recognize that He even exists and then for you to know Him personally by seeking Him out.

            As for the Bible, it’s a believer thing and you would not understand. Really though the Tanak (Old Testament) is the Hebrew “scriptures”. They were translated into Greek around 300 BC, this translation is called the septuagint. Which by the way contains all the minute prophetic details of the coming Messiah 300 years before His birth. Much of the New Testament is commentary on the OT and the revealing of things once hidden to the obstinate Jews, that is, the ecclesia.

            Time and space are physical entities and are subject to entropy/decay. The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. These are known thermodynamic laws. Also known is quantum mechanics, which verifies a digital, holographic universe which is flat yet curved with up to possibly 10 hyperspaces. To cut to the quick, like an artist to the canvas, so Yahua is to the created universe, outside of it yet in His case able to enter it also.

            The key to understanding and enjoying new discoveries of life, this planet, our galaxy and the universe is to know the Creator/master builder of it 🙂

    • alfalfa31

      Every single one of those nonsense ‘reasons’ was answered. The article wasn’t worth the time it took to write it, and it was mainly an example of quote mining (which could properly be called bearing false witness).

      • Steve Yna NY

        Since when is providing quotes. ‘Besring false witness’. Anyone who has read or written any serious research must support various claims and assumptions with quotes – it is a pert of ANY serious inquiry . It is why we have things like footnotes and bibliographies in all serious research. How can such an absurd claim be made that to do so is ‘bearing false witness’ ? The lack of outside reference and quotes in research show irresponsible cavalier work. The claim that it’s bearing false witness to do so is itself false and exceedingly immature.

        • Clayton Colwell

          Providing quotes without proper context is a common tactic of intellectual dishonesty.

          For example, there was a Gould quote noting a rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record that is touted as an argument against evolution, despite the testimony FROM GOULD HIMSELF that it is an argument against gradualism, and in fact supports his evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibria.

          But let’s use your own words to show how the tactic is BS — “Anyone who has read or written any serious research […] is ‘bearing false witness'”. I used your own words fully accurately to state a ridiculous point.

  • Collin


    • alfalfa31

      Rather than call it senseless gobbeldegook (sic), read more than just the one side for once.

  • Collin

    Search evolution vs creation a mammoth lie !

  • With Fortitude

    Hey why did you remove my comment ? It was no good : (

  • Collin

    This site hides links so you have to open everything

  • Collin

    Evolution is getting its but kicked so they wont post links to the truth!

  • John

    This article is composed almost entirely of blatant lies.

    • Steve Yna NY

      Provide some evidence for your claim instead of grandstanding

  • alfalfa31

    Funny, C-14 is the only radiometric dating method creationists seem to know about. Fine, you can have that one (despite the fact that your conclusions around it are wrong). It’s not used to date extremely fossils due to the limitations in half life of C-14, so your argument is invalid. Please tell me you had a real point…

  • alfalfa31

    No, it does not. In fact the only thing evolutionary theory does is explain biodiversity. You’re, again, demonstrating your scientific illiteracy.

  • the only proof for evolution would be the transitional examples that should be present – somewhere – anywhere in the universe – they don’t exist so evolution is a lie bill nye – they should be everywhere – where are they ? in your imagination is all – you will die in your sins without a Savior that is one surety – you know how I know – ’cause God said so – you have your god – evolutionary accidents – I have mine – the Creator – anything you say can be convoluted by negative entropy – because that is what it takes to create order out of chaos without omnipotent power

    • Steve Yna NY

      Your first part about the lack of transitional fossils is a serious problem with evolution. Though condensing someone you don’t know is unnecessary and hurtful to others. Can’t there be peace and mutual respect in these dialogs from both sides ?

      • have you ever read the bible ?
        it does a lot of condensing people because the Spirit of God knows the hearts of everyone – it is a universal fact that without a Savior, there is no forgiveness of sins because the heart of man is continually evil and self serving
        – i respect you so much that i tell you the whole truth, even if it makes me unpopular –

        • Maybe

          I have read the bible and your attitude is not the one I see presented by it.

      • Maybe

        Thank you Steve.

  • daffyduck325

    Creationists are more accurately Evolution-denialists. I would argue that every scientist technically is a Creationist because their focus is all of creation, including biology. Mr. Ham says that we have to redefine terms. Well, I think creationism is a stolen and misappropriated word, and creationists should begin calling themselves the Deniers. Deny climate change. Deny evolution. Deny methods of science in general. Deny 2 thousand years of scientific and historical progress. Even deny that they have a problem. Lol. Grow up. Face the music.

    • Steve Yna NY

      This general labeling of Non-evolutionists in such simple and demeaning terms is just emotional rhetoric and hyperbole – it contributed nothing to the facts of this debate / in fact it’s rather bigoted

  • daffyduck325

    ‘Faith’ is not proven. I think the attitude of the average creationist is to be absolutely Nihilistic about everything saying “you can’t be certain, blah blah blah” but when it comes to their own Truth they say, “faith & faith & faith…” Give me a break. The theory that Faith is adequate is itself NOT PROVEN according to the logic of Nihilism. Or is creationism one anti-nihilistic Protective Bubble for anybody who wants to hide there?

    • Steve Yna NY

      Of course faith is not proven that’s why it’s faith – faith just admits when it can’t know something perfectly- a similar concept in science is theory- until observed , repeatedly and quantitatively validated to strict limits of tolerance theory is just a form of faith as well – without faith even science is not possible for a theory must merely be ‘believed’ long enough until it can be proven true. If you want to deny the existence or efficacy of faith all together you really can’t have scientific theory as the start point of inquiry either

  • jerry saylor

    WHY LIE? is mind boggling , especially with no serious debate with those who oppose their Darwin theory . With a few dots it points to a much sinister reasoning the public is being sold, by a sphere of influence that expands world wide. If the world with scientific proof was actually flat, wouldn’t they have to admit to it? A monolithic controlled NWO that isn’t new to the scene . The order of the royalty has ruled the world since the beginning of time. Only now due to Freedom ( that is a very ,very young concept)the control is being done with subversion and unlimited resourses. The denial of all the secret groups that met for years was just a conspiracy theory, less than a few years ago , “your just crazy to listen to this, move along”. Really WHY LIE? and its really not confined to creation. WTFGO

    • jerry saylor

      Starchild is a good place for all you Darwinians to start and as for the creationists all they really know is the world wasn’t flat, was it ?

  • Dirk

    By the time i got to Bryan Fischer’s quote, i realised how stupid reading this actually is. This is Christian-centric defending of the sanctity of the bible and it’s just a bit sad at the end of the day.

    • Maybe

      As a Christian I agree with you.

  • Noel

    Transpermia… simple as that and not by a God but from the Gods. I will quote from the bible ” Come let US create man in OUR own image” Now all we have to do is find out who the US and the OUR was.

  • Dave Mende

    If by chance a tiny gnat lands on your fingertip, look closely and consider. All of the worlds scientists working together cannot make this creature, with all of it’s attributes, in a laboratory. Can’t be done. Now consider a woman scorned! Evolution does not ‘create’.

    • Clayton Colwell

      “Now consider a woman scorned!”? Um, why?

    • The_Magic_M

      > All of the worlds scientists working together cannot make this creature, with all of it’s attributes, in a laboratory.

      What is that supposed to prove?
      If they could, you would just claim this proves God could’ve done it, too, and since humans couldn’t, it must’ve been God.

  • Laffy

    If man lived with dino’s (LOL!!!), why are there ZERO caveman drawings of a T-Rex?

    • meme

      there is a relief sculpture in Israel that shows a t rex attacking a horse there are also cave paintings in France that show dinosaurs, Dinosaurs are also depicted on Inca pottery , chinese pottery , paintings etc, Viking boats, Aztec pyrimids etc

      • Laffy

        Let’s see a link to all those depictions of dino’s. I’ve never once seen a T-Rex drawn by cavemen…..or anyone else.

        • meme

          I sent the link but it is being moderated if you do not get it google Umm El-Kanatir
          Jewish Synagogue dinosaur or google dinosaurs in literature

          • Laffy

            There are 100,000 times more drawings of UFO’s/aliens than this from all over the world.

            So, do you think aliens have visited us?

          • meme

            what you call Aliens I call demons, the Bible prophesies that there will be an end time deception , it also states that it will be like the days of Noah if you want an intelligent discourse on that seek out Chuck Missler on you tube

          • Laffy

            Thanks for proving you have zero credibility.

            So, you think in this VAST universe/galaxy we’re the ONLY life form and anything else is “demons”?


            “Intelligent” discussion with people who think the earth is 6,000 years old?


            I’m done with ya. watch out for all those “demons”?


          • meme

            as Einstein thought, Time is relative. I’m sure you are familiar with the classic case of a astronaught who travels in space time passes different for him than the people he left behind on earth. Time also depends on the size , mass and gravity . From whoms viewpoint is Genesis , God, what is his mass, size etc? I believe the earth is billions of years old but that is from my viewpoint not God’s . In my opinion time for man began when he fell

          • Laffy

            There was no “Garden”, Billy-Bob. You do know the people who actually WROTE the Bible say it was a MYTH, right? And it was ALL ripped off from other fairy tales, right?

          • meme

            you are familiar with dinosaurs because of their fossils but how are you familiar with Aliens and how can you tell what they really are ?

  • Rick Carufel

    People who are brainwashed as little kids to believe that faith=truth are irrational and cannot be reasoned with. They are mentally ill, delusional and detached from reality.

  • DJohn1

    I think that nothing we say or do will convince either side of the issue that they are wrong.
    I find that it resembles the Flat Earth People. Some people to this day believe the Earth is Flat and everything else is some conspiracy against religious belief.
    I think the real truth is somewhere in between evolution and creation theory.
    To produce a lie you have to involve a lot of truth to convince people it is all true.
    Same goes with religious beliefs. The first indication that someone is on pretty thin ice concerning truth is resorting to name calling and violence to protect their belief in something.
    I have found that the more convincing the argument the less likely is it to be the entire truth. That is why people are willing to bet their life on an issue and lose.
    The recent science of genetics is where a lot of truth is going to be exposed. Genetics might resolve the truth in both creationism and evolution.
    Humans have one of the worst cases of genetic disease of any animal on the planet. It is followed by genetic disease amongst deliberately altered animals like cats and dogs.
    In accordance with evolutionary theory we should all be dead. The birth canal is not designed right to give birth to humans. Some have an adequate birth canal and some do not. C-sections in this country are at an all time high. Personally I think some of that is simply money talking to doctors.
    We have two chromosomes that are double the size of all the rest. Most primates have 48 chromosomes. We have 46 chromosomes. That is a fingerprint that few if any other primates have. I know of no other primate with that signature in its genetic nature.
    This is often ignored in science courses. I suggest that we follow where that little difference leads if evolution is a valid theory then there must be a whole lot of other Human-like critters in the past with a similar chromosome setup.
    We have a parallel in primate division in the South American jungles. Squirrel Monkeys have 4 more teeth in their mouth than animals from Africa. As near as I can tell with actually having one as a pet many years ago, they talk!
    The language is at the edge of the higher pitches and sounds like a series of whistles to humans. They have a much shorter lifespan than our own. In a ratio to body size their brain is quite large. I think that they have a language of at least 75 or 80 words. It might be a lot larger than that.
    We are surprised by how many “extinct” animals still exist somewhere in the world. I suggest that the South American Jungles might be where we might even find members of the dinosaur family still alive but that it is just a guess on my part. The diversity of that rain forest in South America leads me to that guess.
    Animals on Madagascar are unusual. Animals on isolated islands in the South Pacific and Indian Oceans show this kind of diversity. Australia is a complete treasure of animals that have not survived elsewhere. Even evidence of diverse closer animals to us might be found somewhere off of Africa on small islands and still surviving. At this point, it is all guesswork. But I expect discoveries to crop up somewhere at any time.
    The genetic code of animals is a study of consideration that might give us a lot of information as to what actually happened over the years. We, as humans, have made huge strides in engineering that include Microscopes that lead us down paths that no one has ever gone before that we know of.
    In the last 20-40 years we have made clones of animals. Those clones have lead us down a twisted path to understand WHY we age. We humans are on the verge of figuring out how to stop the aging process if it hasn’t already been done somewhere and is being kept secret. As creationist and evolutionist argue back and forth, scientists are quietly leaving it all behind with new discoveries that actually can trace the human programming of cells back to its origins.
    The bottom line is it is written into our very cells.
    As for the age of the planet, I think that is a mute point simply because we have written records in India that might be at least 15-20,000 years old. The Chinese claim records dating back over 4,000 years.
    If I have a dispute with this, it would be the time line of the Egyptian people. I think they may have the Pharoah line of egypt dateline messed up. But I am no more than an average person with very little qualification in any of this except what I am able to comprehend from what I read.
    No language that has been dead for many years can get a perfect translation from modern day linguistic abilities and I think that might be where the problem lies.
    But then again, I think there are entire volumes of history that have been lost over the years including a lot that disagrees with modern interpretation in scientific circles.
    The keys to this might be found in North and South America. I think the boat peoples that traded in prehistory times might have had an extensive knowledge of both continents. It was in their best interests not to spread that kind of information around giving them exclusive rights to certain retail goods.
    The problem with science is that it only says what the people that pay them want to be heard. If someone tells them something that they do not want to hear then they cut off the funding and usually the funding for books goes with it. It is a way to censor and it is wrong.

  • Defiant

    It should be understood that Nye was (at one time) an engineer…and now is an entertainer. He has no scientific training! He’s an ACTOR! LOL!

    • Clayton Colwell

      Um, engineers are required to have quite a lot of scientific training. Do you really want to stick with that argument?

  • Disco_Salad

    “Fact Check” my ass……A quick glance at the home page of this site will show just how much credence we can place on the poster. Conspiracy theorists and preppers and gold and silver coin sales. And a dash of JEEEZZZUUUUSSS thrown in…….I’m going to go lie down now.

  • Kamil

    I don’t get this. One side is using some facts to prove one fairytale, the other is doing the same for second fairytale. You are actually just arguing when it happened, how and how fast. Both, universe and life. Even if you would agree on any version, wouldn’t there be a new set of questions? What was before and around big bang/creation? Why does anything exist at all? Who created god? So is our mind even able to understand anything important? There are tons of unanswerable questions nobody asks. It seems most religious people have no metaphysical concept. They didn’t have their religious experience. But the ignorance and arrogance of people like that chimp and scientific literate is amazing. Universe itself is A MYSTERY. Everyone who had religious experience can tell you that space and time is an illusion. We should ask questions like What’s the point? Where are we going? Where should we go?

  • SayWhat

    If they claim that since no one saw the past happen, how can they claim that the Bible is the word of God, since none of us saw the humans that wrote it, and there’s no way for us to tell if they were being literal or not.

    • the p00dah

      Right, sure. But thats why its called faith…and its why we believe in things. Furthermore, there is much more evidence nearly every month now, showing a design and creation system, while the evolutionists look worse with more and more egg on their face. Im a Christian and i believe in forms of ‘evolution’, but not in the way its been stretched to a degree (and by design) to be used as a destructive tool to destroy the belief in God. I believe lifeforms evolve somewhat, sure…they tend to change within their OWN species, but not on insane drastic levels, ie, this ‘a bug became a bird, a bird became a lizard, the lizard became a monkey, the monkey became a man’ and so on is utterly retarded and never proven in any way whatsoever. Its like saying the Sabre Toothed cats are ancestors of Tigers….how has that been proven? Yea, ok, they were felines, but there is no proof at all they morphed into tigers. All evidence right now shows they were a unique species all their own, and they didnt wind up with small fangs and became less muscular into a tiger. This kind of garbage is what has destroyed the scientific community today.

      • The_Magic_M

        > But thats why its called faith

        Then why do Creationists claim it’s a science?

  • David Puckett

    Thank you Mr. Snyder for your excellent article! I saw the 3 hour debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Ham crushed the theory of evolution with Truth.

    I hope they put together a synopsis video of the debate. (It is quite long for the average family to watch with their (too) buzy schedules nowadays.)

    And thank you God, for your INCREDIBLE LOVE to us all ! And for Your infinite power to create such an amazing Universe/World/Earth that we can see and touch.


    • Maybe

      It seemed to me Mr Ham propagandized his “truth” more than convince with it.

      • the p00dah

        No, you are just too braindead to discern it or to even bother listening or paying to attention to what science truly is, as pointed out and documented here.

  • Allen Krupa

    Let every man be a liar, for God is not mocked. The Lord God All Mighty created the heavens and the earth and He alone knows the beginning and the end of all things. His Holy Word is the truth. Bill Nye and Pat Roberson are not the definitive authority on anything. If it isn’t written in Gods Word it is pure speculation. No man witnessed creation.

    • Maybe

      I have witnessed my creations.

    • The_Magic_M

      And no man witnessed how “God” dictated the Bible to anyone (except those who claim he did). Kinda tautological. “The Bible is true because it’s God’s word, and it’s God’s word because it says so.” *lol*

  • L Trotsky

    I am a geologist with a masters degree in geology and 40 years of experience. This “debate” is replete with so much nonsense that it would take me days of writing to correct all the mistakes!

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      Amen! Some wit said that it would take an academic paragraphs to refute a lie that a charlatan can tell in one sentence. That is why these debates are so counterproductive, I think.

  • blackciti_fo5

    I have watched many of his seminars. I know he is a YEC but I still am not too sure about the earths age. I don’t believe the age of the earth is relevant to salvation anyways so I consider the age of the earth or universe to be a non issue.

  • T.j. Thomas

    What the Smith article you reference above says isn’t that this is a “duck” that was found with dinosaurs. It says that a creature that “looks like a duck” was found, and therefore Smith assumes it must have been a duck. There’s a big difference.

  • JR

    Having done a 400 page paper with over 700 footnotes, citing people such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, prof. of atmospheric science at MIT, Dr. Gray, the #1 hurricane forecaster in the world, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel – all of whom, BTW, thing Nye’s global warming is a “scam” (their words, not mine), I can tell you that Nye is one of THE most ignorant, uninformed people in the world when it comes to the science of global warming. If he brought that level of ignorance to this debate, it must have been staggering. Personally, I’ve grown sick of these self-appointed naturalist “rock stars” who are are either co-opted by money, or just plain uninformed. Think David Suzuki or the now-before-his-Maker Carl Sagan. Not sure what Sagan had to say upon meeting his Maker….

  • person

    It’s probably the most ironic thing you can ever hear when someone talks about how American society is “dumbed down” (true) but then goes on to promote creationism.

  • Daen de Leon

    Pure satire. Thank goodness you aren’t serious!

  • Natha

    Radiometric dating of carbon is a half life. This author of this article needs to do his fact checking. There will always be radioactive carbon present in all living things past and present. Its a half life it only gets smaller as time goes on but it will never be zero and it will still be present long after 100,000 years. The half life of radioactive carbon is 8,267 years. This means that in ruffly 8,000 years an organism will have half of the carbon it had when it deceased. so in 16,000 years it will have only 25% of the carbon it originally had but this number never reaches zero and is easily measured in rocks and fossils well over 2 million years old. Each person needs to do their own research especially in the sciences this article is another example of bad fact checking.

  • barrydesborough

    This is a filthy lying slur, falsely putting words in Nye’s mouth and then calling _him_ a liar. Bloody hypocrites! It is well known that mammals and dinosaurs coexisted. Nye knows this. The fact remains a fact. We do not find out-of-place fossils in the fossil record. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, lying for Jesus, falsely slurring Bill Nye and grossly deceiving your readership. This is the degradation that fundamentalism leads you into.

  • Maybe

    The first part of this diatribe is quite interesting regarding the marvelous discoveries of science.

    • paul tarsuss

      Why thank you, and how good of you to notice. The second part was for those of us who prefer the marvelous revelations of our Creator. : )

  • Maybe

    Seems like a rather fascist attitude.

  • Maybe

    Thank you for taking the time to present this well reasoned and informed argument.

  • Maybe

    Thanks for your well reasoned argument and I forgive you for your anger.

  • Blake Reikofski

    It is hard to believe that you understand the big words in your post when you can not spell citing correctly.

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      That’s an interesting argument in view of the fact that all our standardized Greek Biblical texts are reconstructed from documents that are typically full of misspellings.

      • Blake Reikofski

        I am an atheist, I could care less about Greek biblical writings. Stop plagiarizing your arguments.

        • Frederick Jacob Kohn

          Temper temper! Can you blame me for mistaking you for a creationist when your argument is so unreasonable? Most atheists are much more reasonable than that.

          The point I was making, of course, is that a misspelling or two does not invalidate an argument’s point.

          As to plagiarism, it exists only when one quotes or borrows an idea WITHOUT attribution. I have seen a lot of plagiarism going on here on the part of the creationists, but I think I have been pretty careful to acknowledge sources.

    • PJ Kempen

      Admittedly I am a horrible speller, but I try to make sure I know what I’m talking about. A fair criticism 😛

  • Medium)(Rare

    I can’t take any source seriously that has “scientific evidence” next to a book add that looks to support the Illuminati conspiracy.

    • the p00dah

      Why is that? Because you are too braindead and use your own ignorance as a pathetic crutch all throughout life and only eat up whatever the Cartoon News Network or MSNBC vomit up as ‘truth’? Its not a ‘conthpeewhuthhee’, its documented history and quite well established, so you can go stick that Daffy Duck arrogance, you know where.

      • Medium)(Rare

        The whole thing first started with the conspiracy, which I thought was legit at the time. Then Alex Jones jumped in the Ron Paul wagon, so I jumped with him. Next thing you know the Tea Party, which started with Ron Paul’s libertarian push, was backing creationist twits like Palin.

        The whole “movement” was hijacked by conservative Christians. Saying the founding fathers “wanted this to be a Christian nation”.

        It’s all a sham, brother. Just made to keep you confused and unable to do anything but get angry and insulting to anyone who disagrees with you.

        • the p00dah

          Oh i see, now youre just going to go with the hyperbole, and bring in endless conjectures and notable figures that have nothing to do with this. Yea, thats not gonna work either. I dont care about AJ, Paul or Palin, or any party nonsense.

          Fact is, youre wrong, and youre no different than the morons who said the earth was flat, and Catholic inquisitor a-holes who said the sun wasnt the center of the universe, and on and on, and the sexual deviant, drug addict and inbred Darwin and his garbage theories looking worse each day….You wanna believe in your fantasies and hack junk science, go right ahead, stay in the dark all you like.

          And whether the founders were deists, atheists, or christians, doesnt matter, as the Constitution and most of their writings, is predicated on a Godly society, and rights inherited from a Creator.

          • Medium)(Rare

            So where do you stand? Do you have opinions other than ones about my character?

            Maybe if you have alternatives or… Well anything… Other than insults we may have common ground to work from. If you’re just trying to get me riled up, you’re failing. If you’re trying to convince me of something you’re doing poorly at that as well since you haven’t even told me what that is.

            You’re all anger… And it shows. It’s not constructive.

  • TFJ

    Big whoop. Most evangelical colleges teach evolution. Go to Russia and China and North Korea most people get taught that Marxism is a workable form of government. Does that make it right with its history of dead bodies and decimated economies left in its wake.

    Just because something is taught does not make it right or real. Evolution is a fraud. How did DNA and the system to express it evolve? Coded information unfolded upon demand by a system that needed to be coded itself evolved? How?

    How did the mind evolve from dumb chemicals and dumb apes?

    Where are the transitional fossils leading up to the bat, giraffe or even the monkey or the Cambrian explosion for that matter?

    Why has soft tissue been found in TRex bones as reported in the media with photos by Montana State University staff headed by Mary Schweitzer?

    Evolution is filled with holes and speculative assumed “facts”. Is it any wonder that our science status is declining when this specious science without empirical facts to back it up is taught in all of our universities? Kind of explains why to me. Nothing to be proud of for sure.

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      You’re comparing Christian evangelicals teaching evolution to Atheists teaching Marxism? That reminds me of Glenn Beck comparing Ken Ham to Galileo. Ironic for sure, seeing as Galileo was one of the first to question whether a Great Flood could really account for marine fossils on mountaintops.

      • Surfnut

        Fred. Your ‘scientific’ view is necessarily self debunking. It just did. You had no answer for TFJ. There’s a gap… And its your own mouth (I hope) as you just realized how far from any authority of Scripture you have been happy to travel. I am not a perfect man, in fact I am a sinner saved by Grace. But I am perfectly certain that if I believed that the “Bible is full of holes” and they shall never be filled, I would not today be a Christian, wrestling with the wreckage of a life, but never more certain that God is here with me in the mess. I would be fornicating with the girl next door and enjoying wine, song, etc in the happy belief that my sinful life is an imaginary problem that I should not take any regard of. In fact the whole idea of sin would be taken as being harmful to my well being, unless I wanted to do something about it, in which case, good for me. Everyone to his own. Eat, drink and enjoy for tomorrow we die.

    • Frederick Jacob Kohn

      Well, of course science is full of holes; that’s why people are still doing science. If the only scientific theories we accepted were those that had no holes, we wouldn’t have any scientific theories at all! But of course the Bible is full of holes as well. It doesn’t tell us who to marry, what college to go to, what career to pursue. But we don’t throw it away on that basis.

      The difference between the Bible and science is that because the Bible is unchanging it will NEVER be able to fill in its holes, but because science is changing, science WILL fill in the holes (of course, creating new holes in the process). The reason evolution is accepted despite the holes is that the holes in the theory are either easily explainable or reasonably expected to be filled in the future.

      If you look at the history of science, you will find that the rocky shoals of history are filled with statements of the type, “Science will never explain X.” For example, Auguste Compte famously declared in 1835: “On the subject of stars, all investigations which are not ultimately reducible to simple visual observations are…necessarily denied to us… We shall never be able by any means to study their chemical composition.” Within decades, scientists were studying the composition of stars.

      • TFJ

        You don’t know much about the theory of evolution do you? Gaps easily filled? Not!

        Here’s one. Each of your 100 Trillion cells works on an information system that contains programmed functionally specific information that is converted by enzymes and cellular components like ribosomes and chaperonins that themselves are arrays of programmed proteins. How does evolution account for programmed, functionally specific information systems arising without the input of any source of intelligence through matter only acting in an undirected fashion?

        Fill that gap easily. Without it no life would exist on the planet at all from microbes to human beings.

        Got the answer genius?

        That’s only one gap. There are more. And they are just as huge BTW.

    • Rogue-an-josh

      Sigh, I’ll leave most of your post alone because it’s just obviously fueled by a lack of proper research and simply say that APES ARE NOT DUMB.

  • the p00dah

    Bill Nye is nothing but a mainline revisionist shill who pushes whatever the establishment’s schemes of the day are, with a Mr Rogers cutesy spin to it. I mean, the guy ‘believes’ in the Climate Change hoax, which already in itself, discredits his great ‘wisdom’, which has been losing steam every day ever since the IPCC draft leak showed there has been no warming for 17yr, and how glacial ice is growing in both the arctic and antarctic. He likely doesnt believe in it anyway, he just fronts for the garbage in the British Monarchy, Al Gore, Exxon, Chevorn, Dutch Shell, Maurice Strong, the roaches in the UN, and the rest of the sludge trying to centralize their energy conglomerates, while subsidizing us on junk energy tech that puts mankind back into a backward indigenous state, while theyre all exempt and get to trade the carbon credits around on exchanges and make millions from, which of course, Al Gore was trying to do with this CCX that wound up tanking.

  • Frederick Jacob Kohn

    Well, actually I did read Cahn’s Harbinger, but I wasn’t nearly as impressed by it as you seem to be. Nor were many Christian sites, who are aghast at what they see as Cahn’s misuse of scripture.

    Instead of reading Christian pop fiction to learn about science, I suggest that you study it at a university. There has never been a point where the U.S. “stopped trusting in God and started trusting in science.” Millions of people trust in both.

    • Rogue-an-josh

      I’m sure this dude would trust the medical doctors at a hospital if he ever gets hit by one of Zeus’s lightning bolts (I’m a Zeustian)

  • don’t want gmail

    For those really interested in getting into the details on this issue, highly recommend the book Darwin’s Doubt that came out last year. Hate to see such uninformed comments when I go to threads like this.

  • visualwave

    Well people believe in lots of false things and evolution is one of them. Too bad it hasn’t been trashed earlier. It was known to be false but promoted for political agenda part of which is to het rid of christanity. There is a war on for people’s souls. In essence if one believes science and evolution then they must ditch Christianity. At least that is how it is presented in the schools and media. Fortunately lies have a tendency of being exposed for what they are lies. Evolution at least macro evolution not variations has had zero evidence but promoted as fact. One day people will be upset and come back to the truth before it’s too late

    • The_Magic_M

      > It was known to be false

      You mean like infinitesimal mathematics are wrong because Zeno didn’t understand it 2,000+ years ago?

    • The_Magic_M

      > if one believes science and evolution then they must ditch Christianity

      Well, I’d rather ditch talking snakes and an omniscient “god” who has to call out for Adam to know where he hides (“But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?””) than ditch 1+1=2 or the heliocentric model.

      • visualwave

        oh and in addition talk to molecular biologists and find out just how complex a single cell is and how many complex nano machines are inside a cell, you find the answer to be over 1 billion for the simplest cell that we know existed well back in time and was complex from the outset. Information that can not be accounted for by undirected processes lots of information. natural selection reduces genetic information it does not create it and it was not created randomly, that is mathematically impossible .
        So by any good engineering processes the proposed theory fails big time. not just a little but has holes you can drive a truck through and you don’t have to believe in God to see that it is a theory of smoke and mirrors

        • The_Magic_M

          > natural selection reduces genetic information

          That is untrue, or at least a red herring. Evolution isn’t just natural selection, it’s also mutation (without mutation there would be no different traits to “select” from).

          And mutation of course produces different genetic information.

          > it was not created randomly, that is mathematically impossible

          1+1=3 is mathematically impossible. You are conflating “highly improbable” with impossible.

          To which I always replay, if you flip a coin 100 times, the chance of getting the exact sequence you got is 1:2^100, however that does not mean what you just did was impossible.

          I wonder why you ID people can never make an argument without misleading (ignoring mutation, see above) or outright lying (“mathematically impossible”).

          > you don’t have to believe in God to see that it is a theory of smoke and mirrors

          The only smoke and mirrors I see were just produced by you, see above.

          Got any more ID talking points to parrot?

          • surfnut

            (To The_Magic_M)…To which type of statement I often reply (as a software systems engineer and once biologist): This is not lying, but falls out of probability theory, That is precisely the point. Highly improbable IS in effect impossible (in the finite time that some believe has occurred). less probable. The probability calculations that apply are just so large. It is just the way the universe works. We often find it hard to perceive how infinitesimally small the chances of these events producing useful information are.

            Complex programmed information systems just do not, and cannot write themselves. To imagine that they could requires one to believe that a mechanism for capturing and storing the new information existed BEFORE the new information was ‘keyed’ into the data storage machine, so that it may be held in stock and perhaps prove useful at the right point. The software has then to be validated as functionally useful to the organism; or it may not be passed on, likely. It has to code for a genuinely new genetic trait, or be capable of contributing to an existing gene’s expression. -All information systems without exception must undergo a validation check if damage or useless data are not to confuse or destroy its functionality and prevent any disturbance to normal operation.

            Then, assuming error correction mechanisms do not eliminate the new ‘data’ by copy and deletion correction, enough useful information has then to be decoded to make new proteins, and other cell structures (system architectures) expressed ALL AT THE RIGHT POINT IN TIME to afford it the slightest chance of offering ANY selective advantage to the individual(s) containing the beneficial change.

            Those who insist that this is possible ignore / misread, or misunderstand probability theory and the energy laws. They believe that these information systems could somehow spawn functional data types, and new genetic code functional blocks to create a brand new structure that would confer NO large disadvantage to the individual in its first and presumably often incomplete physical expression.

            To argue that, by chance, a completely new genetic functional block and data types, fully formed, can appear and survive is equivalent to arguing that it is possible to get a warm fluffy rabbit from the bottom of a top hat.

          • The_Magic_M

            > Highly improbable IS in effect impossible (in the finite time that some believe has occurred).

            Did you even understand my coin flip example? By your logic, the sequence your coin created was so improbable it was impossible, so you did not just flip the coin the way you flipped it? Do you understand what a paradox is?

            > To argue that, by chance, a completely new genetic functional block and data types, fully formed, can appear and survive

            Well then how did the magical Creator suddenly form fully functional?

            And if you say “it always existed”, then why haven’t humans and rabbits “always existed”?

          • Surfnut

            Re. the ‘coin flip’. You might want to work out how long it would take to get the 100 heads in row, if you want to use that. Clue: The number of atoms estimated in the entire known Universe is only about 10 the power of 80.
            You are mistaken and misunderstand the mathematics, or you do understand that, and you have more faith than I have! By evolutionists own reckoning the universe has not been around long enough for such coin flip tricks to ever work. =Coin Flop. Sincerely, Surfnut. (We may as well have a laugh about it and share a beer). Here’s to you mate for all the fun in reading this stuff! I have to admit i did not know if that power of 100 was too big, but it seemed mighty fishy!
            Yeah I know we can’t explain how God got there. We think time affects him, but it does not. Time is for us, his creatures. Not him. He made it. That’s something we have to live with, for now. I know it is not satisfying, by itself. But what did you expect? We are mere mortals trapped in time, for now.

          • The_Magic_M

            > You might want to work out how long it would take to get the 100 heads in row

            You didn’t get my argument. Nobody sat there and said “let’s see if life will spring into existence by chance, it’s sooo improbable”, just like nobody said “let’s see if Surfnut hits exactly the coin toss sequence I wrote down before”. That’s your fallacy.

            Only because life sprung into existance are we able to even ask the question, and it makes no sense in hindsight to say “it was so improbable this sequence came up, so we cannot possibly exist”.

            > We think time affects him, but it does not.

            That assumes a lot of knowledge about something you yourself admit to have no knowledge about.

            In what way does “time not affect him”? And why do you assume there is only one creator? By ID logic, a trillion creators could exist because they have “always existed”. Same logic but I don’t think you like that result (that there is no one god, that your god is not special at all but just one in a zillion), do you?

            > Yeah I know we can’t explain how God got there.

            You mean “yet”. Even if I agreed there was a creator, it doesn’t mean we can never understand his/her/its nature.

            Just think of how people could not explain thunder and lightning 2,000 years ago and attributed it to Zeus or Thor. Today we know there is no divine interaction involved in it. Science, dude!

          • surfnut

            Sir the naivety and foolishness of the statement “Today we know there is no divine interaction involved in it” is amazing. Try putting that to the philosophy class. You would get a few sad laughs. ‘Science’ cannot address the presence or absence or Almighty God, as He chooses how and where he reveals himself to mankind. As he is a person, with feelings and desires, this is exactly what I expect. And it is what I have experienced.

            I am finished here, as you don’t want to engage with real life conversation on philosophy but throw up ridicule in the face of arguments that have taxed the minds of men and women for millennia. I had felt it worthwhile to see if you could seriously address the impossible issue of the start of life -for which there will never be an answer inside of science, as the maths and physics DO NOT add up. Carl Sagan, much to my sadness could not see this either. Extremely bright man, but blind to the simple truth that his science cannot be expected to answer this. (So some are blind to this, but we need to to move on to more profitable discussions). Equally the science does not preclude a Lord of creation who made us for his purposes. Neither can it prove him, as he is not a thing to be inspected, but a person to know, and to trust.

            As Jesus said, some are “..not willing to come to me that you would have life.” Please believe and trust in Jesus Christ. He has the answers you need, and the main thing we need is to receive his love.

          • The_Magic_M

            > He chooses how and where he reveals himself to mankind.

            So you profess to know more about your god than all your religious scholars? I mean, you’re the first to claim “he is a person, with feelings and desires”.

            So you don’t only know that your god exists, you know it’s male (not female or unrelated to any gender), it’s a “person” (not a computer or a hive mind or something totally inconceivable), has “feelings” (that means “he” can hate, be jealous etc?) and “desires” (like what, sex, food, football?)?

            Amazing. Someone should crown you pope!

            > the naivety and foolishness of the statement “Today we know there is no divine interaction involved in it” is amazing

            You don’t need the supernatural to explain thunder and lightning. Are you writing from the Dark Ages?

            > the impossible issue of the start of life

            If it were impossible, we would not exist.

            > for which there will never be an answer inside of science

            Like they said about lightning 2,000 years ago. If you choose to remain dumb, that’s your choice, but don’t force it on others.

            > as the maths and physics DO NOT add up

            Says the person who calls his god a “person with desires”. Do you know what a covariant vector field is, or supersymmetry? If not, how can you claim “it doesn’t add up”?
            It seems you rather have chosen for yourself that “I don’t understand it, therefore science will never be able to explain it, therefore God”. If you want to remain in the caves, good for you. Just don’t reproduce and let homo sapiens do that.

      • visualwave

        BBTW I should have been more specific if one believe evolution. there is plenty of good science and certainly being an engineer I am not anti science I am anti bad science. But these days in educational systems it is implied that if you want to do science you have to leave religion and certainly that shoud never be thee case not if you permit freee inquiry as science claims it does. BTW in Europe there is a lot of people in thee schools that know evolution is major league flawed and like myself yes variations exist but the source of life and coming all from a single cell that somehow randomly came together seems pretty laughable to Europeans I know and they do not take the strict evolution view that the US system does BTW. even still there has been decline of thee number of Christians in Europe and some countries are taking action so that it does not go away, Belgium for instance supports and encourages religion being taught even though at the moment not a lot of students take advantage of it. They recognize at least that society is much better off with a faith in God than not and that a secularization of a society when followed to its logical conclusion leads to moral inversions

        • The_Magic_M

          > in Europe there is a lot of people in thee schools that know evolution is major league flawed

          Having lived in Europe for a long time, I can tell you that claim is full of sh…

          There’s always people who agree with the religious bunch, but “a lot of” is certainly a stretch.

          > the source of life and coming all from a single cell that somehow randomly came together

          So you claim to know the truth?

          > seems pretty laughable to Europeans I know

          Just like I know Americans who claim Earth is 6,000 years old and the Sun revolves around it. Everybody knows people who are crazy.

          > Belgium for instance supports and encourages religion being taught

          Religion is being taught in all (Western) European countries, but as a field of its own and not in science class.

  • Frederick Jacob Kohn

    Well, if ignorance means not knowing all of the many thousands of arguments that creationists find impressive, I plead: mea culpa! Out of curiosity I did follow your links. None of them have anything whatsoever to do with fossils (which are defined as preserved biological remains, not human artifacts), which is the subject of this article, and all I have addressed.

    I believe you are engaging in what is known as a “Gish gallop”.

  • Will

    The most common comment is one along the lines of there being no transitional fossils, something utterly absurd. While the fossil record is undeniably incomplete, it is replete with huge numbers of fossils and in some cases magnificent examples of major transitions of single features, and whole lineages.

    We have dozens and dozens of hominid fossils for example that allow us to observe changes in hand and foot shape, size, brain size, tooth form and others. The fossil record of early whales and their ancestors allow us to see an incredible transition – from fully quadrupedal and terrestrial animals to those living in the water and unable to survive on land. Take a look at Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Kutchicetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus and others in order and you can almost watch the change happening – the nostrils fuse together and move back over the head to form a blowhole, the teeth become more simple and peg-like, the snout elongates, the neck shrinks, the back becomes more flexible to swim better, the hands become more flipper-like, the legs and pelvis reduce and disappear, the bones become more dense.
    Dorudon The extinct Dorudon. Although some modern whales retain the vestiges of a pelvis, in this ancient form there are still tiny legs present. Compare this to the modern form in the background which also has more flipper-like hands.

    Exactly the kinds of transition demanded – one ”kind” of animal (an ancient antelope-like ungulate) has turned into another (a whale). It’s all there and well documented with numerous fossil finds, anatomical characters quite clearly changing, the fossils independently dated to the order in which they would be expected to appear, family trees showing the changes occurred in sequence (and match the ages of the fossils too) and more.

    continued: http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/feb/13/birds-and-dinosaurs-one-of-the-great-fossil-connections

  • Bob Loblaw

    My biology teacher, Mr. G, used to teach at a K – 12 Christian school many years back, and in his biology class, he taught evolution. Naturally, this made many parents of religious families upset, and he expected quite a lot of backlash at parent-teacher night. Looking back, he laughs and says, “I knew they wanted a piece of me.”
    So, to prepare, he bought regular 50 piece puzzles, and took a few pieces out from each of them. Then, when the parents arrived, he put them on the table, and requested the parents to construct the puzzles,without seeing the final picture on the box cover. By the time they eventually put all of the pieces they had together, he asked them, “What is it a picture of?”
    They responded, “A flowerpot!” or, “A butterfly!” or, “A house!”
    But then he told them, “But you don’t have all the pieces! How can you know!”
    They said, “Well, we can see it!”
    And he asked again, “You can’t see everything! How do you know for sure?”
    They kept saying variations of, “Well, we don’t have all the pieces, but we know what it is, because they make up the shapes, and the lines to form the picture.” and, “It’s not complete, and we don’t know for sure, because we don’t have all of the pieces, but we know the image from the other pieces, and what it suggests the other pieces will be.”
    And then, it soon dawned on them that this is how theories are formed, and how evolution is a worthwhile idea to understand and learn.
    My teachers now says in class to his students, when we are learning about evolution, “It’s alright if you believe in something else, and it’s okay to keep those beliefs. We don’t want to attack you. But, in biology class, we want you to open your mind, and learn about evolution. Not believe in evolution initially, just understand it at first. We are not forcing you to believe something; this classroom should be a safe environment.”
    Aristotle once said, “It is a mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
    All the scientific community asks the religious community to do is to consider our evidence and arguments. After you have properly understood all of it, and thought about how well it can apply to our world, then you may go back to your beliefs if you are still not convinced. However, I am sure that it will open your mind, and help you understand our world a little better.

  • David England

    Fatal flaw in creationism- if we find one object that predates the supposed time of creation (6000~ years ago according to ken ham) The entire theory on creationism is null. Simple.

    • The_Magic_M

      But… but… but… they will just say God buried the dinosaurs to test our faith! *lol*

      • Surfnut

        Magic_M, I am glad to tell you that this is a non-argument today and that no creationist should (or would) use a reply like this. Some very misguided people in churches 75 or more years ago might have believed this once, which was foolish. I believe in a God who is interested in the space – time facts, and because of these ‘facts’ the human race is in the mess it is in today (but there is a remedy). Furthermore, the fossils exist, in the vast majority of sites because of the almost incredible results of a massive global flood catastrophe. Christians and Jews believe this was the water judgement, or Noahic flood, of which the story resonates with most other the cultures story/myths of an ancient man and his family saved out of an enormous flood. The SCIENCE of that event is shown clearly for all to see in the RAPID PRESERVATION of the fossil remains; perfect preservation in so very many cases – fish especially – even down to the muscle structure, Others even have blood vessels in the numerous cases of bones with collagen and blood vessels present, such as the T.Rex called ‘Sue’ found in the Badlands in the U.S.A. So fresh indeed and so astounding was this find that, as you may be aware, that evolutionists questioned the findings for some time.The perfectly reasonably wanted to be sure, by seeing new evidence, and a bigger picture of this work. Schweitzer et al published a steady stream of evidence, and it could no longer be denied.

        However it is self evident that the bone is indeed fresh. It smells of death. It has NOT decayed substantially due to the extreme nature of the anoxic burial in richly mineralized water sediments.

  • David England

    Yeah just go ahead and look into quantum physics, extremely hard to comprehend but that will give you an idea of just how complex our universe is.

  • The_Magic_M

    > of which even Darwin himself said was seriously flawed and lacked any evidence

    See, that is the kind of argument that shows that you have no idea how science works.

    Contrary to your religion, it is not dependent on “prophets” being right or wrong, or scientists being good people.

    Treating evolution theory like it hasn’t evolved (lol) since Darwin is like claiming Thor is responsible for thunder because everybody said so 1,500 years ago.
    Or like taking an early quote of Einstein saying “this whole relativity stuff doesn’t work” to “refute” the breakthrough he achieved later.

    Seriously, if your argument against modern science is “its founder didn’t fully understand it 150 years ago”, you should crawl back under your rock.

    • Trent

      That was only part of my argument… there hasn’t been any additional
      evidence to support the theory of evolution so what are you even talking
      about? ZERO transitional species have been discovered. How about the
      Cambrian explosion, which wasn’t known at the time of Darwin, which
      really goes against the theory of evolution, or how about even with or
      current technology, we have NEVER, EVER been able to create spontaneous
      life, such as single celled organisms.

      You see, Darwin hoped
      evidence would emerge that would prove his theory, yet none has, only
      propaganda and dogma in order to fool you out of your gift of eternal
      life through Jesus Christ, see how easy it is for a truly intelligent
      being like Satan to fool you?

      If evidence did actually emerge to
      prove evolution, I would investigate it and believe it, as I did when I
      was a child being taught in government “learning” institutions (it still
      wouldn’t disprove god).

      Your right about evidence since Darwin,
      all of it is disproving the theory. Do you know why it’s still being
      taught as if it’s fact, even though there is zero evidence? because
      Satan, a real being, wants it to be taught and pushed, so that ignorant
      people like yourself will believe what they were told to believe in
      school by “intelligent” people.

      Also you obviously didn’t check out any of my links.

      • The_Magic_M

        > there hasn’t been any additional evidence

        Covering your ears going LALALALA doesn’t count.

        > ZERO transitional species have been discovered.

        That’s because that’s something that doesn’t exist (and doesn’t have to exist for evolution to be correct).

        You keep building straw men.

        > how about even with or current technology, we have NEVER, EVER been able to create spontaneous

        So? 1,000 years ago, people couldn’t create lightning. Is that “proof” that God is causing it?

        Apart from that, you’re deflecting again. Evolution does not teach how life came into existence but how it developed after it did.
        Evolution does not disprove the existence of God, nor does it want to. Another straw man your ilk tries to build.

        And you have the audacity to lecture me about lies and Satan? You’re the dishonest one in this discussion.

        > Your right about evidence since Darwin,all of it is disproving the theory.

        Wrong again. Also, it’s “you’re”.

        > why it’s still being taught as if it’s fact, even though there is zero evidence?

        You’re talking about the Bible again, aren’t you?

        > Also you obviously didn’t check out any of my links.

        I did. The first already fails to make an argument. If people in 2,000 years dig out one of our libraries and find “Lord of the Rings”, should they conclude Orcs and wizards and Hobbits existed in our time?

  • David England

    Fatal flaw in creationism- if we find one object that predates the supposed time of creation (6000~ years ago according to ken ham) The entire theory on creationism is null. Simple. Btw I like how infowars stopped the comments for a few weeks then re opened them..interesting.

  • Bottom line is a scientist that study’s something there whole life knows a lot more then a preacher that has only read one book of fiction his whole life. So if your getting your scientific facts from church instead of a science book then that is the problem… Religion takes faith because there is no evidence to support it. But science isn’t science with out evidence to back it. So deny the science all you want and believe in all the fairy tails you like but at the end of the day the science is fact weather you like it or not …..

    • Surfnut

      Sorry to disappoint, but most of us who write to oppose your evolution myth have studied hard and long, and it does you no credit to use ridicule to try win your argument. You also quote fallaciously the meaning of Faith. Faith has always taken facts as foundation, and facts are VERY important in keeping that foundation secure. Hence the war over Genesis, which, as Jesus himself pointed out, some of the people did not believe, and so they could not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

      Her is a FACT, you might wish to take account of..
      Many learned and apparently wise men have argued and debated theories and origins of life and the universe over 1000’s of years. They often disagreed with one another. You know what NEVER disagreed? The facts IN and ON the ground and on top of the mountains have NEVER disagreed with one another.

      They all simply point to a massive destructive and global flood, in which animals and plants were buried very quickly and so are prevented from much decay.

  • Surfnut

    I am keen to know why you think you should simply believe this. Do you believe someone who tells you (by their estimation) that the bone is 65 MA old when no dating technique has been used on the material to show that? If you do, then on what basis? Faith? How it is that this is 65 MA old? And do you believe that delicate structure of cell protein could survive for 65 thousand, thousand years? Apparently, though I don’t have a reference here, it is not possible for material to remain intact for that long, and material degrades. It is amazing that it was preserved at all.

    Unfortunately, I have to tell you that Mary Shweitzer’s boss, Professor Jack Horner was offered carbon 14 analysis of the bones to be paid for by blind sampling in independent labs, and even a substantial grant of $20,000 to assist the work, but he refused to accept this invitation.

    Therefore, we believe this material has not been objectively tested for approximate age, and if it were tested, we would almost certainly find a lot of carbon 14 in it (probably a lot of it). The evolutionist does not allow C14 dating of these samples as he/she ‘knows’ that the material is very old, and so (believes) any result of the dating would be a waste if time, sadly. So if the analysis was done, the C14 evidence would probably be put on one side and even not published.

    Let’s ask ourselves – is that ‘objective science’?
    Surely, where Schweitzer has taken the trouble to extract real collagen protein, and reveal blood vessels made of course of organic protein molecules whose constituent parts (amino acids) can be detected, then the carbon content has meaning, with C14 content. Should dating be done, the dates can be considered as part of the completed evidence set of these remarkable samples.

  • the truth

    Lol. The big bang is not a fact, and 99.9% of scientists would not agree that it is a fact. Do you expoects people to accept your made up statistics? You have no credibility whatsoever in this discussion

  • Krist Martin

    The claim in this article is very problematic because they misrepresent what Nye said. In general we do not find fossils of animals known to live during a specific period in rock layers that don’t belong to said time period. So what about mammals, well the thing is there were mammals that lived alongside dinosaurs, and we do not find mammals fossils in layers that we don’t expect to find them in. Furthermore, any instance where we do find fossils out of place, there is evidence of causes for their being found in the wrong layer that explain the discrepancy. Be it from geological uplift, erosion causing fossils to and rock layers to drop, to human manipulation. Nye didn’t lie, people who don’t understand geology or archaeology are the ones misrepresenting the reality of the matter.

  • Rogue-an-josh

    Please read what you have written and try to keep a straight face. I bet you can’t!

    Please, please just actually read some material about The Theory of Evolution from actual scientists and you will be presented with the evidence. To call it faith proves you’ve only ever gotten information from sites like this one. Please I urge you to go do the research with some integrity and then think about your position.

  • Rogue-an-josh

    That stegosaurus is hilarious. Looks nothing like a stegosaurus and it’s the BEST YOU’VE GOT!!!

    And the Ica stones are a hoax!!! Where’s my crying laughing emoji?!

    And the other link…Genesis Park. Need I say more?

  • Fossils get shifted and shuffled when the land pushes and pulls apart from itself.
    Hasn’t any of you been to college?

    • Professor_Tertius

      Based on their word choices, it is clear that several of the more prolific anti-evolution posters on this page are young teens. (Example: “Evolution is fake!” suggests middle-schooler/pre-teens.)

      If you’ve seen the published surveys and demographic studies, anti-evolution Young Earth Creationists have low rates of university degrees and even quite low rates of high school graduation, especially within the American Bible Belt. My first pastorate was in the Deep South where the Civil War (one would have thought) was still being fought. Half of my church elder board was WWII veterans and almost half never graduated from high school. Only one had attended college, but he never finished. (The GI Bill sent lots of vets to universities after the war.) But ALL of those elders treated Usshers chronology in their Scofield Study Bibles as if it were inspired scripture. So when Morris & Whitcomb publish The Genesis Flood in 1962, they fell for it hook line and sinker (much as I did!) We didn’t know any better because we never checked the books footnote citations and we assumed that it was an honest reflection of current science. It wasn’t.

      The Church will always be vulnerable to false teachers whenever we ignore what the Bible says about itself in terms of its purpose: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” Notice not only what 2Timother 3:16 says—but also notice what it does NOT say! (The Bible never claims to be a science textbook!)

  • Read Richard Dawkins “The Greatest Show On Earth: the Proof for Evolution” and it also cites it’s sources.
    It also talks about this exact thing and squashes the argument.

  • Also scientists, using early Earth conditions using the four common amino acids found in asteroids and they created simple DNA strands.
    Plus there’s proof of the big bang in the cosmic radiation emitting in the areas the math said it’d go. No proof of God though.
    And anything can come from nothing, as proved with the Higgs boson. And if you say the Big Bang would have been so improbable that they forget that it had all eternity to happen randomly.
    Also a pure vacuum creates static. Which could of kick started the Big Bang.
    Which is more believable? A testable theory (in science is a way of putting the facts together, not a guess) that has been proven true in labs or that there always was an all knowing MAN in the sky who is all powerful. Sounds more like Tolkien fairy tale than a truth.

  • Professor_Tertius

    Wow. Another sad example of denialist ranting about alleged errors in Bill Nye’s statements while ignoring Ham’s, all while this article is full of misrepresentations of the scientific evidence. For example, there is nothing shocking about mammalian fossils in rock strata containing dinosaur fossils! There were lots of mammals on earth at that time, not nearly as many as later on, but they were there. This is a great example of anti-evolutionists taking advantage of science-illiterate audiences to imply some huge error in paleontology.

    I won’t try to catalog all of the lies in this article, but here’s one of the hardest to miss: “Due to the rate that it decays, there should be absolutely no measurable radioactive carbon left in any fossils that are “greater than 100,000 years old”. Rubbish! Anybody who understands even the high school level math behind radiometrics should know that the C-14 is asymptotic, the readings rarely yield “0.00000”, and all sorts of adjacent decay chains and radioactive sources preserve a relatively steady background radiation. All you have to do is consult a first year radiometrics textbook and these methodological issues are covered. Do you REALLY think all of the world’s PhD physicists somehow overlooked these issues but Ken Ham and his science-bungling pals somehow exposed a massive error and worldwide conspiracy. This is the same nonsense many of us in the “creation science” movement of the 1960’s were pushing.

    This article makes me angry because we as Christ-followers should NEVER be associated with bearing false-witness. But dishonest propaganda has become the lifeblood of the origins ministry entrepreneurs who are eating away at the evangelical world. Instead of making disciples for the Lord Jesus Christ, too many among us are elevating pseudo-science nonsense in a misguided attack on evolutionary biology and paleontology instead of bringing the Gospel to a sinful world.

    Augustine described the problem many centuries ago—-and some are repeating the blunders which Augustine saw in the Church of his day:

    “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]”

    • Surfnut

      re “Due to the rate that it decays, there should be absolutely no measurable radioactive carbon left in any fossils that are “greater than 100,000 years old”.
      That is true, not false. The fact is that according to the decay curve of C14 at 100 KA there can be little more than background levels of radiation remaining (albeit there is always going to be a small count above the background). The samples showing this level of activity of course (vastly more than background levels) demontrate that they cannot be, if they were pure and uncontaminated, millions of year old. Not a chance. This is so much so that using the trusted AMS method run by reputable independant labs, all samples presented to the labs can have multiple runs with sub-samples to gauge, with confidence limits applied, the relative radiocarbon age of the sample being tested.

      • Professor_Tertius

        “If they were pure and uncontaminated….” And that’s the rub. Nature is not pristine. And you admitted as much: “there can be little more than background levels of radiation remaining (albeit there is always going to be a small count above the background).” Well stated! The published literature is full of analysis of the various decay chains and why your amateurish dodge doesn’t work. This “there should be no C-14 remaining” nonsense was debunked half a century ago.

        Visit any major university and knock on the faculty lounge at the departments of physics or geology around lunch time—and tell them your anti-radiometric dating spiel. After the laughing dies down, get back to me and tell me how it went over.

        (I used to be a “creation science” speaker/debater back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. I know your script quite well because I helped promote it. Nowadays nobody above a high school freshman level of science literacy is gullible enough to fall for it.)

        • Surfnut

          You are full of hot air, nonsense, and completely invalid ‘thinking’. Many of us will be incredulous at the silly smokescreen you put up around what is the direct effect of the standard decay curve for a radioisotope, and a rather well documentated one. I have never heard an evolutionist put up such rubbish! -“Unscientific bull” I am afraid. I notice you cannot argue from factual data. I call your bluff.

  • Professor_Tertius

    Did Bill Nye lie about “the fossil layers”? No he did not. But Ken Ham lies about them regularly.

  • Surfnut

    Dear Frederick: Regarding your comments about evolution being found out to be true..” (a couple of years ago now). K.W. Gilberson eh..Who would have thought it?

    And so Fred your authority for the meaning of the Bible’s teaching on the historical accuracy of its own teaching is well… rather different to mine, I think we agree. Let’s take a look:
    By reasoning that evolution from simple forms of life is true, you are only able to state who Adam was, where his wife Eve came from, and what physically happened to the world after they ‘sinned’, from an entirely mythological perspective. This is because unless you believe in an exception for mankind, “evolution is true – except for human evolution”, you have to make Adam a mythological person, or a ‘representative of mankind’, descended from ape like ancestors, and at a very uncertain time frame indeed.

    Thus, all Adam’s descendants could, by this view be seen by the unbelieving world to be mythological – mere ideas of people, not historical, and so having no real relevance today, except as example stories of how God views sin and what he will do with those who do not repent (Even though all those stories in Genesis are ‘probably myths’ so we cannot be sure what God would do. And anyway, is not most the O.T. historically problematic too? [Sin, then never having a actual specific beginning, and there having been no perfection in the ‘creation’, only millions of years of struggle, pain, and death before the ’emergence of man’ who is an animal with a 2.5 Kg brain but supposedely and eternal soul.. .which began when?.. Well, let’s face it; we are uncertain of that bit too. Sorry we can’t be more certain].

    So – The idea that sin began with Adam’s literal disobedience would rightly be a rollicking good laugh for these folks! -They would be correct. Its a laugh a minute! Why should fornication, lying, murder, and cheating others always have been sinful? Surely they were not? These sins evolved when we got enlightened of course.. so – The conscience of man must have evolved too! After all, evolution, you say, is true. No sin whilst we were animals. (Must have been great not to have a conscience, whilst fornicating with your neighbour and feeling no shame, eh? No sin, no sham. Nice one Fred!). But ‘modern’ so-called Bible churches get around this problem don’t they, by telling people that Genesis has many interpretations, and really all we have to do is:
    “Believe in Jesus and the Cross that took away sins. Its true. Really really really it is! You can be sure of it! Its in the Bible! And the Bible is true of course. Well in the main. Especially the New Testament bit. But we don’t have to believe all that creation and flood stuff literally, as evolution is a proven fact. We all know that! It’s in all the text books and scientists are not stupid. We all know that except stupid people, that is. I mean, there is NO WAY that God would have caused the complete destruction of His world due to wickedness, is there? Well, not globally; It would be impossible to do that. A big local flood it must have been. We know that all that sedimentary rock with fossils in it does not mean a global flood. We’re wise today, and know so much more than 200 years ago. Let’s face it, we must not confuse unbelievers with creation. It really does not matter. Its a side issue, and Ken Ham is wrong.”

    That is you, Fred, I assume.

    – So Fred, that would be the same Jesus who told us about Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah who was a fictional boat-buider for a flood that never killed “every living thing in which was the breath of life” and which covered all the high mountains”? Aha. See the problem? No? You have an intepretation from human wisdom which names Christ as “The Lord Jesus Christ” but ignores the problem of authenticity and the fact that Jesus believed that “Sin came into the world through one man.” So, yes – Let’s all live in your reality – an evolutionized world, where we can only really depend on our own experience of God for authority. The WORD made flesh? Well…. yes, but to believe that every word of the Blbie is true, where it speaks of historical events – ha ha! That’s all rather far fetched, isn’t it?

    * * *
    The problem is that you have removed the authority for the eternal Gospel, and no mattter what you do, you are unable to wriggle off the hook that dug deep, and is inescapable: That Jesus meant exactly what he said, and he did not have an faulty view of history as “Before Abraham was, I AM.” And “You search the scriptures… These are they which TESTIFY OF ME.”

    Fred, a little execise for you: Take the Bible in one hand and scissors in the other. Insert scissors where you see fit. Count the pages removed just for interest, and let me know what you have left. I would be interested to know the number of inches thickness of a standard size ‘Bible’ remaining.

  • Surfnut

    David. re “scientists, using early Earth conditions using the four common amino acids found in asteroids and they created simple DNA strands.”
    Could you please source me the authority of that?
    And could you tell me what it would prove if scientists (human beings with vast intelligence, like yours) did created DNA from a mixture of base pairs?

    Would it not prove that intelligence can create some of the necessary biochemicals of life using biochemical engineering? Period?