Quote:


DUH! Ya Think?

This page has a bunch of Creation Scientists:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

SD

Evolution posits gradual speciation through random mutations. The fossil record does NOT show that. The fossil record shows dramatic and rapid bursts of speciation, followed by millions of years of no speciation. Something is greatly wrong with Darwin's theory.

There is also scientific evidence which supports the idea that intelligence was involved in our design (and the same is true with the design of the universe). Indeed, evidence for the presence of intelligent design in the universe dwarfs evidence for random creation.

Alotta modern day scientists don't want to go where the science leads them. They are ideologues.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Asserting that Darwinian evolution is the only possible explanation for biological diversity and change is a little like insisting Newtonian physics is the only possible explanation for the way physical matter interacts in the universe.

To think that, in America, of all places, we now have judges and politicians dictating to public schools what theories of science are to be considered true and false and are "worthy" to be explored as ideas in the classroom is . . . pitiful.

Good for the 500 for standing up to the Luddites.

C

Is this really a current article? Surely this is from 1906, not 2006. Please God help us all if it is not.

Steve,

Which random batch of blue-green pond scum did you selectively and randomly evole from; and what, pray tell triggered that random act of evolution, since there is still abundant blue-green algae around?

The atheist's creed:

We're all just random creations in a random universe that means nothing. The purpose of our lives is to get out of them as much of whatever it is we decide we want; morality is whatever we want it to be, for any reason; love is only good if we happen to decide we want it to be. From meaningless dust we were born - into meaningless dust we will be rerendered. Beauty is just an opinion and there is no heaven or hell. We're like sparks that flame out and die. Might as well selfishly satisfy ourselves in any way we want before the flameout comes.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

I mentioned this article in a thread posting a few days back, but no one picked up on it.

Darwinism is in serious trouble for those of you that follow it, but many of its supporters will never acknowledge it.

God Bless

BHTech

REPORTER INTERVIEWS GORILLA, SEEKS COMMON GROUND

By Joudda Vali—Swiss Bureau—Special to VirtueOnline

February 23, 2006

VirtueOnline’s seasoned reporter, Joe of the Valley, obtained an exclusive interview yesterday with Coco, the 375-pound gorilla housed at the Philadelphia Zoo. Coco is an articulate descendent of Homo erectus, from whom Homo sapien evolved, beginning around 23,000,000,065 BCE, according to carbon dating.

The transcript of the interview appears here in its entirety.

Joe: What an honor and a privilege to speak with you, Coco. You are my favorite ape.
Coco: Banana.
Joe: Of course. (Reporter gives banana to Coco).
Coco: Good.
Joe: That’s wonderful. I like bananas, too. Coco, what’s your opinion of Darwinian Theory? Scientists believe you and I share a common ancestry.
Coco: Coco no like. Coco banana.
Joe: Sure. (Another banana is offered.) But what do you think about evolution and our common ancestors.
Coco: Coco from ape; you from amoeba.
Joe: Ha! What an amazing sense of humor.
Coco: Coco no laugh.
Joe: I see.
Coco: Coco want you leave.

As a scientist myself (PhD in Genetics from MIT and the Karolisnka Institutet in Stockholm) I just don't see what's all the whoop about it, neither theory has been proven to be true, so basically, there is no conclusive way to prove that Darwin was right, in spite of the data collected over the last centuries, or even less that a superior being, who Westerners call God did it. My position is that both theories (or points of view, however they can be called) should be taught as ways to explain the origins of life in this planet, and let people decide what they believe, in any case both theories should be taught with balance, explaining the evidence and arguments in favor and against both, without pushing them down anybody's throat, and allowing the students make up their own minds.

You're right on the mark, kglenmark.

Scientifically, lacking proof for either theory, one should be scientifically agnostic on evolution and intelligent design. And one should explain what evidence there is for each to children in school.

Religiously, we are told by revealed truth that God created us, directly or indirectly. We do not know the details of how that was done, and we are not provided those details in the Bible or through Christ.

However, the intital low entropy of the universe (incredibly high order), and the clear fine-tuning in its design give far more (scientific) weight to the likelihood of its design.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Coco think kglenmark sexy. Coco want date.

jotv

Kglenmark said

"As a scientist myself (PhD in Genetics from MIT and the Karolisnka Institutet in Stockholm) I just don't see what's all the whoop about it, neither theory has been proven to be true, so basically, there is no conclusive way to prove that Darwin was right, in spite of the data collected over the last centuries, or even less that a superior being, who Westerners call God did it."

*******


I respectfully, have to disagree with you on that matter. I too like you have a Ph.D. and the problem I have with your statement is that teaching two or contradictory theories on our origins can only lead to more confusion.

As a society we are already bombarded with lots of mixed messages and I see two or more messages as being in essense the work of the father of lies, all in an effort to lead us down the wrong path and away from God. By two or more I mean ID and Creationism assuming the latter is taught at schools for which I am not 100% sure. I stand corrected on this.

I acknowledge that ID cannot be proven, but at the same time it cannot be disproven. On the other hand proof supporting evolution is constantly being challenged scientifically, which I might add has not been proven conclusively and without a doubt to be true. This is a big diffference. I feel strongly that many of the cases made against evolution are very strong and can show evolution to be false or simply not possible.

Given creationsim or ID (in its modern form) started or emerged long before Darwinism, I believe that one can make the case that this is one movement attempt to upsurp another. Darwin after all was an acclaimed aethiest, and say what you may our beliefs ultimately are linked with our research for quite a lot of people like you and me.

The analogy is the one facing the church right now. For 2000 years the church upheld that homosexuality was disordered to use Rome terms and now some people are saying that the church and Paul's teachings say, are wrong! Too much evidence... scientifically, theologically and medically says that homosexuality and heterosexuality cannot both be right, but as a society we should teach both or accept both. We are free to think what we want so to speak. This creates confusion in young peoples minds. It sows the seed of destruction of the mind to sum it up.

Again this is the father of lies behind all of this. People seem to forget (or have completely forgotten) that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but prinicipalities and powers.

Just my two cents.

God Bless

BHTech

OOORAH brother BHTech, OOORAH!!!

Kglenmark conveniently omits mentioning about the Darwinist, Feminist, Socialist, Environmentalist curriculum that is force-fed to students Kindergarten to University in Sweden - Christianity is taught as something to be despised.

G-man

Hey Coco - I hope you get your date - be careful however, kglenmark will have you believe that we humans are descended from the primates

G-man

I never get an answer to this question from those who support Darwin theories.

Did evolution stop? How many monkey's have become man in all recorded history? How about have even started to become man. It seems logical that once the process started that there would be all manner of mutations between monkey and man. Yet it seems that we must have evolved one day and then that was it. Gee, that sounds a bit creationist to me???

Jim..

Jaamie,

Don't hold your breath while waiting for the Darwinists to answer such an honest query.

G-man

Yeah, Giovanni. Darwinists tremble with fear at the growing scientific discovery that we are not accidents. Why are they so afraid? Because then they would have to acknowledge a Creator with demands on them.

With Christian love!

Esso

Jaamie and G-man, you are such impatient children. Now simply wait another 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years and you'll see all the variations you could ever imagine.

Now go back to your cages I mean cubicles and stop bothering us brilliant scientists.

Sincerely,

Dr. I.M. Kooky
Expert in Lots of Stuff

OOOPS!

Looks like evolution must be modified once again for something completely unexpected...


Fossil Overturns Ideas of Jurassic Mammals By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer
Thu Feb 23, 5:13 PM ET



WASHINGTON - The discovery of a furry, beaver-like animal that lived at the time of dinosaurs has overturned more than a century of scientific thinking about Jurassic mammals.

The find shows that the ecological role of mammals in the time of dinosaurs was far greater than previously thought, said Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.

The animal is the earliest swimming mammal to have been found and was the most primitive mammal to be preserved with fur, which is important to helping keep a constant body temperature, Luo said in a telephone interview.

For over a century, the stereotype of mammals living in that era has been of tiny, shrew-like creatures scurrying about in the underbrush trying to avoid the giant creatures that dominated the planet, Luo commented.

Now, a research team that included Luo has found that 164 million years ago, the newly discovered mammal with a flat, scaly tail like a beaver, vertebra like an otter and teeth like a seal was swimming in lakes and eating fish.

The team, led by Qiang Ji of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences in Beijing, discovered the remains in the Inner Mongolia region of China. They report their findings in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, called the find "a big deal."

An important factor is how specialized the creature was, said Carrano, who was not part of the research group.

"It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs" but were having their own evolution. There have been hints of such animals in the past but nothing equal to the remains found by Luo and colleagues, he said.

Thomas Martin of the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, Germany, said the discovery pushes back the mammal conquest of the waters by more than 100 million years.

"This exciting fossil is a further jigsaw puzzle piece in a series of recent discoveries," commented Martin, who was not part of Luo's team.

It's the first evidence that some ancient mammals were semi-aquatic, indicating a greater diversification than previously thought, the researchers said.

Modern semi-aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters and aquatic mammals like whales did not appear until between 55 million years ago and 25 million years ago, according to the researchers.

The new animal is not related to modern beavers or otters but has features similar to them. Thus the researchers named it Castorocauda lutrasimilis. Castoro from the Latin for beaver, cauda for tail, lutra for river otter and similis meaning similar.

The researchers found imprints of the fur, both guard hairs and short, dense under fur that would have kept water from the skin.

Weighing in at between 1.1 and 1.7 pounds, about the size of a small female platypus, Castorocauda is also the largest known Jurassic early mammal.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Chinese Ministry of Land Resources, National Geographic Society and Carnegie Museum.

___

To Valley Joe and Giovanni33,


I was waiting for serious replies and intellectually decent comments. From what I read, G-Man, I can tell you that that you seem to have no knowledge whatsoever about the Swedish school system, and ValleyJoe your joke (with its zoophilic overtones) simply makes you look like an ass (and I am talking about the animal species)...I don't even know why I am bothering with this...oh well, ....never mind

Hey guys -

Seriously - what kglenmark said is true. There is no proof of evolution (in the sense that Darwin described it); nor is there proof of intelligent design. What has happened recently however, is that new scientific evidence has cast more doubt on evolution and provided increased support for intelligent design. That has a lot of atheist scientists screaming in hysteria.

But apart from all of that, here are some interesting things to think about :

1) The universe was created with almost infinite entropic order, and unfolded in an incredibly precise way (scientific fact);

2) We do not know scientifically if the universe is open or closed. Most scientists assume it be closed (nothing affects it from outside of it); Christians assume it to be open (God can invtervene in it);

3) Given much historical evidence for the exitence of miracles, scientific evidence actually supports an open universe, with an entity which intervenes in it;

4) The creation of new species of life occurred in dramatic spurts historically, and did not occur throughout most of earthly history. This refutes Darwin's notion of gradual random mutational speciation;

5) The question of irreducible complexity has brought into question whether living beings could have been created through Darwinian evolution;

6) Information and statistics theory has failed to explain how the tremendous amount of information present in the most basic living things could have come from random mixing in the primordial sea (even over long periods of time);

7) We are either derivative of the immense order inherent in the creation of the universe (which is unexplained by scientists) OR order was added in later. There are no other possibilities.

With much Christian love!

Essodalori

P.S. Hey kglenmark. Don't be too sensitive. They was joshin' you.

As a kid, Darwin's theory just didn't seem logical to me anyway. I remember thinking in high school that what drives evolution is essentially a series of mutations or "defects". This being the case, take the heart - if an animal or man is born with some sort anomaly, it either results in a DOA or a greatly shortened life span. I therefore reasoned that it was unlikely that things could have happened as Darwin postulated.

Regarding the suggestion that both ID and macroevolution be taught in schools - fat chance. Such a suggestion usually brings on shrill protests from those who are hardcore Darwinians since they look at ID as being strictly in the realm of faith and religion while evolution represents objective science (in spite of the fact that they aren't even willing to admit that Darwinian evolution could be wrong).

My $.02

Steven

Poster: Godislove Posted: 2006/2/23 13:39:09

Is this really a current article? Surely this is from 1906, not 2006. Please God help us all if it is not.
============

So, according to what I believe you're saying, the more recent the science is, the more accurate, acceptable and even correct it is, right? So that means, like you are implying, we who are now living in 2006 are smarter, wiser and more knowledgeable than people were in 1906. People in 1906 were ignorant, in comparison to us. Isn't that your point?

Then by that logic, we who are living in 2006 are ignorant. In comparison to what people will know in 2106, 2206, 2306, 5006, 9006 and 5,000,000,006 we don't know what we're talking about!

So: why don't you shut up, you ignorant contemporary whiner.

Esso, although I almost always agree with you, on this issue you are full of baloney.

"There is scientific evidence which supports the idea that intelligence was involved in our design . . ."

Bullmalarkey.

I do believe that God's hand created the Big Bang. But there is no "scientific" evidence of that.

Science is silent on religion. So should be religion on science. The two are compatible.

God's peace,

Grant

Having lived in Sweden, studied at Uppsala University (Graduate work in Mathematical Physics) Soloist Diploma in Organ and Horn and extended family members working as teachers in various Schools and Universities - I won't bore you with the rest of the details since you already come across as a product of the Socialist System that has brought so much misery to the Swedish people.

Look at the morass in the Swedish Church where Social Democrats sit on the Church Council boards, deciding on Church matters of which the Socialists have nothing but contempt for since the Socialists are Atheists and Morgan Johansson the Social minister is a prime example of the Socialist rot that has overtaken Sweden, where the outgoing Archbishop Hammar was installed by the Socialists and now his sister who is a Lesbian in a relationship with another woman wants to be the next Archbishop, as does his brother H. G. Hammar who really has nothing to contribute. Jag kan skriva och prata svenska men vad spelar det foer roll? Fy fabian foer sossarna.

Kglenmark,

In jest I was commenting on your first posting on this thread, but I see you took it as a personal affront. Your second posting proved that, so I felt it necessary to share some more with VOL about the shameful situation in Sweden. I can air much more of the *dirty laundry* that Sweden produces but VOL is not the forum for that. I have been a member of the Swedish Lutheran Church as a parishioner and as Executive Commitee member in charge of Finance for a large congregation in Southern Sweden. So, I would suggest that you climb down off your high-horse.

In Xrists Salvific Love,

G-man

WINTER


One winter morning while listening to the radio, a couple hear the announcer say, "We are going to have 8 - 10 centimetres of snow today. You must park your car on the even numbered side of the street, so the snowplow can get through." Norman's wife goes out and moves her car.

A week later while they are eating breakfast, the radio announcer says, "We are expecting 10 - 12 centimetres of snow today. You must park your car on the odd numbered side of the street, so the snowplow can get through." Norman's wife goes out and moves her car again.

The next week they are having breakfast again when the radio announcer says, "We are expecting 12 - 14 centimetres of snow today. You must park..." and the power goes out. Norman's wife is very upset, with a worried look on her face she says, "Honey, I don't know what to do. Which side of the street do I need to park on so the plow can get through?"

With the love and understanding in his voice that all of us men who are married to Blondes exhibit, Norman says, "Why don't you just leave it in the garage this time?"

my Blonde wife loves me,
gregory

"Bullmalarkey. I do believe that God's hand created the Big Bang. But there is no "scientific" evidence of that. Science is silent on religion. So should be religion on science. The two are compatible."

---

Hey Grant! Whoa - just got hit with a bullmalarkey!

Seriously - not only are religion and science compatible - but science (in a number of deep ways) SUPPORTS religion.

On the question of the Big Bang - there are two deep threads of scientific evidence which greatly (nay, infinitely) support the notion of design.

They are for real - and have caused many scientists to turn to God. (Real things being judged by their fruits...)

First, the universe was aborned with astounding order (low entropy). Indeed, in calculations done by physicists (and popularized by super math/physics wiz Roger Penrose at Cambridge University), the odds of the universe having been born the way it was by chance, have been shown to be (from entropy theory): 1 out of 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. In other words, the odds of the universe's being 'randomly' created are zilch.

Second, the universe has been shown to be incredibly fine-tuned - such that any tiny deviation in its unfolding (such as with the symmetry breaking which brought about the four known forces), would have caused the whole thing to seize up and not work at all. This is very strong (indirect) evidence for design. Really. For the tiniest deviations in the unfolding would not have allowed galaxies to form, suns to shine, atoms to form, elements to be created, life to form, etc. etc.

The truth? We live inside an enormous masterpiece, which has been wound up, and is now winding down (from order into disorder - the 2nd Law of Thermo).

Science much more strongly supports the notion of a Creator of the universe than not.

With Christian love (and NO bullmalarkey!),

Essodalori

Hey Giovanni -

Isn't there a feminist political party in Sweden which wants the government to decree that 1/2 of it shall be run by women (and which wants to invoke a 'man' tax)?!? And crime is high, and some cities are completely Muslim (where the police dare not enter), and no one bothers to get married anymore (nice for kids...).

The family and the church and now basic society are falling apart in Sweden.

The reason? God has been abandoned by the Swedes.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

"With the love and understanding in his voice that all of us men who are married to Blondes exhibit, Norman says, "Why don't you just leave it in the garage this time?"

---

Hey gregory,

My son collects blond jokes! He'll love this one.

With Christian love!

Esso

"my Blonde wife loves me,
gregory "

---

Now really, gregory - just what does that say?

With CHristian love!

Esso

Esso, i'll let her explain,
the rest of the story is always the best...




Honey?

i think she's thinkin'

No she says she's not thinkin'
i never been able to do that

A Great article on this topic can be found at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

SD

Esso,

The *Feministisk Initiativ* ( feminist initiative ) is the party that cooked up that cockamamie man tax and they have their sights on Parliament.
The sister of the retiring archbishop is Anna-Karin Hammar who is a lesbian in a marital relationship with a woman and they have 2 children.
To think that the archbishop throne is a pawn in a putridly vile family affair has made many Swedes leave the Church, just like Vicky Jean's consecration caused the precipitous membership drop in jecusa/anglican Church.

Sweden was once a superpower - Gustavus Adolphus fought for Lutheranism in Germany - he crushed the Habsburgian Soldiers and got as far as Augsburg - he had Munich in his sights but had to regroup - he took a bullet in the foggy fields of Luetzen. Charles XII had once crushed the fledgling Russian Navy until Peter the Great turned the table on the Swedes in the Battle of Poltava.

You will find many commemorative statues in Nothern Germany that honor Gustavus Adolphus. The Socialists in Sweden never speak proudly about the great Swedish kings like Gustavus Adolphus and Charles XII since that runs contrary to the Party Manifesto. In short, Sweden is a very sick country from which many intelligent people leave, never to return. Sweden has lost it's glory halo thanks to the Socialist Government. It's just another banana republic in the northern periphery. Sweden is late in awakening to the *realpolitik* of the people leaving the Socialist *plantation*.


G-man

Dear JOTM,

I don't think I can wait 10^X number of years to find out - besides, by that time I'll probably be a jumble of atoms and quarks ready for the the *Great Uptake* - I pray that you and I may sit together at the Celestial Banquet 'cause it's gonna be a *Grand ol Time*

G-man

This is silly...

There were over 20,000 new PhD "science" graduates in 2004. (I used their definition and included engineers, MDs, etc.) 500 is .025% of that. There are probably 500,000-1,000,000 PhD scientists in the US... and 500 is all the Discovery Institute can get? The definition of "a tiny fraction of one percent" is "fringe."

Seriously, if I gave anyone here a list of 500 phd scientists who think homosexuality is normal or stem-cell research is great, would it change your mind? No, of course not. So why would we expect a list like this to change anyone's mind who is neutral on the question of evolution or pro-evolution?

To show how sad this is, some science group has a list of 700 PhD scientists JUST named named "Steve" (in honor of the late evolutionist Steven Jay Gould) who say that evolution is great and should be taught to everyone. (Google project Steve if you want to see it.)

We aren't going to win the war of lists.

-nj

But njones -

80% of medical doctors believe in miracles...

About 1/2 of physicists believe in God...

Only a very small percentage of scientists are outright atheists (convicted of the faith that God does not exist).

With Christian love!

Essodalori

njones -
i think maybe you missed the point of the following;


"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory," said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."

======
It probably does not surprise anyone here that
Scientists, named Steve, are making monkeys of themselves.

Esso, what is the source of your data? Publication, volume and page number please. Now for the sake of stirring up the pot, I could point out that 500 scientists out of the 100,000s on the planet is a pitiful number. But, I post, without comment, the following column that appeared in the National Georgraphic magazine in March 2006. The column entitled "The Origin of Life...Through Chemistry" by Joel Achenbach. In part he notes that it is the belief of some scientists that "..a central set of chemical reactions has been in place since life's earliest momenst about four billion years ago. These reactions involve just 11 small carbon molecules, such as citric amd acetic acids, very ordinary stuff that would have been abundant on the young Earth.

Those 11 molecules could have played a role in other chemical reactions that led to the development of such biomolecules as amino acids, lipids, sugars, and eventually some kind of genetic molecules such as RNA. In other words, metabolism came before...life as we commonly know it.

This is probably not what opponents of the teaching of evolution want to hear, but it seems that a kind of molecular natural selection applies even to the world of geochemistry.'

How could the eye, with all its complex parts working in concert, have arisen by a series of discrete steps?


===

zonoras,

"To say, as Darwinians do, that everything has to be reduced to a chemical reaction is more ideology than science," asserts Discovery's John West.

Ah, Greg, one could make the case in reverse and replace the words chemical reaction with the phrase "the hands of God" and the quotation makes as much sense! I would put more value on comments in the NGM than in your source, but that is just my perspective.

According to the Discovery Institute's web page,
Dr. West holds a Ph.D in Government from Claremont Graduate University and a B.A. in Communications from the University of Washington. He is a recipient of several academic fellowships, including a Haynes Foundation Dissertation Grant, an Earhart Foundation Fellowship, a Richard Weaver Fellowship, and a Chevron Journalism/Economics Scholarship. Dr. West is a member of the American Political Science Association, Pi Sigma Alpha (the national political science honor society), and Phi Beta Kappa.

That makes him a political scientist not a biologist. His view, therefore, would not cary as much weight as the views of scholars in the hard sciences. His statement is only an opinion and should not be treated as gospel.

Hey Zonoras,

Honestly, lent out book this was from (written by famous quantum chemist), but for starters (more to come), how's this:

=====

Poll: Doctors believe in miracles
3 out of 4 physicians think supernatural events still happen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 23, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

A new survey of America's doctors reveals three out of every four are believers in miracles.

The poll of 1,100 physicians found 74 percent of doctors believe miracles have occurred in the past, and 73 percent believe they can occur today.

The survey was conducted by HCD Research and the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York.

"The picture that emerges is one where doctors, although presumably more highly educated than their average patient, are not necessarily more secular or radically different in religious outlook than the public," said Dr. Alan Mittleman, director of the institute.

The poll also indicated American physicians are "surprisingly religious," with 72 percent indicating they believe religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life.

Those surveyed represent physicians from Christian (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Christian and other), Jewish (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular) Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions.

"Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey," the report notes, "is that a majority of doctors (55 percent) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous (45 percent do not). Most physicians pray for their patients as a group (51 percent). Even more, 59 percent pray for individual patients."

Two-thirds encourage their patients to pray. Of those physicians, 5 percent did so for God to answer their prayers, 32 percent for psychological benefits and 63 percent for both reasons. One-third did not encourage their patients to pray.

Regarding their views on miracles and the source of the Bible:

37 percent physicians believe the Bible's miracle stories are literally true, while 50 percent believe they are metaphorically true. Twelve percent indicated that they did not believe in the Bible's description of miracles;

9 percent believe the Bible was written by God, 58 percent believe the Bible was inspired by God and 34 percent consider it human ancient literature;

and 55 percent believe that medical practice should be guided by religious teaching (44 percent do not).
Additional findings indicate:

Over half, 58 percent, attend worship services at least once per month;

A plurality, 46 percent, believe prayer is very important in their own lives.

---

With Christian love,

Esso

Esso, thanks for your comments. I wanted to make sure you had a basis for your stats and you did. Thanks for posting them. I would love to see the actual survey. Do they specify a margin of error?

zonoras,

Make a Stand.

i'll take God.

Do you take monkeys?

Esso, did you note the following paragraph:

Those surveyed represent physicians from Christian (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Christian and other), Jewish (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular) Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions.


For a truely representative sample, they should have also polled physicians who had no religious inclinations. As the survey was conducted, the deck was stacked.

To make an analogy, if one were to do a survey to determine the religious habits of Americans, one would have to survey both those who are churched and those who are unchurched. If one did not do so, the survey would be worthless.


AI am sure you will agree with me.

"In part he notes that it is the belief of some scientists that "..a central set of chemical reactions has been in place since life's earliest momenst about four billion years ago. These reactions involve just 11 small carbon molecules, such as citric amd acetic acids, very ordinary stuff that would have been abundant on the young Earth."

---

Yes, Zonaras. I believe that that could be the belief of 'some scientists.' However, there has been nothing approaching at all the scientific creation of anything like living organisms, from pre-biotic soups. (We may soon be able to produce artificial life, but only by knowing the molecules and structures that are needed - by reengineering.) The Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s, which managed to get a couple of amino acids from electricity and pre-biotic soups, have been conclusively shown to go nowhere with regard to the formation of life.

However - information theory has been brought to bear on this question, and the information content in even the simplest living organisms has been shown to vastly outstrip the odds (using statistical mechanics) that such molecules came together by accident, even over billions of years, and even with trillions and trillions of molecules. (Will check on some papers in the next few days...)

Further, (Nobel Prize winner) Ilya Prigogine's experiments with the creation of order from highly un-equlibrium chemicals have been declared by Prigogine to have nothing to do with the formation of life - and that life processes could not have started that way.

BUT - this is not an argument that either of us can win with what is now known. If a scientist can create life from a soup, then we will know that such can be done. Until and if that is done, we will not know that it can be. As such, you can't until that time convince me of such. Nevertheless, information theory is being brought to bear on this problem in such a way as to give us reliable odds. In the same way, entropy theory (also a form of information theory), shows that the odds of the Big Bang's having happened by chance are nil. (See some of Roger Penrose's books on the universe and consciousness...)

With CHristian love,

Essodalori

Sure, Zonaras, I do. I don't know if they included those with no faith traditions or not. I have, however, seen many references in different places to the high percentage of doctors who believe in miracles. Will try to get my book back.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Esso, you do make cogent arguments and I succeeded in stirring up some interesting comments. Youy are right that the argument is currently unwinable. If you look at Achenbach's comments, they are couched in speculative terms.

Greg, I am an avowed Darwinist and make no pretenses about that fact. I yes I'll proudly stand with my primate ancestors.

Here's another article, referring to a a University of Chicago study:

Miracles of God and Miracles of Science
by David M. Phelps, Associate Editor

Doctors have delivered a 1 lb. 13 oz. baby girl from Susan Torres, a pregnant woman from Arlington, Virginia who had been on life support for three months since a cancer-induced stroke left her brain-dead. At the request of Torres’s husband, doctors kept her body alive long enough for the child to have a chance of life outside the womb, carefully monitoring both patients to make sure the cancer did not spread to the developing baby. When the child was finally delivered, the family released a statement thanking God, and many hailed the birth a miracle.

The faith of the family, the race against time, the coolheaded, sure-handed medical staff—the story is nothing short of inspirational. But skeptics might wonder why God so often gets credit for the good work of trained physicians. Where is the line between thanking Providence and thanking Technology? In other words, are “miracles” such as the one in Virginia miracles of God or miracles of science?

In the minds of many, there is a vague notion that somehow God and science are necessarily in competition. We see this opposition take form in the debates between creationism and evolution, between church and state, where faith is pitted against reason, the secular against the sacred. Why isn’t this opposition more often transferred to our discussions of medicine as well?

The reason may be that physicians recognize more readily the relationship between God and science. A recent study by the University of Chicago showed that seventy-six percent of physicians believe in God, and fifty-five percent say their faith influences their medical practice. It seems that the dichotomy between faith and science, while common in popular discourse, is not as popular as among doctors themselves.

...

With Christian love!

Essodalori

I bid you both good evening. It has been fun jousting with both of you.

"Greg, I am an avowed Darwinist and make no pretenses about that fact. I yes I'll proudly stand with my primate ancestors."

---

Zonaras,

Wouldn't it make more sense, from a scientific viewpoint, and lacking proof, to be agnostic on whether God has been involved, directly or indirectly, in the formation of humans?

With Christian love,

Esso

Zonaras said

"Now for the sake of stirring up the pot, I could point out that 500 scientists out of the 100,000s on the planet is a pitiful number."

************

This is just a small observation Zonaras, but 100,000s of scientists on the planet were not polled to get their opinions. The study was probably limited to a small sample set from which over 500 opposed Darwin.

We have to be careful and state the conditions, if you get my drift.

God Bless

BHTech

Zonaras, yes i too enjoy jousting with you, again.

Do you fight your friends over bananas?



You too have a good evening and
know i pray for us.

Peace of Christ, gregory

Hey BHTech, Zonaras, Greg,

One thing I see is that more scientists than ever in recent times are stating publicly their support for the idea that there is something behind this universe...

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Esso, i bold faced that above, well almost similar to your point... more scientists are seeing...

But i have to remember;

"The difference between
stupidity and genius
is that genius has limits."

Greg, I leave the bananas to Bible beatimg fundamentalists. I prefer fine steak to bananas. Just because I accept the gospel of science does not mean I don't enjoy the finer things in life. BTW, just because I believe the account of creation in genesis is myth, it does not mean I cannot be a good Christian.

You are of course right. However... it maybe equal to the same ratio of scientists who at one time argued the world was round rather than flat. Intellectual honesty takes courage, something which our academic community seems to lack.

Quote:

Hi Zonaras,
I am thankful you are a Christian.
We do have some areas we disagree on concerning myths though.

I do have one question for you concerning Holy Scriptures.

How do you decide from the Bible, what you consider to be myth and what you consider to be truth. some examples of myth would be nice...

truthseekr

Hi Zonaras,
Quote:

Yeah, that is a small percentage.
Yet it is a start. and I believe it will grow.
The article did not claim to be a large percentage,
just that the PBS was wrong when it claimed:
Quote:

yours in Christ Jesus,
truthseekr

I've always looked at Genesis more like a parable (since we know God speaks to us in parables!) - with deep truths about God and man embedded. What deep truths? Well, things like:

- God created the universe (ex nihilo), the earth, the plants and animals and us
- Creation is good
- God created man in an unfallen state
- God created woman for man and man and woman for each other
- A man shall leave his parents to join with a wife
- Man has dominion over God's creation on earth
- It is good to go forth and multiply (and I've done my share!)
- Man gave in to pride and the whispers of evil, and fell away from God
- God punished man for that lack of faith
- There is an evil force in the world

Etc. etc. etc.

It is one of the most profound written works there is about God and man.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Churches Mark 'Evolution Sunday'

Sixty-four Episcopal Churches in 34 dioceses are planning to designate Feb. 12 as “Evolution Sunday,” proclaiming, “religion and science are not adversaries.”

Created as part of the Clergy Letter Project, the ecumenical service will mark the 197th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

Click to read rest of article

=====
It still remains the THEORY of evolution, not the LAW of evolution. I believe that God gave man a soul and gave him dominion over all created things. I believe that God created man in His own image. I believe there is no proven genetic link between homosapiens and any other life form.
Let's see--we could have homosexual Sunday, abortion Sunday, live-in Sunday, Wicca Sunday, XXX Sunday... What's next?

Does not God's Word say that He hides himself from the wise and reveals himself to those of simple faith?
Think on that.
gregory

Jononas, you say "BTW, just because I believe the account of creation in genesis is myth, it does not mean I cannot be a good Christian."

i'd say you are not a good Christian, are not a better Christian or even the best Christian; but definitely you are on the ballot for being one of the bad Christians and worse than most Christians i have ever met on VOL.

AND about your statement; "creation in genesis is myth"; i have the following for you to get into your jungle mind;

The 36th chapter of Jeremiah tells a story quite appropriate to the ECUSA hierarchy today. King Zedekiah didn't like what was read to him from the scroll ( the Word of God through Jeremiah ), so he took a knife and cut passages from the scroll and threw the fragments into the fire. But soon enough, the entire scroll had been burned.
The apostate bishops of the ECUSA and "evolved monkeys" like you, Jonoras, are followers of King Zedekiah and will meet his same judgment by a holy God.


prayerfully, gregory

your blood is off my hands and now is your own responsibility.

: Zonaras Posted: 2006/2/25 8:03:54
Greg, I leave the bananas to Bible beatimg fundamentalists. I prefer fine steak to bananas.

==========

Maybe the clogged heart from the steak is also part of your hardening of the heart problem you, Jonoras, have...

Did you know;
When you compare bananas to an apple, it has four times the protein, twice the carbohydrate, three times the phosphorus, five times the vitamin A and iron, and twice the other vitamins and minerals. It is also rich in potassium and is one of the best value foods around.
So maybe its time to change that well known phrase so that we say, "A Banana a day keeps the doctor away."

Clcik here to read more on bananas

i am happy i will not have to fight you for a banana and grateful that my fundamentalist brothers will share.

jousting;

TOUCHE gregory

Gregory, your views are arrogant and holier than thou. What ever happened to Christian humility? Your version of Christianity is smug and you think you have all the answers. I see no difference between your version of fundamentalism and that of other non-Christian religious movements that believe they have a direct link to the Almighty. Such arrogance led to the Crusades and to many of the problems we have today elsewhere in the world. My view of Genesis is similar to that of Esso in many respects. That is all i will say. If you feel that I do not accept the concept of Intellegent Design, you are absolutely correct. Two weeks ago i posted a column about the fact that even the Vatican rejects the concept and applauded the results of the events in Dover, PA. I sent Esso a copy and posted it here. If you are saying I'm a bad Christian, then Benedicy XVi must be too? Are you aware that the Roman Catholic Church endorses the big bang theory? In 1994, RCC said they were wrong to condemn Galileo. I shall pray for you Greg and hope that you can develop both Christian humility and charity, both of which you are sorely in need. Are you familiar with the phrase, "judge not yet yee be judged?" That is precisely what you are doing. You are smug in your arrogance.

The results in Dover, Pa. are a sign of a pitiful bout of Judicial Imperialism which has no place in deciding issues that it has no business in doing. Courts are for adjudicating Law, not legislating Law. Legislation is done by duly elected Congressional and Senate members. Judges have not been elected by a voting constituency and therefore are not according to the U.S. Constitution given power to legislate since then there would be no separation of powers. We still have three branches of Government - Executive, Legislative and Judicial. For the Court to be deciding what is to be taught is folly.

Zonaras,

I do not hold the PhD. But I do hold two master's degrees from top-ranked research universities, the MBA and an MS, and have a total of 21 formal years of schooling. Some of those years were spent studying science. Others studying politics, history, and even business and organizations.

Tell this simple master's degree holder how many times it would be necessary for this fortuitous serendipitous accident to repeat itself as on the road to Higher Criticism?

Surely, we ape-men did not evolve from the first happenstance! So if we figure one of the billions of potential stumbling blocks must actually cause evolving pond scum to stumble -- at each node of each branch of the tree of evolution -- how many times did RNA spring forth, as Venus from the Sea, before the Internet was created?

Or has no one condidered the impact of "rework" on the theory of evolution? Perhaps it is simply swept under the assumption that 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, if not time himself, heals all wounds.

Inquiring naked apes want to know!!!

Dear JOTM,

Zonaras is an avowed Darwinist - don't expect any intelligent answer to your most honest inquiry from him.

G-man

Here's the issue. No one that I am aware of who supports or believes in Intelligent Design is asking that the evolutionary theory get tossed out of textbooks or classrooms, nor that such theory get replaced with some version of Intelligent Design or even that Intelligent design be presented as anywhere near being as accepted as evolution. All they are asking for is a paragraph or a footnote to note that what is currently being taught is not universally accepted and that many scientists have doubts about aspects of the theory. But this is apparently enough to put those who clamor for open minds into a tizzy.

opps; double post

maybe it should be read twice but i only wanted one post


WOW, Oh my God, The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit;
did i really write those three responses to Zonaras?

Reminds me of those ole days;
Left, Right, Left and now that the ref has counted to ten, Zoneras wants to whine ;


Zonaras; First my views are right out of the Bible, you know God's Word so yes they are Holier than your views of "Genesis myth". Your mirror broke?

You asked; "What ever happened to Christian humility?"
Good question, just why do you not humble yourself before Almighty God?
You said you liked to "jouste" with us so did the TOUCHE hurt your pride?

Of course, i have all the answers that God intends for me to have at this time. Matter of fact, those gold embrossed words on my diplomas for scholastic honors (digital electronics/math') were the direct result of praying during my tests and further on in my work life, all to the Glory of God.

i am aware of some "problems" that you point out in RCC. But i am not RC so you'll have to ask someone else about that.

""Are you familiar with the phrase, "judge not yet yee be judged?" """

YES, aren't you glad that Ash Wednesday is just a couple days away? With Jesus Christ as my Savior, i had to respond to you with those three posts.

Read those posts again and answer the questions and for crying out loud let the Holy Spirit show you where the Christian charity is and how it can transform your life further.

HINT;
Banana a day will keep the doctor away;

that helped lower my
Triglycerides from 183 to 157 (ref# <150)
Cholesterol from 317 to 207 (ref# <200)
LDL-cholesterol from 227 to 136 (ref# <130)

All my liver functions are within range and lower range at that;

a year ago i was supposed to die of liver failure,
with no known reason; even after many many tests, the doctors could not figure what was wrong.

It was that small hard to hear voice of God that led me to a doctor that would pray with me and treat my whole condition. i made it through one of my best Lent periods ever,

And now i am enjoying my grandchildren and holding strongly to the Faith of my forefathers.

True Love of Christ to all,
ALLELUIA!
gregory

ps

Lent is starting Wednesday... Amazing Grace can be yours, too.

WOW, Oh my God, The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit;
did i really write those three responses to Zonaras?

Reminds me of those ole days;
Left, Right, Left and now that the ref has counted to ten, Zoneras wants to whine ;


Zonaras; First my views are right out of the Bible, you know God's Word so yes they are Holier than your views of "Genesis myth". Your mirror broke?

You asked; "What ever happened to Christian humility?"
Good question, just why do you not humble yourself before Almighty God?
You said you liked to "jouste" with us so did the TOUCHE hurt your pride?

Of course, i have all the answers that God intends for me to have at this time. Matter of fact, those gold embrossed words on my diplomas for scholastic honors (digital electronics/math') were the direct result of praying during my tests and further on in my work life, all to the Glory of God.

i am aware of some "problems" that you point out in RCC. But i am not RC so you'll have to ask someone else about that.

""Are you familiar with the phrase, "judge not yet yee be judged?" """

YES, aren't you glad that Ash Wednesday is just a couple days away? With Jesus Christ as my Savior, i had to respond to you with those three posts.

Read those posts again and answer the questions and for crying out loud let the Holy Spirit show you where the Christian charity is and how it can transform your life further.

HINT;
Banana a day will keep the doctor away;

that helped lower my
Triglycerides from 183 to 157 (ref# <150)
Cholesterol from 317 to 207 (ref# <200)
LDL-cholesterol from 227 to 136 (ref# <130)

All my liver functions are within range and lower range at that;

a year ago i was supposed to die of liver failure,
with no known reason; even after many many tests, the doctors could not figure what was wrong.

It was that small hard to hear voice of God that led me to a doctor that would pray with me and treat my whole condition. i made it through one of my best Lent periods ever,

And now i am enjoying my grandchildren and holding strongly to the Faith of my forefathers.

True Love of Christ to all,
ALLELUIA!
gregory

ps

Lent is starting Wednesday... Amazing Grace can be yours, too.




==============================================

Gregory, your views are arrogant and holier than thou. What ever happened to Christian humility? Your version of Christianity is smug and you think you have all the answers. I see no difference between your version of fundamentalism and that of other non-Christian religious movements that believe they have a direct link to the Almighty. Such arrogance led to the Crusades and to many of the problems we have today elsewhere in the world. My view of Genesis is similar to that of Esso in many respects. That is all i will say. If you feel that I do not accept the concept of Intellegent Design, you are absolutely correct. Two weeks ago i posted a column about the fact that even the Vatican rejects the concept and applauded the results of the events in Dover, PA. I sent Esso a copy and posted it here. If you are saying I'm a bad Christian, then Benedicy XVi must be too? Are you aware that the Roman Catholic Church endorses the big bang theory? In 1994, RCC said they were wrong to condemn Galileo. I shall pray for you Greg and hope that you can develop both Christian humility and charity, both of which you are sorely in need. Are you familiar with the phrase, "judge not yet yee be judged?" That is precisely what you are doing. You are smug in your arrogance.

Dear Gregory,

Thanx for help zonaras see the light.

In Xrists Salvific Love,

G-man

Greg, I am not whining. I notice you avoided commenting on my comments about the Vatican. What you call problems with Rome's view is the fact that they realize that one cannot always square the Bible with science. The article I referenced indicated that intellegent design should be kept out of the classroom, that was teh Vatican's belief. To mmy mind, that is not a problem despite what you may think. Tell me Greg, do you agree with Archbishop Usher's calculations about the origins of the world? Answer one question without engaging in an ad hominem attack. Do you accept every word in Genesis (the story of Adama and Eve) as absolute truth. If so, how do you square it with the scientific record? I bet you won't dare to answer this question. I am praying for both you and g-man, though it will take more than my prayers to help because I adnmit to being a sinner. Do you? may God have mercy on your soul.

Jonaras, i am thankful you are not whining.
The Vatican knows that RCs go to Catholic school.

Archbishop Usher's calculations ... ??

""Do you accept every word in Genesis (the story of Adama and Eve) as absolute truth. """

YES.

""If so, how do you square it with the scientific record?""

i do not lean left or right;
i lean, i grasp hold of Jesus Christ'
you know that Jewish carpenter,
He has always used a square,
ya know even in Genesis

"""I bet you won't dare to answer this question""'

TOUCHE !!!!

=====

Thank you for prayin for me and G-man.
As i posted above, i pray for you
so thank you for raising my name to Jesus.

Why of course i admit to being a sinner.

Lord Jesus Christ,
Son of God have mercy on me a sinner.


Okay, i answer your question.
what about you?

Poster: BHTech Posted: 2006/2/27 20:07:35

Griswold must be in his glee to see or read this.

********

Quebec priests challenge Vatican on homosexuality
Last Updated Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:50:40 EST
CBC News

A group of 19 Roman Catholic priests from Quebec has published an open letter criticizing the church's stand on homosexuality.

* INDEPTH: Same-sex Rights

The 980-word letter, published Sunday in the Montreal newspaper La Presse, is in response to two recent church decisions: the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops' opposition to same-sex marriage and the Vatican's refusal to ordain homosexuals.

Titled "Trop, c'est trop!" ("Enough is enough!"), the letter asks: Does the church "have the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life?

"In these matters, the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong," the letter warns.

* FROM NOV. 29, 2005: Vatican says no to gay men in priesthood

In its first major policy announcement since Pope Benedict's election, the Vatican in November barred men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" from entering the priesthood.

However, the Quebec priests who signed the letter dispute the Vatican's position that homosexual acts are "immoral and contrary to the natural law," writing that throughout human history, mankind has evolved and redefined what is natural to them. The church's views must reflect human evolution, said the priests.
Full text continues here

Dear Gregory & Zonaras

I've been following your debate off and on for the last few days and I must say you both are probably hiding behind the same tree peeking at one another . Just kidding.

Anyway it is true what Zonaras said regarding how the Vatican views ID and I have said before that I see where they are coming from. ID will serve only to confuse the debate is their opinion, but so too is evolution which as I have posted before is in serious trouble and has even more confusion than ID.

Zonaras there is a book out their called "Icons of Evolution" that I understand is very good and worth reading. Google it. I plan on getting it in due course. I shows up many of the flaws in evolution just from reader reviews.

Gregory my take on Genesis is that in the context of the Bible it serves to explain original sin and talks about our early ancestors and history. As to whether God made the earth in 6 days, I believe its possible, but we simply don't know and simultaneously Science does not give us the answers. At this point this is where faith comes in and we have to go simply by what the Bible says and not science since in my opinion it has more holes in it than the Bible does on the subject of creation.

By the way I think the Vatican has said that what is important is that God fused man's soul into his body and he came alive. Whether that body once came from an ape (which I don't believe) they don't know or care.

Again that's my 2 cents .

God Bless

BHTech

Interesting dialog from all.

Quote:

That is an excellent statement. Our science & knowledge does not give the answers.

We can delude ourselves, thinking our “current” science Must explain such.

Just think where science was 100 years ago, this is really a very short time ago.

Mankind has been to the moon, and much of the math was done with paper, pencils, and slide-rules!

Think of what has been accomplished in the last maybe 26 years... It seems like the first really popular Personal Computer came out early 80's, and we have seen a change arguably as big as the industrial revolution since then ...

I personally do not have a problem believing the Genesis account.

I recognize that my personal scientific knowledge is not required for God to have been capable, willing, or choosing to do the handiwork that He wants to do...

I do not have to have the scientific knowledge to design and build this computer/internet, in order to believe that others will read this post!

as to the 6 days of creation,
who knows how long one of these God-Days was?
- our sun was not in place and earth days did not exist yet for the first part of the creation story...

I can just leave it with:
My God is the Creator God, which made all, and made Mankind.

I do not need to understand the technical science explanations that explain / describe how miracles occur.

I will choose to not try to limit God by my, or mankind’s knowledge. I suspect that will save quite a bit of embarrassment in the future on Judgment Day. There will be more that enough other stuff for me to have to deal with then...

As a scientist myself, I can just be amazed, standing in shock and awe, when the supernatural power of our GOD is shown forth, such as when someone is blessed with a supernatural Christian healing... which our science & medical knowledge views as impossible…

Peace to all, yours in Christ Jesus,
Truthseekr

Surprising that none of you read the list of names to see who was signing it. It's over 500 now. As one of the proud signers, it's fun to read the response. But you may have missed the point.
Science is a social function. Despite many bad movies to the contrary, no one does science holed up in their garage for decades while wearing a white lab coat. The purpose of this signed document is to reveal the incredible pressure being put on dissenters to toe the party line. It reveals Darwinist desperation more than anything else. For example, no one had to promote the steady state cosmology theory to protect it from the Catholic church, it fell apart on its own. However Darwin's theories are being artificially propped up by all sorts of propaganda, which is hard to fathom from many angles.
I have several colleagues who privately disagree with many aspects of Darwin's theory, but would never go public because of the backlash. If my anecdotal survey is generally valid, the 500+ who signed are representative of another 1500 who would like to have signed it.
Thus the purpose of the document is show that dissent is possible, that the fortress of orthodoxy is not impregnable, that the Emperor really has no clothes. Since Science is a social function, we can and will affect its progress with our attitudes, if not with our compelling arguments.
- yours truly
rob

jaamie wrote

Quote:

Yes you may find it diffcult to get a response from those who support Darwin's theories. I do NOT believe in evolution at all, however in the interest of Irenic discussion, your questions would be answered as follows:

Did evolution stop?

No, it did not stop evolution is contuining, but because it takes so long for any changes to be seen we cannont measure it.

How many monkey's have become man in all recorded history?

None, again because it takes so long for any changes to be seen we cannont observe them occuring.

How about have even started to become man.

None, again because it takes so long for any changes to be seen we cannont observe it.

It seems logical that once the process started that there would be all manner of mutations between monkey and man.

Yes there are, but they have not been found yet.

Yet it seems that we must have evolved one day and then that was it.

Yes, this is what some evolutionists believe. It is called "Puncuated Equilbrium".

Gee, that sounds a bit creationist to me???

Of course it is, but don't tell those that believe in the religion of evolution!

Yours In Christ,
glenng

Zonaras,


TOUCHE'