Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Zosimus]

Yet another unsubstantiated claim, more likely than your religious ones, but still ... growing in mineral-depleted soil or growing faster may (or may not) have anything to do with the plant's quality. Please provide refereed publications (preferably in different thread) and hold the side of baseless conspiracy theories.

I link you to the Scientific American, and you say that this is "baseless conspiracy theories?!"

WTF?

Did you even read the part that said:

A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in theJournal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding “reliable declines” in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.

I mean, you love shooting yourself in the foot, don't you?

You want the original journal publication? No problem. It's http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/44/1/15.full

pwned

 

[Sapiens]

No, a self-refuting statement is something that literally disproves itself. Saying that 2+2=5, for example, is not self-refuting. It's just wrong.


Again, you have no idea what a "self-refuter" is. Nevertheless, I refer you to Scholarly Opinions on the Jesus-myth theory, which has a number of quotes from Bible scholars (yes, even atheist ones) such as Michael Grant, who says:

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus'..."

Bart Ehrman is an author (or editor) of 30 books, most of which are very critical of the Bible and Christianity. Titles such as "Forged," "Misquoting Jesus," and "How Jesus Became God" illustrate his extremely skeptical view of the stories in the Bible. However, let's let him make his own case in the following video:

"There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity–any related field–who doubts that Jesus existed."

Well ... that's a self-refuter, since everyone knows that you can not prove a negative. You claimed that, "no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical" yet you present as evidence to back up your sweeping and absolute claim the opinion of a single "expert.' Bad show, that dog does not hunt. I I produce the names of two serious scholars who doubt will you apologize?

 

[Zosimus]

Well ... that's a self-refuter, since everyone knows that you can not prove a negative. You claimed that, "no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical" yet you present as evidence to back up your sweeping and absolute claim the opinion of a single "expert.' Bad show, that dog does not hunt. I I produce the names of two serious scholars who doubt will you apologize?

There are no serious scholars who doubt Jesus' existence. I realize that this could easily be criticized as the No True Scotsman logical fallacy, but I have provided two experts who support my claim. Let's see whether you can do better.

 

[Sapiens]

There are no serious scholars who doubt Jesus' existence. I realize that this could easily be criticized as the No True Scotsman logical fallacy, but I have provided two experts who support my claim. Let's see whether you can do better.

This is not an election, this is a inquiry into your rationality, dependability, honesty and perspicacity. You said "no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical" do you still stand by that?

Even if one or two or even a thousand agree with you, that does not meet your claim.

EVERY serious scholar who has ever been must agree with you.

Now, I ask you again, do you stand by your clearly expressed opinion that, "no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical" ? Or, would you rather admit defeat and we'll drop it?

 

[Sapiens]

I link you to the Scientific American, and you say that this is "baseless conspiracy theories?!"

WTF?

Did you even read the part that said:

A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in theJournal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding “reliable declines” in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.

I mean, you love shooting yourself in the foot, don't you?

You want the original journal publication? No problem. It's http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/44/1/15.full

pwned

Does the article mention GMO?

 

[Thief]

Well, it's true. Food today is less nutritious than that of yesteryear. However, it's not just GMO foods. There are many non-GMO strains that are bred to grow in mineral-depleted soil or bred to grow more quickly.

I hope big producers realize we are on to this problem

but last I heard.....98% of all the corn in my state is gmo
so too the soy beans and the wheat
and the tomatoes

and the bulk of processed food is a combination of the above.

heirloom seeds are disappearing

 

[Thief]

having said that above....
the physical evidence for creation is disappearing

 

[Zosimus]

This is not an election, this is a inquiry into your rationality, dependability, honesty and perspicacity. You said "no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical" do you still stand by that?

Even if one or two or even a thousand agree with you, that does not meet your claim.

EVERY serious scholar who has ever been must agree with you.

Now, I ask you again, do you stand by your clearly expressed opinion that, "no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical" ? Or, would you rather admit defeat and we'll drop it?

There is no serious scholar in the field who thinks that Jesus didn't exist. None. Zero. Not one. Not even half of one. There are no professors who teach this. Anyone who says that Jesus might not have existed makes himself look foolish. It's the equivalent of saying that Queen Elizabeth I never existed. There is no scholarly debate in any realm at all, period.

Seriously. Holocaust deniers have a stronger case than Jesus myth theorists.

Bart Ehrman on whether Jesus existed.

I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’s historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stained-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty, about him.

 

[Zosimus]

Does the article mention GMO?

I think you need to go back and look at my post. It's right here. I said:

...it's true. Food today is less nutritious than that of yesteryear. However, it's not just GMO foods. There are many non-GMO strains that are bred to grow in mineral-depleted soil or bred to grow more quickly.

-------------------------
What's the main point of this argument? Can anyone tell me? You... in the back... what's that? Right. The main point is:

Food today is less nutritious than that of yesteryear.

Did I say GMO foods were to blame? No.
Therefore, by asking whether the source in question specifically mentioned GMO foods, you are moving the goalposts. If you want to argue against what I said, then do so. If you want to misrepresent my arguments, I will hold you to account.

 

[Sapiens]

I think you need to go back and look at my post. It's right here. I said:

...it's true. Food today is less nutritious than that of yesteryear. However, it's not just GMO foods. There are many non-GMO strains that are bred to grow in mineral-depleted soil or bred to grow more quickly.

-------------------------
What's the main point of this argument? Can anyone tell me? You... in the back... what's that? Right. The main point is:

Food today is less nutritious than that of yesteryear.

Did I say GMO foods were to blame? No.
Therefore, by asking whether the source in question specifically mentioned GMO foods, you are moving the goalposts. If you want to argue against what I said, then do so. If you want to misrepresent my arguments, I will hold you to account.

You are failing to connect cause and effect, not an uncommon problem for you. Great try at Pigeon Chess.

 

[Sapiens]

There is no serious scholar in the field who thinks that Jesus didn't exist. None. Zero. Not one. Not even half of one. There are no professors who teach this. Anyone who says that Jesus might not have existed makes himself look foolish. It's the equivalent of saying that Queen Elizabeth I never existed. There is no scholarly debate in any realm at all, period.

Seriously. Holocaust deniers have a stronger case than Jesus myth theorists.

Bart Ehrman on whether Jesus existed.

I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. The answer to the question of Jesus’s historical existence will not make me more or less happy, content, hopeful, likable, rich, famous, or immortal.

But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist. He may not have been the Jesus that your mother believes in or the Jesus of the stained-glass window or the Jesus of your least favorite televangelist or the Jesus proclaimed by the Vatican, the Southern Baptist Convention, the local megachurch, or the California Gnostic. But he did exist, and we can say a few things, with relative certainty, about him.

We are not here arguing the truth of fallacy of the question, we are dealing with what you claim to be a statement of fact, namely your statement that: "There is no serious scholar in the field who thinks that Jesus didn't exist."

How about four? Two old (Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney and Charles-François Dupuis) and two recent (Thomas L. Brodie and Richard Carrier)? Now, before you go all "No True Scotsman" on me, Carrier received a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia University, Brodie holds a PhD from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome and is a co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, Volney was an 18th century philosopher, historian, orientalist, and politician and Dupuis was a professor (from 1766) of rhetoric at the Collège de Lisieux, Paris.

Game, set, match.

 

[gnostic]

An example of nonsense was given, just like you posted another, birds evolved from dinosaurs. I wasn't concerned about what macro evolutionists say in making my general point. Were dinosaurs warm blooded, or cold ? Were they covered with feathers, or not ? did their stride resemble lizards, or mammals ? Nobody knows. Tell me, what skeletons and how many were used in coming to the conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does similarity in some respects mean genetic relationships ?

The Theropoda, from the order of Saurischia or saurischian dinosaurs, shmogie.

Anatomically and physiologically, it is the hip of saurischian dinosaurs, that bear the most obvious resemblances to that of the modern birds. All saurischian dinosaurs have the same strides as that of birds, because of the shape of their hips and legs.

Theropoda dinosaurs have furcula, which is another word for wishbone, another commonality between birds and certain dinosaurs.

There are two main groups within the Theropoda:

1. The Coelurosauria,
2. and the Coelurosauria

The birds evolved from dinosaurs classified under the Coelurosauria, and it is these dinosaurs that were found to have feathers.

Science is not saying that birds can evolve with just any dinosaurs; no, science is saying just those dinosaurs with the hips, furcula and feathers.

 

[leibowde84]

gotta start somewhere......

apparently .....some participants can't (or won't) .....fathom a beginning

You claimed to have conclusive evidence of a specific beginning and God initiating that beginning, did you not? You claimed that "science" gets us to the Big Bang, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the Big Bang wasn't caused by some other natural event. Can you provide any?

 

[gnostic]

You claimed to have conclusive evidence of a specific beginning and God initiating that beginning, did you not? You claimed that "science" gets us to the Big Bang, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the Big Bang wasn't caused by some other natural event. Can you provide any?

Thief, and some of these creationists simply don't understand the definition of scientific or empirical EVIDENCE, leibowde84.

Judging by the way they very loosely used the term "evidence", it would seem that "evidence" means any fanciful wishes they can dream of, in another word - "make-believe" or "wishful-thinking".

Thief also like to evade direct questions, which demonstrate his lack of integrity, with some of his favourite but meaningless catchphrases, eg

"Spirit, first..." or "Spirit before substance"
"You can't put God in petri-dish",
Or something on the line like God has "no fingerprint"​

He used these nonsensical phrases to evade question about presenting actual evidences to support his delusional claims, as if using these phrases answer all questions directed at him.

You can ask and ask the same question over and over again, he will never give you any answer that have evidences to support his claims...well, at least not in your lifetime.

 

[Zosimus]

We are not here arguing the truth of fallacy of the question, we are dealing with what you claim to be a statement of fact, namely your statement that: "There is no serious scholar in the field who thinks that Jesus didn't exist."

How about four? Two old (Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney and Charles-François Dupuis) and two recent (Thomas L. Brodie and Richard Carrier)? Now, before you go all "No True Scotsman" on me, Carrier received a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia University, Brodie holds a PhD from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome and is a co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, Volney was an 18th century philosopher, historian, orientalist, and politician and Dupuis was a professor (from 1766) of rhetoric at the Collège de Lisieux, Paris.

Game, set, match.

First of all, neither Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney nor Charles-François Dupuis ever existed. They are myths. Apparently, you didn't see that coming. Any attempt by you to prove the existence of these people will merely be reflected back at you as proof that you apply one standard to the above-listed men and another to Jesus of Nazareth.

Second, Thomas L. Brodie does not hold a Ph.D. He holds an STD (not to be confused with sexually transmitted diseases). There is a difference. Additionally, as Brodie himself admits, he held the idea that Jesus never existed long before he was taught to do any kind of scholarly work. His opinion is, therefore, not that of a scholar but that of a petulant boy who has refused to learn.

Finally, Richard Carrier does not hold a Ph.D. in ancient history, per se. He holds a doctorate in ancient history of science. In fact, that's what he did his thesis on. On one point, however, I will admit that I admire Richard Carrier. He at least is able to argue for the Bayesian theorem as a solution to the methodological problems that plague science. In that sense, he is far ahead of the average apologist here in this forum.

His conclusion is not that Jesus didn't exist but rather that it is mathematically unlikely. This is not the standard used in history–it is the standard used in scientific reasoning. As does all Bayesian reasoning, his reasoning suffers from one major problem:

 

[Thief]

You claimed to have conclusive evidence of a specific beginning and God initiating that beginning, did you not? You claimed that "science" gets us to the Big Bang, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the Big Bang wasn't caused by some other natural event. Can you provide any?

false claims on your part......

you can follow the logic

but you don't want to

 

[Thief]

Thief, and some of these creationists simply don't understand the definition of scientific or empirical EVIDENCE, leibowde84.

Judging by the way they very loosely used the term "evidence", it would seem that "evidence" means any fanciful wishes they can dream of, in another word - "make-believe" or "wishful-thinking".

Thief also like to evade direct questions, which demonstrate his lack of integrity, with some of his favourite but meaningless catchphrases, eg

"Spirit, first..." or "Spirit before substance"
"You can't put God in petri-dish",
Or something on the line like God has "no fingerprint"​

He used these nonsensical phrases to evade question about presenting actual evidences to support his delusional claims, as if using these phrases answer all questions directed at him.

You can ask and ask the same question over and over again, he will never give you any answer that have evidences to support his claims...well, at least not in your lifetime.

and I have said so for years....repeatedly.....

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

no evidence

all you CAN do is think about it

but is sooooooooooooooo easy

Someone had to be First

substance does not move without something to move it

substance did not beget God

Spirit first

 

[Sapiens]

First of all, neither Constantin François Chassebœuf de Volney nor Charles-François Dupuis ever existed. They are myths. Apparently, you didn't see that coming. Any attempt by you to prove the existence of these people will merely be reflected back at you as proof that you apply one standard to the above-listed men and another to Jesus of Nazareth.

Mythological? Hardly, if Jesus was as well documented we'd not be having this discussion.

Encyclopedia Britannica says: Constantin-François de Chasseboeuf, count de Volney, (born Feb. 3, 1757, Craon,France—died April 25, 1820, Paris) historian and philosopher, whose work LesRuines . . . epitomized the rationalist historical and political thought of the 18th century.

As a student in Paris, Volney frequented the salon of Madame Helvétius, widow of the philosopher Claude Helvétius, and knew the Baron d’Holbach and Benjamin Franklin. Following an early interest in history and ancient languages, Volney traveled in Egypt and Syria, after which he wrote Voyage en Syrie et en Égypte . . . ,2 vol. (1787; Travels Through Syria and Egypt . . .). In 1791 his most influential work appeared, Les Ruines, ou méditations sur les révolutions des empires (revolution as a result of the abandoning of the principles of natural law and religion, equality, and liberty.

As a member of the Estates-General in 1789 and the Constituent Assembly in 1790, Volney urged the establishment of the National Guard and the division of France into communes and departments. In 1792 he bought an estate in Corsica, hoping to improve agriculture by the example of intense cultivation. While visiting Paris in 1793 he was, as a Girondist, imprisoned during the Reign of Terror. After his release he served as professor of history at the École Normale (“Normal School”) at Paris (1794), and he also visited the United States from 1795 to 1798. Although he was a senator under Napoleon and was created comte d’empire (1808), he opposed the empire. Louis XVIII created him a peer in 1814.

Fraser's Magazine for Town and Country, Volume 71 says: "Washington even was glad to have Volney as his guest at Mount Vernon."


and Charles-François Dupuis has an entry in: The English cyclopædia: a new dictionary of universal knowledge ..., Volume 2

So ... both are rather well documented, unlike Jesus, each has (besides personally authored works) numerous contemporary references..

... Thomas L. Brodie does not hold a Ph.D. He holds an STD (not to be confused with sexually transmitted diseases). There is a difference. Additionally, as Brodie himself admits, he held the idea that Jesus never existed long before he was taught to do any kind of scholarly work. His opinion is, therefore, not that of a scholar but that of a petulant boy who has refused to learn.

So an STD (the highest degree granted in the Catholic educational system) does not qualify you as a scholar? Scholars must void everything they learned as children? Now you're really over-reaching.

Thomas L. Brodie meets the criteria, scholar and Jesus denier.

Finally, Richard Carrier does not hold a Ph.D. in ancient history, per se. He holds a doctorate in ancient history of science. In fact, that's what he did his thesis on. On one point, however, I will admit that I admire Richard Carrier. He at least is able to argue for the Bayesian theorem as a solution to the methodological problems that plague science. In that sense, he is far ahead of the average apologist here in this forum.

His conclusion is not that Jesus didn't exist but rather that it is mathematically unlikely. This is not the standard used in history–it is the standard used in scientific reasoning. As does all Bayesian reasoning, his reasoning suffers from one major problem:

Richard Carrier is clearly a scholar, he concludes that Jesus is mathematically unlikely. This is the standard used in science, or are we scientists not also scholars? I am not trying to say you have to agree with him, just that you must recognize that he falsifies your claim.

You're now showing your true colors, prevarication and slight of hand, and an inability to stand-up and admit when you are wrong.

Even if three of these four were to be deemed inadmissible, you'd still lose, even if all four were, I have perhaps a hundred or so more, start with: John Mackinnon Robertson, George Robert Stowe Mead, John Eleazer Remsburg, Christian Heinrich Arthur Drews, Robert McNair, Earl Doherty, Alexander Jacob, and Thomas L. Thompson.

Remember, all I need is one who is both a scholar and a Jesus denier.

What the hell, I'm a scholar with over sixty publications and I rather doubt the historicity of Jesus, That alone gives the lie to to your claim.

 

[james bond]

Yes, I can even show you some that are both:

There's no such thing as a, "creation scientist."
I have just shown you one that is negative and positive depending on heterozygosity.

GMO foods maybe all that stands between adequate nutrition and starvation for most of the human race. It is a complicated issue. Is there anything wrong with eating GMO food, per se? No. You break it down into it's component parts exactly the same way and it is composed of exactly the same carbohydrates and amino acids. The problem is the application of GMO technology to things like "Roundup Ready" crops and the residual herbicides and pesticides, not to mention the overall loss of genetic diversity in crops.
Actually the consensus is that just like humans are a form of ape, birds are a form of dinosaur ... the dinos are not extinct, they are all around you and most people eat them and their eggs regularly.

1. Can you show why one is positive and neutral?
2. That is a myth propagated by GMO advocates and evo scientists. The reasons for hunger and starvation are not solved by GMO-foods. You are brainwashed into think better living through chemistry and Monsanto. Even the liberal HuffPo says so -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_914968.html . Creation scientists think GMO-foods will cause more problems, such as cancer, than have solutions. Are cancer rates going up? Sure they are. Evolution probably gets funding because of the profits in GMO-foods and GMO-cells and that is why evolution is promoted so a public is more willing to believe it and better life.
3. There are many scientists who believe in creation. I am one even though I do not work in the physical sciences. The only way evolution works is by not allowing the God theory. That is why you spout such nonsense. We use the same facts, but allow the God Theory and come to different and better fitting conclusions.
4. Okey dokey. Humans are apes and birds are dinosaurs ha ha. Just goes to show atheists and their scientists are wrong with the sixth sense. We should see the dead transitional forms everywhere.

 

[Sapiens]

1. Can you show why one is positive and neutral?

I all ready did, you just had to click the link that would have taken you to:

DNA and Mutations :

A case study of the effects of mutation: Sickle cell anemia

Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease with severe symptoms, including pain and anemia. The disease is caused by a mutated version of the gene that helps make hemoglobin — a protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. People with two copies of the sickle cell gene have the disease. People who carry only one copy of the sickle cell gene do not have the disease, but may pass the gene on to their children.

The mutations that cause sickle cell anemia have been extensively studied and demonstrate how the effects of mutations can be traced from the DNA level up to the level of the whole organism. Consider someone carrying only one copy of the gene. She does not have the disease, but the gene that she carries still affects her, her cells, and her proteins:

1. There are effects at the DNA level:

2. There are effects at the protein level

3. Normal hemoglobin (Left) and hemoglobin in sickled red blood cells (Riht) look different; the mutation in the DNA slightly changes the shape of the hemoglobin molecule, allowing it to clump together.

1. 
   
   
   
   
   Normal red blood cells (L) and sickle cells (R)

4. There are effects at the cellular level: When red blood cells carrying mutant hemoglobin are deprived of oxygen, they become "sickle-shaped" instead of the usual round shape (see picture). This shape can sometimes interrupt blood flow.

5. There are negative effects at the whole organism level: Under conditions such as high elevation and intense exercise, a carrier of the sickle cell allele may occasionally show symptoms such as pain and fatigue.

6. There are positive effects at the whole organism level: Carriers of the sickle cell allele are resistant to malaria, because the parasites that cause this disease are killed inside sickle-shaped blood cells.

This is a chain of causation. What happens at the DNA level propagates up to the level of the complete organism. This example illustrates how a single mutation can have a large effect, in this case, both a positive and a negative one. But in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations, each having a small effect. Whether the mutations are large or small, however, the same chain of causation applies: changes at the DNA level propagate up to the phenotype.

Hokey dokey?

2. That is a myth propagated by GMO advocates and evo scientists. The reasons for hunger and starvation are not solved by GMO-foods. You are brainwashed into think better living through chemistry and Monsanto. Even the liberal HuffPo says so -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_914968.html . Creation scientists think GMO-foods will cause more problems, such as cancer, than have solutions. Are cancer rates going up? Sure they are. Evolution probably gets funding because of the profits in GMO-foods and GMO-cells and that is why evolution is promoted so a public is more willing to believe it and better life.

First of all there is no such thing as a "creation scientist." The term is an oxymoron. Nothing anyone who styles themselves such should be taken seriously. The huff puff is hardly a professional journal. The author John Robbins is hardly an authority. I grew up in Santa Cruz, the last paragraph of Robbin's bio says it all: "John has been married for 44 years. He and his wife Deo live with their son Ocean and his wife Michele, and their grandsons River and Bodhi, in a solar powered home outside Santa Cruz, California. "

3. There are many scientists who believe in creation. I am one even though I do not work in the physical sciences. The only way evolution works is by not allowing the God theory. That is why you spout such nonsense. We use the same facts, but allow the God Theory and come to different and better fitting conclusions.

No, there are not "many." There are a few and most of them are commenting outside of their field of expertise and experience.

4. Okey dokey. Humans are apes and birds are dinosaurs ha ha. Just goes to show atheists and their scientists are wrong with the sixth sense. We should see the dead transitional forms everywhere.

We have more than enough evidence to make the case and have done so, even if you discount every single fossil.