Hello again. I just finished dinner, and now I would like to respond to Tim’s comments and Scott’s comments.

Perhaps I should first explain who I am. You already know I’m not a scientist and you know studying evolutionary biology is one of my hobbies. I recently read a book published in 2006, “The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution” by Sean B. Carroll. I’ve read other books about evolution, and I’ve spent countless hours on the internet learning about new discoveries being made by biologists and other scientists. Despite all this studying, I know very little when compared to what the professionals understand, including the biologists who have made important contributions to modern biology.

You also might be interested to know, if you haven’t figured it out already, I’m an atheist. I’m not the average atheist who doesn’t care about what religious people are doing. Not only is my atheism very strong (it couldn’t possibly be stronger), I am also extremely anti-religion. Why am I so against religions? I noticed the 9/11/2001 attacks against my country, America, would not have been possible without the religious belief in heaven. I am convinced heaven is a very childish idea, and now thousands have died because of it, thanks to Muslim extremists. I also noticed that many Christians seem to be constantly at war against science education, especially my favorite branch of science, evolutionary biology. This religious war against science and science education makes me angry. These know-nothing Christians are cheating students who want to educate themselves. In my opinion these attacks against education are nothing less than treason.

Because of these strong anti-religion views I have, I sometimes sound a bit rude. I’m working on that problem. If I ever sound rude to you, please understand it’s nothing personal. It’s just my contempt for any idea that’s religious.

You also should know I am very knowledgeable about Christianity. I went to Catholic grammar school, and I have had many long discussions with Christians about their beliefs and about the Bible.

I now would like to talk about evolutionary biology, but I will start another comment to do that. In the past I noticed evolution deniers like yourselves have a strong tendency to remain evolution deniers, no matter how patiently anyone, including biologists who are much more knowledgeable than I am, tries to explain the evidence to them. Evolution deniers, also known as creationists because they believe in God’s magical creation of creatures, don’t seem to be too interested in scientific evidence. They also have the unfortunate habit of getting virtually all their science information from people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Anyway, I like hopeless challenges, so I will return in a little while with comments about the age of the earth, and my favorite fact of biology, the fact that people and chimps are distant cousins.

Tim: “I also find it really interesting that you think that it is a fact that people and chimps share ancestors who lived about 5 or 6 million years ago.”

I don’t “think” our evolutionary relationship with the other modern ape species is a fact. I “know” it’s a fact. After studying the evidence from molecular biology and other branches of science, and after all the observations I have made in museums and zoos, and after all I have read about our ape cousins, I would have to be nuts to deny the fact the chimps are our closest living non-human relatives.

I will try to explain just a tiny fraction of the powerful evidence from molecular biology for our relationship with chimps. If you want to hear a much better explanation from an expert, the biologist Ken Miller, read the following website. In my opinion Ken Miller is better than anyone at making science easy to understand for non-scientists. Here it is, Ken Miller explaining some of the lead-pipe evidence for our evolutionary relationship with chimpanzee apes, at the Dover trial:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html

OK, here’s my attempt to explain some other evidence that I don’t think Ken Miller talked about at the Dover trial. Any biologist reading this will not be impressed, but here it is anyway.

Each ape species, including human apes, has several Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) in their DNA. In each animal of each species these ERVs are in the exact same location in their genome. Now this is what’s extremely interesting and it’s just a tiny fraction of the incredibly powerful smoking gun evidence for the idea that people and chimps are distant cousins. Some ERVs have been found in both humans and chimps in the exact same locations in their DNA. That would be impossible unless those ERVs were inherited from the same ancient ape species. Now some religious person, desperately trying to defend his belief that people are special magical creations of God, would say God inserted those identical ERVs in the exact same location in the genome of humans and chimps to deceive scientists. But who would want to believe in a deceitful God? That makes no sense.

Tim: “I have not found any dating methods that have made me believe at all that the earth can be verified to be that old and I think that evolution (in the sense that life started from something inorganic and we have all come from that) certainly can not be true if the earth is not millions of years old. Would you share some credible links that validate the age of the earth with methods that haven’t shown significant problems.”

You either haven’t looked hard enough, or you, like many other creationists, prefer to get all your information from people who are only interested in defending the Bible.

One of the greatest accomplishments of the human race was the hard work to determine the 4,500,000,000 age of the earth (that’s billions of years, not millions). Several methods have been used and they all get the same result. A planet that formed billions of years ago. I’m not an expert at this subject so you’re going to have to do your own research. However I have made my own observations and I’ve read about a lot of stuff that strongly supports what scientists say is a fact. The earth is very old. Take a look at your globe if you have one. You will notice if you put Africa and South America right next to each other, they would fit almost perfectly together. Well they were once just one continent. They split in two. Imagine the time it took for the South Atlantic to become as wide as it is today. Another example is India which slowly crashed into Asia, forming the tallest mountain peaks in the world. Imagine how long that took. Want more examples of a very old earth? Use your imagination. Think.

Biologists know the average number of mutations for each generation. They also know the average time span for each generation. That’s how they can make very accurate time estimates when they compare DNA sequences of people and chimps. That’s why they feel certain our ancestors and the ancestors of chimps separated about 5 or 6 million years ago.

Tim: “While it does seem that there is evidence to show that within species, there are advances/evolutions made, it does not seem that there is evidence for one species evolving into something entirely different. Nor does it seem that there is evidence that life can be created from inorganic material at all!! I don’t think anyone can scientifically explain the origin of life today, and I think that is really really interesting.”

We know new species have developed from ancient species. See what I wrote above about ERVs.

There’s still no consensus about how the first living cells developed, but here’s one of many good ideas scientists who are working on this problem have: When the earth formed many billions of years ago, our solar system was a mess. Countless comets were crashing into earth every day. Those comets contained organic material and this could have had something to do with the development of the first living cells. Organic material from volcanos under the sea could also have had something to do with the appearance of the first living cells. Interested in their other ideas, the progress they have made, and the many problems they are still working on? Look it up. I’m no expert, so you’re on your own. Google is your friend. Please use it, and please avoid dishonest people.

You could invoke God’s magic to explain the appearance of life almost 4 billion years ago, but that really doesn’t solve any problem, does it?

Even if God waved its magic wand and poofed the first cells into existence, that would not change the fact that all life then evolved without supernatural intervention (magic).

OK, that’s it for now. I’ll be back again. I write too much sometimes. Thanks for reading it. I hope you at least think about my ideas, even if you don’t like them.

Whoops, I noticed I used my other internet name. bobcu and bobxxxx are the same person. I usually use bobxxxx, and I will continue using that name here.

By the way, if you click bobxxxx, and read it, you might learn something so important it might change your life if you understand it.

I’m less interested in atheism and more interested in the science of evolutionary biology. My love for evolution is shared by both theists and atheists.

To me atheism is just plain logical. As an atheist I feel certain there is no magic in the universe and there never was any magic in the universe. Atheism has nothing to do with moral values. It’s only about the non-existence of what I call “magic fairies”.

“what basis do you lay your hope on that all people could be moral atheists?”

I would be naive if I thought “all” people could have good moral values, whether or not they were atheists. However, I noticed the theists who become atheists are usually very scientifically literate (There are exceptions, and many theists know more about science than most atheists). The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is going to have enough common sense to understand that being civilized is in everyone’s best interest.

“Why shouldn’t atheism lead to anarchy?”

Most people, whether they are theists or atheists, have a natural tendency to be civilized. They have a natural desire to help people. We are not the only species who are altruistic. For example altruism has been observed in our closest living non-human cousins, the chimpanzee apes. I never met a chimpanzee who wasn’t an atheist.

The most atheistic countries, like Japan and Sweden which are majority atheist, have very low crime rates, especially when compared to the very religious and very violent America.

A person’s moral values come from their parents. If a person is properly raised, he or she will be a moral person. His or her religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.

I suggest religions sometimes can make a good person into a bad person. Look at what Islam has done, it’s created countless suicide bombers who all have one thing in common, a belief they will be rewarded in heaven for murdering innocent people.

I would say most Christians and most atheists have very strong moral values. But there is one thing a Christian might do that an atheist would never do. And that is make dishonest claims about science, and even worse they often pass on these dishonest ideas to their children, making their children scientifically illiterate. The dishonesty is not intentional, but that’s no excuse for making scientific claims that virtually all scientists know are false.

I have a big problem with religious indoctrination of young gullible children. I call it child abuse. People with strong moral values would let children grow up before teaching them about religious ideas. Instead they start drilling their religion into their children before they are 4 years old. I think they do this because they know their religious ideas are so crazy it requires intense brainwashing of young children to keep the religion from going extinct.

Anyway I’m much more interested in the discoveries of modern biology, and the very interesting fact that people and chimps share an ancestor.

One more thing about moral values. A person can’t call himself moral without having a strong desire to protect the environment and protect endangered species. Now who is more likely to be concerned about, for example, our distant cousins the chimps, gorillas, and orangutans? The Christian fundamentalist who thinks people were magically created by God to be separate from the rest of nature, or the person who loves and understands evolution (both theists and atheists) and knows that we are related to all other life?

I noticed it’s the biologists, and virtually all biologists love evolution, who are doing the most to protect endangered species, and their knowledge of how the world works (evolution by natural selection) helps their efforts to save these precious non-human animals.

“After spending 18 years building a successful nationwide management recruitment firm, Russ Miller walked away from it all in the year 2000 so he could found Creation, Evolution & Science Ministries. He’s dedicated his life to studying Creation-Evolution issues and developing CESM’s popular, yet challenging, PowerPoint programs. Russ has presented over 1,000 seminars and church service messages and appeared on international telecasts. Through thousands of radio programs he has presented scientific evidences which have challenged hundreds of thousands of Christians worldwide to confidently believe the whole Bible – word for word and cover to cover.”

I don’t think Russ Miller’s experience in the management recruitment business makes him qualified to speak intelligently about evolutionary biology.

The other Miller, my Miller, Ken Miller, is a biology professor. He has written biology textbooks that are now being used in thousands of American high schools.

What has Russ Miller contributed to biology? What discoveries has he made?

Ken Miller and Russ Miller have one thing in common besides their last names. They are both followers of Jesus, also known as Christians. But they are very different people because one of them is a very knowledgeable biologist, and the other person is a very successful, but scientifically illiterate, business man.

Later, when I get back from shopping, cooking, eating, (and I need to go swimming, it’s 81 degrees here in south Florida), I will return here with more comments.

In the meantime, is this scientifically illiterate business man the best you can do?

You might want to read this paragraph which I wrote in my previous comments. Here it is again. I’m sorry to say this paragraph describes you perfectly.

“What a lot of creationists do, instead of trying to understand scientific evidence, they go running to their favorite professional liar, then they copy and paste a bunch of dishonest statements, not bothering to understand what they are copying, not bothering to check their facts, and most important not bothering to study scientific discoveries as described by the scientists who actually made those discoveries. Instead they get their information filtered by people who have never discovered anything, and who are only interested in defending their literal interpretation of Genesis. That’s really not an honest way of learning the truth.”

OK, so you’re a typical creationist. Not to worry. I understand.

Oh yeah. You have been reading Ken Miller, so it’s not fair to say you’re ignoring real scientists. So there is hope. You might be better than the average creationist. You might more flexible and more willing to learn something.

By the way, I have an unfortunate tendency to make unfair statements sometimes, and even worse sometimes I sound a bit rude. If you notice these problems I have, please understand I’m not perfect, and certainly anything I say is not meant to be personal.

I’ll be back asap. Thanks very much for your time.

“Aren’t people at minimum equally important?”

Human apes are important. I’m a big fan of human apes because I’m one of them. However the human ape species is not an endangered species. There’s almost 7 billion of us and our numbers are rapidly growing. Meanwhile other animal species are being crowded out.

It would be a disaster if we lost any of the other ape species. Imagine a world with no gorillas, no orangutans, no bonobos, no chimpanzees. That would be terrible and future generations would be disgusted with us if we allowed any of these cousins of ours to go extinct.

“You have to respond to the challenges I’m putting forward”

I will be back. I’m not going to ignore anything you wrote. I’m here because I love this stuff, and because I think you’re a reasonable person.

I think it was fair to compare the two Millers. The integrity of people is important. Their competence is important.

“I also certainly don’t accept your criticism of the Discovery Institute.”

Well, thanks for reading that criticism. I forgot I wrote it. You need to understand the Discovery Institute has a terrible reputation in the scientific community. Extremely terrible. Virtually biologist who has ever heard of the Discovery Institute has nothing but total contempt for them. This might be an unpleasant fact for you to learn about, but it’s true.

“As far as taking care of endangered species, which I think is wonderful . . . I’d like to take a look at the biologists who are caring for the poor, the widows, the orphans, the unemployed, disabled. Why exactly aren’t they leading the revolution in that realm? Aren’t people at minimum equally important?”

There’s a lot of biologists in the world. I would imagine some of them contribute to charities and/or help out with these problems.

I’m personally not too interested in other people’s problems. I’m unemployed myself, deeply in debt, and not having much luck in the job market.

However, I do enjoy helping old people. I live near a large number of old people and I never miss an opportunity to help them if they look like they might need help.

You wrote:
————
What about this: “But there is one thing a Christian might do that an atheist would never do. And that is make dishonest claims about science . . .”

Do you really believe that? I think that is exactly what a lot of the scientific world is doing right now. They make a certain discovery and then they make totally false claims about what the discovery then proves. It takes the rest of us to sort out whether or not their proof is sufficient to create their end results.
————

Yes. The scientific claims made by creationists are false. Are they being intentionally dishonest? In most cases, no. They are usually just repeating the lies of professional liars of Christian creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute.

I might be wrong about these Christian creationist organizations, including Bible websites like Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute. They might be honest people who just don’t know what they’re talking about.

Unfortunately I think they are dishonest at least part of the time. Here’s an example.

A paleontologist makes an important discovery. He finds a fossil of an animal that was transitional between our ancient ape ancestors and modern human apes. The fossil has features of modern man and also has features that would belong to an animal who lived at least part of the time in trees. The paleontologist has just spent 2 years carefully extracting this fossil from solid rock. He and others then study it, make their conclusions based on their knowledge, experience, and observations, and then they publish their findings in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Meanwhile the worthless professional liars of the Discovery Institute, who have never discovered anything in their entire lives, and who used to be lawyers, not scientists, immediately put out a press release denying everything the real scientists said about this fossil. And here’s the dishonesty part. They talk about the gorilla-like features this fossil has, while completely ignoring the human-like features. Then they claim the fossil was just another ape, not possibly related to human apes (who they believe were magically created by God to be separate from the rest of nature). They are intentionally withholding facts they know about, knowing their gullible creationist customers will never bother to verify anything they say or don’t say.

This is why real scientists have so much contempt for the Discovery Institute. Scientists hate dishonesty, and the scientifically illiterate members of the Discovery Institute make a living by being dishonest.

OK, by now you’re really mad at me. Sorry about that.

I will be back later today or this evening or tonight. I really got a lot to do. I’m very grateful for your patience and for letting me comment here, even though by now you probably don’t like me too much. I promise to reply to everything you said and I promise to talk about Russ Miller’s ideas.

Another quick comment before I get done with my chores:

“the Darwinian-worshiping world of modern science”

Oh boy! This is from Russ Miller. Maybe he thinks biologists get down on their knees to pray to the Darwin God.

I promised I will talk about Russ Miller’s ideas and I will keep my promise. I just hope you understand why I have nothing but contempt for this person. Darwinian-worshiping? I doubt Russ Miller has ever talked to a real biologist.

To any biologist reading this. You will not be impressed. You will notice that science is not my career. Please feel free to jump in and offer corrections.

“DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural Selection = Zero Neo-Darwinism”

Russ Miller is getting off to a bad start here. I’ve been studying evolutionary biology for many years and this is the first time I’ve seen the words “DNA Code Barrier” and “Gene Depletion”. Did he make this up or did some other scientifically illiterate professional liar make it up?

(I respect you, but I have zero respect for the non-scientist Russ Miller.)

Neo-Darwinism? Why do creationists use this word? Biologists virtually never use it. They call evolution “evolution”, not darwinism, and not neo-darwinism.

“Darwinian evolution itself quietly failed due to its inability to provide any type of a mechanism which could add new and beneficial genetic data to existing gene pools. But rather than admitting we were created, Darwinists have been promoting Neo-Darwinism—that mutations add the new information that leads to Darwinian change. Such false science has misled many.”

Again he calls it “Darwinian evolution”. It’s called “evolution”, not “darwinian evolution”. Evolution doesn’t need any adjectives.

He calls biologists “Darwinists”. Biologists are called “biologists”, not “darwinists”.

“its inability to provide any type of a mechanism which could add new and beneficial genetic data to existing gene pools.”

OK, is he lying or does he just not know what he’s talking about? He is very wrong. There is something called gene duplication. From talkorigins.org – A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins.

“But rather than admitting we were created,”

What the heck? Rather than invoking magic? Does Ross Miller seriously believe real scientists invoke magic?

Obviously he is writing for his scientifically illiterate audience. Scientists at this point would walk out of the room while laughing at him.

“However, the DNA Code Barrier is a principle which demonstrates that one kind, such as a dog, only has genetic information to produce dogs. Though there can be a wide range of variation in their gene pool, dogs only have the DNA to produce dogs. Gene Depletion is the scientific principle that mutations are caused by the sorting or loss of the parents genetic data. Finally, Natural Selection removes the genetically weaker mutant, preserving the gene pool and PREVENTING Neo-Darwinian change. Real science proves that dogs can only produce dogs.”

My understanding of mutations is they occur every generation. Each generation there are some changes in the DNA. Each change is a mutation. The changes don’t necessarily make the creature stronger or weaker, just slightly different, or they have no effect at all. If a creature doesn’t have what it takes to survive and reproduce, its genes disappear from the population. If a creature does successfully reproduce, its genes may eventually spread throughout the population. This is called natural selection. Small changes accumulate, and given enough time, creatures will extremely gradually begin to look different enough from their ancient ancestors that would it be fair to call them a new species. It’s important to understand if there’s no changes in the environment, a population of creatures is not going to change very much, because they are already good enough to survive in the environment they live in.

Release dogs into the wild into different environments. Come back in a million years. They will evolve differently depending on their environment. Will they still look like dogs? I would bet yes, they will and let me explain why.

Imagine a tree of life. Each branch represents a species. As the tree grows, one branch will split into two branches. Those two new branches will split into more branches, each branch representing a new species. Remember that we are talking about vast periods of time, and extremely gradual changes. Small changes accumulate, and eventually the newer creatures look quite a bit different from their ancient ancestors. Also, the creatures represented by the two new branches that came from one common branch will look different from each other. They will not look like each other, and they will not look like their common ancestor. They will not look like each other because they evolved in different environments. Different environments will influence natural selection differently.

Now imagine this tree of life getting rather old, say about three billion years old. It’s branched out into thousands of different branches, each branch representing a different species. Pick any branch at the top or at the edge of the tree, and follow the branches down to the ground and you will know the ancestors of this creature going back hundreds of millions of years. Now let’s say near the top of the tree you find the branch that represents wolves. Then that branch, thanks to artificial selection, splits into several more branches, from german shepherds to chihuahuas. Now can a dog, given enough time, evolve into a fish? No, probably not, because that fish species is much closer to the ground on the tree of life.

A biologist could explain it better, and a biologist would probably make a lot of corrections to what I said above.

Russ Miller’s DNA Code Barrier is nonsense. He is imagining an invisible barrier that makes evolution come to a complete stop before a population of creatures starts looking too different from their ancient ancestors.

“[This teaching has been around] since 2003, and today, these simple facts are beginning to show up in secular writings. In “Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome”, Dr. J. Sanford of Cornell, holder of 25 patents for genetic research, examines the validity of Neo-Darwinism’s claim that mutations plus Natural Selection has led from goo-to-you evolution. His book, revolutionary in the Darwinian-worshiping world of modern science, reveals that the human genome is deteriorating due to Gene Depletion. He lays out the obvious scientific case that Gene Depletion + Natural Selection makes Neo-Darwinian change impossible. As always, real science is a Christian’s best friend.”

From a customer review of Sanford’s book:

This work is very typical of someone who wants to believe something — in this case, that evolution could not possibly be the result of “blind forces” — and in order to support his belief, is both willing and able to ignore contrary evidence sitting in front of his nose.

Unlike what both he and “the professor” says, the central premise of the book (that mutations lead only to degeneration, never to gain-of-function or “progress”, unless some outside force intervenes to guide things) is actually easily refuted, by anyone who knows what they are talking about. The easiest path for gain-of-function mutations is gene duplication; a gene, or part of a gene, is accidentally copied more than once during sex cell formation. In the resulting organism, as long as one gene retains its original function, any duplicate copies can collect mutations — and many of these mutations will indeed, by blind chance, lead to novel proteins, with novel functions, and new results for the organism. Such mutations have been well-documented in literally hundreds, if not thousands, of papers.

“I’ve worked through all your comments and am starting on your internet page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html). Here is an excerpt I have come across so far:”

Thanks for reading it. Most creationists wouldn’t bother with it.

“Well, Darwin and other people were impressed at how much plant and animal breeders could influence the ultimate characteristics by selecting individuals from a breeding population, let’s say of horses or rabbits that had a particular characteristic the breeder wanted and allowing them to breed. Plant breeders have done the same thing for years. This was the methodology of Luther Burbank when he developed all sorts of beneficial strains of plants.

And Darwin was enough of a naturalist to realize that the same process of selection actually happens in nature. Darwin pointed out there’s a struggle for existence, whether we like to admit it or not, and not all organisms are able to pass their genes on to the next generation. Those that do the best in that struggle for existence — and it’s not just a struggle to survive, it’s a struggle to find mates, to reproduce, and to raise those offspring. So in many respects things that are very cooperative are important in this struggle.

Darwin realized that those organisms that had the characteristics that suited them best in that struggle, those were the ones that were going to leave their characteristics in the next generation, and he realized that’s pretty much what plant and animal breeders do, and therefore over time the average characteristics of a population could change in one direction or another and they could change quite dramatically. And that’s the essential idea of natural selection.”

“SO. . . OK if this is true that humans are the same as plants and animals, right (which we know I don’t believe) . . . but if the evidence doesn’t support this, then it is so important to be clear about that (we know that you think the evidence does support it). Why?”

People are animals, not plants. We are related to all other life, including plants, if that’s what you meant.

The evidence doesn’t support this? Well, you are wrong, and you would know why you’re wrong if you continued reading what Ken Miller said at the Dover trial.

By the way, I noticed your copying and pasting did not say anything about ERVs. Don’t bother looking for the dishonest creationist viewpoint. I already have seen what the professional liars have said about it. They claim the existence of identical ERVs in the exact same location in the DNA of more than one species is NOT because those ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor. Instead the liars claim it was just a coincidence that an ERV, that looks exactly the same as an ERV in another species, was inserted into the exact same location in another species.

Well that’s quite a coincidence because there’s about one out of a million chances that actually happened. And since there’s countless examples of these ERVs being in the exact same location in the DNA of more than one species, this one in a million coincidence would have had to occur countless times. This is called “impossible”. The liars are making a false claim. Are they lying or just ignorant? Who cares? What’s important is they are wrong. The only possible explanation for ERVs in the exact same location of more than one species (for example the human apes and chimpanzee apes) is those ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species (for example the ancient ape-like creatures that both chimpanzees and human apes developed from).

The professional liars can’t get away with using any other explanation because there is no other explanation.

If you don’t understand, instead of running to your favorite creationist liar, please just sit down, relax, and think it out. Try to understand without your Bible bias. I think you’re a genius and I think you’re capable of understanding if only you let yourself understand. Cross that religious boundary. You can do it.

I expect loud complaints from you about my disdain for the dishonesty of people who make a living spreading lies about science. Please understand that just the existence of creationists insults the integrity and hard work of thousands of biologists, including brilliant molecular biologists who work at places like Harvard and MIT. Creationists are saying these brilliant hard working scientists, who have made many important contributions to biology and human understanding, are incompetent and don’t know what they’re doing. I respectfully suggest these creationists should be ashamed of themselves.

To be continued. Please wait for my next comments. And thanks for putting up with my total lack of diplomacy.

Hello Tim. One more thing.

I wasn’t satisfied with what I wrote to respond to what Russ Miller said: “Finally, Natural Selection removes the genetically weaker mutant, preserving the gene pool and PREVENTING Neo-Darwinian change. Real science proves that dogs can only produce dogs.”

So I visited one of my favorite science blogs, and I asked the question “why is a creationist incorrect when he says “dogs can only produce dogs, therefore evolution doesn’t work.”

To see the response I got, please click my name (my name for this comment only) and please look at comment number 161. Thanks. See you later.

Tim, sorry but I got one more YouTube video to show you which I highly recommend. Don’t expect to be able to fully understand it, but you will hopefully understand that it’s not really a good idea to invoke the God-of-the-Gaps to explain the development of the first simple living cells more than 3 Billion years ago. If you don’t like the video, I bet you will still like the music.

To see the video that describes the tremendous progress scientists have made to explain the origin of life, just click bobxxxx (for this comment only).

Tim, it would be my pleasure to respond to anything you write, because you’re an OK person in my opinion, even though our ideas are a lot different.

I’m actually very interested in the Resurrection story and everything you said I heard before. You probably won’t be surprised to know I don’t believe it. The 500 witnesses could have been invented by the writer. Or perhaps Jesus never died on his cross. If I remember correctly, criminals were usually tied to the cross, not nailed, and left there to die. The nailing of Jesus to the cross could be a myth, and if he was tied to it, it would not have been difficult for somebody to take him down, and give him a place to hide for 3 days.

Also, I noticed the people most likely to witness a miracle are the kind of people who were already likely to believe in miracles.

Now this is most important for you to understand. Even if there were millions of witnesses, witnesses still living today, and even if the whole thing was recorded for a TV camera, I still could never believe a dead body could return to life after 3 days. I did some research and found out what happens to internal organs after an animal is dead for 3 days. It’s not pretty. The Resurrection is just plain impossible.

Now you might say “Of course the Resurrection was impossible. That’s why it’s called a miracle.”

The problem is I could never believe in a miracle, which is just another word for magic. I’m certain there’s no magic in the universe for the simple reason magic is impossible.

Here’s something else for you to think about. Let’s throw out all common sense for a minute and pretend there really is a ruler of the universe (your Christian God or any other supernatural creature with unlimited powers). I think anyone who understands how unimaginably vast the universe is, is not going to think a God of the Universe is going to single out this insignificant planet for special treatment. Since there’s more solar systems than grains of sand on earth, it’s really a bit crazy to think the little rock we live on is important enough for a god to notice us.

Also, don’t you think the idea of God sending down its son to get executed to save us from the wrath of God is bloody silly? It sounds like a story for children, and not something to take seriously. The Resurrection story is also gross and disgusting. It makes Christianity look like a death cult.

Anyway, I loved that video about ERVs. I loved it because it shows how much tremendous progress scientists have made in just the past few years. I think Darwin, who predicted our close evolutionary relationship with the chimpanzees, would be very proud to find out 21st century scientists have proved his prediction was 100% correct.

Now that’s what science can do better than any religion, make accurate predictions about the natural world.

The prediction that Jesus would be executed is not so great when you consider the obvious fact the Old Testament predictions could have been rewritten after the events took place. The Bible is like any other book of fiction. The author can go back and make corrections anytime he wants. The Bible, written thousands of years ago, and translated and rewritten countless times, is not something I would want to trust.

Fantastic claims like the Resurrection require fantastic evidence, and I don’t see any “real” evidence for the Resurrection at all.

See you later, and please take your time. I check back here every day.