Dr Richard Kent is made of wrong

So, I was flicking through the god channels the other day and encountered Dr Richard Kent telling me just why evolution is impossible.

As you can imagine, I sat and watched the full hour… mainly with a smile on my face and occasional outbursts of hysterical laughter. It occurred to me, however, that this is absolutely, 100% what many people completely and absolutely believe to be the total truth and that, well… it’s bloody terrifying.

Okay, so the first thing he raises is that he’s a retired medical doctor.

This alarms me in all sorts of ways. I wouldn’t want to work with anyone who truly believed the things he says in his video and then provided medical care because, as you’ll see if you watch it, he doesn’t really seem to understand the scientific process and I would therefore question his ability to, y’know… not accidentally kill patients by misunderstanding medications or something.

The young earth nonsense that he starts off on isn’t really tackled in any depth. He just seems to point out the difference and move on… ‘Yeah, the bible says this and science says that and they disagree.’  Indeed.

Oh but remember, we’ve got a built-in get-out clause here. Anyone who disagrees with the bible is wrong because the bible says so. Also, the devil… what a dick. Not only is he a liar but he’s the father of lies too! He’s his own father, how’s that even possible, The Devil? Answer me that? You can’t can you? Dick.

The 6 different types of evolution that Dr Kent lists are Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar, Organic, Macro and Micro. A large part of the argument that he then proceeds to make against evolution is that only micro-evolution has been directly observed. I believe that he means directly observed whilst happening… at no point does he tackle the, what seems obvious to me, issue that no-one can realistically observe, at first hand, a process that takes such monumentally long spans of time to happen. What science does is look for the fingerprints of these events and they’re all over the place. Hell, I can point you to a Christian website that lists them. You can have your imaginary bearded sky friend cake and eat your evolutionary fact cake too.

Mmm, cake. What? oh right…

So, then the good doctor uses SCIENCE AGAINST US!!! Oh noes! The first law of thermodynamics states that nothing can come of nothing (basically) so, yeah… physics. But the bible says that there was nothing and then God made everything. Right. Those are two different statements, good… let’s compare and contrast and look at some evidence and then have a lovely rigorous debate about it all and come to some kind of logical conclusion… wait, what?

Dr Kent’s argument seems to be to mention something scientific and then say that the bible disagrees and therefore the bible is right. That’s his main argument. His other argument is that Science (SHOCK HORROR) changes its mind about things… it’s, it’s almost as if a collection of individuals come to some kind of agreement about what the most probable explanation for something is based on the most current data and theories and then, *faint*, adjust that thinking should new and compelling evidence come along.

How do these so called ‘scientists’ sleep at night? Don’t they know that certainty is more important than anything?


So, by this point in the talk, I’ve realised that Dr Kent is an idiot when it comes to a) understanding how Science works b) effectively arguing his point in an organised fashion and c) probably a lovely person but really, really deluded about the world.

I keep watching though, I can’t help myself.

Okay, so entropy… hmm. Somehow he seems to think that this contradicts evolution. Now I got a little bit confused at this point. He actually has a slide that says, and I quote;

‘The atomic bombs added lots of energy to Hiroshima to end WWII and did not organise anything!’

‘Hey guys, I’ve totally got this awesome idea of how to bring about peace’ – Jesus, not helping.

Right. That’s clearly how it works… add energy, get organisation? So, as a closed system (because that’s totally how God made us y’know) we can’t have energy added and therefore, everything’s just going to get less organised and stuff? Hmm. So, if evolution is impossible because things can’t organise in that way, are babies impossible too? Is that why all of those libraries have random heaps of books? Why no-one in the history of anything has ever solved a Rubik’s cube or invented something new? Sorry but I don’t understand your argument.

Ah now, in the next part the lovely Dr Kent completely misunderstands the language being used. ‘Simple’ organisms aren’t simple… they’re infinitely beautiful and wonderful and amazing.

‘they’re not simple Mr Darwin… they’re really, really complicated’

How dare Darwin, without his electron microscope and talking in terms of ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ fail to point out the amazing complexity of all life. Wait, again I’m not getting your argument Dr Kent. So, because the universe that we live in is a complex and amazing thing, evolution is impossible? How about if we change the language a little… how about if it’s ‘less complex’ organisms and ‘more complex’ how does your point stand up now? Oh wait, it doesn’t… BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE.


Now follows some absolute nonsense about Zebras learning to fly. If a Zebra was growing wings, its vestigal wings would make it more likely to be eaten by lions and therefore SCREW YOU EVOLUTION mwahahahahah!

He then backs this up by stating that if evolution were possible, there would be lots of transitional life forms in the fossil records… which there are not. Apparently.  *cough* Archaeopteryx *cough*

I can’t even comment on the next part… I’m just going to leave this screenshot here…

Urgh, I’m getting tired now.

He waffles on a bit about how the sun is shrinking and that means that if the earth were as old as Science says it is, we’d have been engulfed in it’s fiery embrace back when the sun was bigger. Also, the earth used to spin really, really fast if it were in fact as old as Science says… goddamn you Science.

But if it’s going that fast… oh, screw you Science, you dick…

Those poor dinosaurs.

By this point, I’m barely even listening… Dr Kent questions why if earth is older than about 6000 years, there aren’t any calender systems older than that. Honestly, how do you even say that out loud and not want to slap *yourself* in the face?

He decides, again, that because Science was wrong about the amount of moondust on the moon, that ALL OF SCIENCE is wrong. Wow. If we’re allowed to start using this as logical argument, I have a few parts of the bible that I’d like to have a discussion about please.

Thankfully, the end is now in sight. Dr Kent has saved up one last whammy though, for those that aren’t yet convinced by his amazing skills as a logician.

No, now, you see, what you’ve done there, Rich, is confuse the word ‘Miracle’ meaning an extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is therefore ascribed to a supernatural cause with just ‘amazing’. Yep, the development of a single sperm and egg into a proper person is amazing. It’s awe-inspiring in fact but, and let’s make this clear, it is not a miracle… it happens every single day. It’s sort of why we’re here in fact.

To be fair to the old chap, he does politely answer the most common complaints on his website and offers some questions of his own to the ‘scoffers’ who find his arguments unconvincing…

Having explained my position, what about yours?

– Are you absolutely certain that you know more than God does?

– Were you there when God created the Universe?

– Are you certain that the Bible is rubbish?

– Are you certain that there is no life after death, and if so, how are you so sure?

Easiest quiz ever.

1. Yes, I am absolutely sure that I know more than a fictional character does.

2. No, because God didn’t create the universe and I’m not billions of years old (thankfully, imagine the wear and tear)

3. Yes, I am absolutely certain that the many-authored, self-contradictory, racist, factually incorrect, sexist, largely plagiarised collection of church approved books commonly known as ‘The Bible’ is rubbish.

4. Yep, I’m certain. As a medical professional I have attended many deaths. There is no release, no flash of heavenly light, no chorus of angels. Just a biological unit stopping in its functioning. I have never witnessed any messages from the dead, coded or otherwise. There is no accurately measured and verifiable data that shows any transference of energy as a coherent unit on death. An afterlife is most convincingly explained as a comfort blanket, a psychological buffer against the reality that we all die and this life, this wonderful and amazing life, is all we get. Isn’t that enough?

This entry was posted in proper rants and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

129 Responses to Dr Richard Kent is made of wrong

  1. Pingback: Cubik’s Rube quickies: Richard Kent « Cubik's Rube

  2. AJ says:

    Actually, the theory of evolution had been disproven so long ago. You just choose not to look at the facts properly. Many evolutionary scientists, some name most of us would recognize, admit the theory is impossible. If you really understood what Jesus did, maybe you would praise and worship Him, instead of deny Him. Try reading about Smith Wigglesworth (from a Christian point of view). He lived what Jesus preached. Smith healed the sick, and reportedly raised 23 people from the dead over the course of his life. He is an example of a true Christian.

    • zenspider says:

      Okay… I’ll bite.
      a) name the ‘evolutionary scientists’ please.
      b) I don’t deny Jesus, I equally don’t deny Zoidberg or the cat in the hat. Fictional characters don’t need denial to make them fictional.
      c) Smith Wigglesworth is freaking hilarious. Sorry, but that is all turn of the last century hype. Preposterous claims by a man who clearly didn’t understand biology but did understand PR.

      Give me one shred of evidence for any of Christianity’s claims and I’ll happily consider your religion as the one true way. Unfortunately, not a single one of the major (or minor) world faiths has managed this yet… who knows, maybe today is the day my eyes are opened. Go for it. I’m receptive. 🙂

    • Aaron says:

      Evolution has been disproven? Sorry the world press must have missed that hugely important memo, please provide links to where this was published and the scientists who conducted the studies and experiments to gether their evidence to disprove this very solid theory…..wow a world without evolution, goodbye anti-biotics, I guess you never really worked at all and it was Jesus healing us the whole time!

      PS. If an “evoutionary scientist” disproves evolution, wouldnt they no longer be evolutionary scientists? What has Jesus got to do with a biological scientifc theory and even if one day evolution was proven wrong (which if you knew anything about the theory or even what the word “theory” means in scientific terms, you would know is impossible) why would that suddenly prove the existance of God?

    • Well said and very nicely put AJ, God bless brother

  3. Dave says:

    The educational establishment doesn’t want the theory of evolution to be disproven, even though its more shallow than a puddle on a hot day, so any Scientist who finds anything of interest in creationism or is willing to be open to the idea of intelligent design, immediately becomes an outcast with a 95% chance of losing their job etc and of course as seen here, faces the usual slanderous, irate attitude that cant bear the thought of becoming accountable. Here is a scientific fact that has been proven. The louder a person shouts and cusses, the more insecure they are and its funny how so many atheists fit the bill, but this is an almost pointless exercise because if a person doesn’t want to believe then that is for a reason, and whatever that reason is (which is usually an accountability issue) then they will go on the offensive to try and safeguard their particular lifestyle, which normally reflects what Alistair Crowley said……..do as you will in which case Dr Kent;s quote of John 8:44 was spot on.

    • zenspider says:

      1) you don’t know what a ‘scientific fact’ is.

      2) please direct me towards the evidence based disproval of evolutionary theory, I’d be fascinated to read it.

      3) You’re the aggressive one here. Slander is an inaccurate term to throw around in a public forum.

      Please try using more evidence and less hyperbole. That’s how a discussion works. I’m assuming you are a Christian and probably an evangelical so don’t hold out much hope of a sensible reply but still, if you’re willing to have a civil conversation rather than trot out the same misunderstandings of the terminology, we might have an interesting exchange of ideas.

  4. Woody says:

    It doesn’t matter how much anti – God rubbish you spout it won’t make Him go away,and He will still be waiting for you at the end of the line, and by then it will be too late. Of course it is your choice, just make sure you don’t get it wrong. Eternity is a long time.

  5. D.Edwards says:

    Hi, I know I’m a bit late, but I’ve been watching Richard Kent’s latest series on Revelation TV, called To The Point (Tuesday, 2.30pm). He pretty much spouts the same old goo you dismantle here so well. I have written to him via Revelation, since he invited comments, but he has not replied – I didn’t expect him to; he does not interact with atheists or anyone with any scientific understanding. His stuff is laughable. Last week he said the sun was a miracle. He also went through the seven days of creation. How he failed to see that day 1,2 and 3 were impossible without the sun (which turned up on day 4), I don’t know? He also claimed plants were formed before the sun, and that photosynthesis was occurring, despite, in a slide on photosynthesis, showing an image of the sun ‘feeding’ plant life on earth. Any way, thanks for your post, sorry to respond so late. Just did a search on Richard Kent and your blog came up.

    • frank says:

      Hey just watched dr kent as im having an ongoing debate with my local delivery man. Where does the developement of the eye stand if darwin said in his book he didnt think that it could come from natural selection. Also do we work out how close we used to be to the sun or moon by calculating backwards the same time frames as we see now .One last thing is there a book on modern species currently evolving .

      • Dyfed says:

        Right, Frank, you’ve clearly fallen for creationist lies by claiming Darwin wrote the eye could not come from natural selection. This is a tremendous example of how creationists misrepresent, actually. If creationists, or you, had bothered to read Darwin, what he is doing is being intellectually honest, something far beyond a creationist. Darwin first present a preceived problem: how could something like the eye have evolved? Over the next three pages, had you bothered to find out, he actually explains how the eye could have evolved through natural selection. Over the preceding 150 years, we have discovered examples precisely matching Darwin’s hypothesis. You clearly don’t udnerstand even the simplest science, so stop being arrogant and perhaps read a book by a biologist, or, if you are interested in cosmology, a physicist.

      • frank says:

        ok , i didnt read darwin . But as always i do have to ask , how someone with your intelect can accept everything came from nothing . how many writings on a subject do we need as evidence. one book darwin or 66 the bible.

      • Dyfed says:

        Dear Frank,

        Who on earth says I claim everything came from nothing? Do you even understand the concept of ‘nothing’ that theoretical physicists use? The consensus is that there was never ‘nothing’, so without ‘nothing’, a creator is not required.
        You clearly don’t understand science. We don’t have ‘writings’ as evidence. Have you ever heard of peer-review? Google ‘scholarly peer-review for evolutionary theory’ you will get BILLIONS of hits, Frank; more than 66.
        The Bible is a historical artefact. It needs to be read critically like we read all ancient texts. Sadly, you seem neither williing to show humility and learn, nor do you seem willing to approach your texts critically, like all humble people should do.
        You haven’t even bothered to learn anything about modern biology; you just take pot shots at Darwin without understanding anything about his work, or what has come about in the 150 years since he published his findings. Very sad. Very arrogant. You’ve sadly fallen for the snake oil salesmen of creationism.


      • Dyfed says:

        … and, Frank, if you admit to not even reading Darwin – or not checking what he DID write – why on EARTH would you make the false claims you made about him in your first post? Does what is right and true not matter to you?


      • frank says:

        theory of darwin , mmmmm theory of , i borrowed this from a scientist “Indeed, Charles Darwin himself acknowledged in On the Origin of Species—the 1859 book detailing his theory of evolution by natural selection—that it might seem absurd to think the eye formed by natural selection. He nonetheless firmly believed that the eye did evolve in that way, despite a lack of evidence for intermediate forms at the time.


        . no evedence . your more creationist than me. id like to have been left as a bird if i came from natural selection , it seems the most select way of survival . Head south for the winter brrrrrr . flying without fuel , no pollution. escaping predators.

        Why did all fish not just keep evolving til ther was none left in the sea ???
        My theory is that some liked the sea so stayed others tried hard to walk then darrraaa they evolved.

      • Dyfed says:

        Are you a troll? Your responses now don’t even sound rational. I’ve already explained how dishonest creationists are regarding Darwin and the eye. Read the book! Darwin was hypothesizing; in the preceding 150 years, his hypothesis has been supported by massive evidence re: the evolution of the eye. Why don’t you stop being arrogant and learn?

        You basically don’t have a clue what the modern evolutionary synthesis is. You’re just committing a strawman fallacy. You don’t even understand how evolution occurs: why didn’t fish not just keep evolving? That is just a ridiculous notion. I can’t even understand your confused blatherings now. If you want to make points, do so; but make them sensibly.


      • Well said and nicely put Frank, didn’t Darwin actually renounce evolution on his deathbed claiming he started his theory solely on his anger towards God, to guide people away from believing?!

    • william southward says:

      I think you should get your facts, You seem to be very aggressive. Jesus Christ is Lord. Wait till you are about to exit this world, then tell me how you feel. For you will face God, Then you will believe but sadly .. To later….. God Bles

      • maesrhosrhyfel says:

        Hello William,

        Which facts are those? Aggressive? You’re projecting, I think. It is you who threatens me with something terrible if I don’t join your cult. “Tell me how you feel” you warn. So, please; less threats, more understanding. How do you know what you say is true? Is it possible you’ve made a mistake, that you could be wrong about this god thing you believe in? Unless you have absolute knowledge, you could certainly be wrong.


  6. B says:

    True, true. I am embarrassed for Dr Kent. But the problem is that most people aren’t experts in science, and without being armed with the right knowledge and evidence, they can be decieved by idiots like Kent, Comfort, Hovind, etc.

  7. frank says:

    Last comment mrs dyfed . Insulting peple wont make you correct . show me the missing link , Try taking your own advice and read the 66 books of historical evedence not just the one man theory . DR KENT was converted to truth from science . He at least took the time to investigate booth sides of the story til he came to the T R U T H .wheres the next stage of men evolving , if your an example leave me in the primordial slime thanks .Humans have evolved to kill kill kill .This is evoluotion .Go back to the drawing board Mrs

    • Dyfed says:


      How interesting you complai about being insulted, when you are your ilk do nothing but belittle and insult a dead man who can’t defend himself by lying about him.

      First, I’m male; not Mrs. Second, what ‘missing link’? Another arrogant statement. You’re after transitional forms. There are thousands. Absolutely thousands. Between which species? I can give you many. Here’s one: Tiktaalik. Learn about them.

      The bible is not evidence for the bible, Frank: that’s called a circular reasoning fallacy. We know quite a lot about how the bible was written, and although lots of the books are anonymous, we have an inkling of the kinds of people who wrote them. They are not ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’; they are, like all texts, flawed; interesting from a study perspective.

      Richard Kent does not understand evolution. It is quite obvious he doesn’t. He is not a biologist. He’s a medical doctor. If I want to know about biology, I go to a biologist.

      Let me give you one piece of evidence for common ancestry. ERVs. These are ancient viruses. They can ONLY be passed down via reproduction. The ONLY way. So if you had one of these viruses, your ancestors, for all the time that’s left, will carry its trait in their genes; in the EXACT place the virus ‘marked’ your genes.

      Now, these ERVs implant their ‘footprint’ in a very specific place in the host gene. Humans and chimpanzees share many ERVs, and they are in EXACTLY the same place in our genes.

      No other way to explain their presence other than common ancestry – sometime in the far distant past we shared an ancestor with chimps. We share fewer with gorillas and orangutans, but we share them, and this supports the theory that chimps are our closest animal relative. We also share some with mice. Dogs and wolves share ERVs, too; as do common domestic cats and their wild cousins, lions, tigers. How do you explain this, Frank?

      Let me give you another example: independently, scientists in different fields – genetics, biology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry – have, using evidence from their fields, constructed ‘family trees’ of life on earth. It shows all life is related. OK, but do you know the amazing thing? When these ‘trees’ are compared, they match EXACTLY. No deviation. They all, independently, show the same thing: life diversified through evolution by natural selection and other mechanisms; life is all related.

      Please stop being arrogant. Please be humble and learn before spouting about a subject you clearly have no clue about.


        by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
        Evidence for Creation › Evidence for Truth › Natural Laws › Science Tests Subjective Experience against Absolute Truth

        The Institute for Creation Research is known as a scientific research “think tank,” with numerous scientists conducting scientific research dealing with aspects of the broad origins question.

        But for all of our scientific interests, training, and efforts, each member of the scientific faculty is also a born-again Christian who is fully committed to the word of God as inerrant and infallible, containing all we need to know to have eternal life and to develop a fully Christian worldview. In the field of origins science, we are confident that while it doesn’t give us all the details, what it does say is absolutely correct and forms the basic framework for every endeavor, including scientific research. Using the Bible and its true history as our guide provides the glasses through which we look, and the scheme within which we interpret scientific data in just the same way an evolutionist uses evolution as his guide.

        But can we prove the Bible? No—not in a strict scientific sense, especially as it relates to the unobserved past. Science can understand much about how a cell operates, but how did it originate? Science has begun to decipher rudimentary elements of the genetic code, but who wrote the code? Empirical science is limited to the present—the way things are and the way they work—and can only speculate about their ultimate origins. Only rank arrogance and misunderstanding of the nature of science would lead one to think that his observations in the present of the way things operate could prove theories about non-reproduceable origin events in the unobserved past.

        By way of analogy, consider today’s super computers. For all their complexity—hardware and software—they are not as complete as the smallest living cell with its multitude of working parts and genetic code. What if a “thinking” computer comes to the independent conclusion that it originated by purely natural means, with no outside intelligence involved? Would that change the fact that a team of computer scientists built it and programmed it? Obviously not. To understand its origin (a quite different enterprise than its operation) it would need to consult its creator’s owner’s manual which would also explain procedures to follow to function best.

        And that’s how we view the Bible. It doesn’t need to be proven, it just needs to be believed and obeyed. We can and should put it to the test (I Thessalonians 5:21). Since it is correct, it will pass that test, and far surpass all false “owner’s manuals,” like naturalistic evolution.

        When the Bible is used as the guide to focus our research and interpret our data, the results are conclusions which make sense. Competing naturalistic views may necessitate claims that cells coalesce from “primeval soup” or that DNA codes write themselves, but these are unscientific and unnecessary. They are as “foolish” as the “wise” computer which declares itself free from its designer’s authority (Romans 1:22).

  8. snowy says:

    Ive just happend to catch Dr Kents point of view today, he explained about event horizons being linked with the turin shroud???? And other events when god makes time stand still is a event horizon! He even used a picture of a black hole.
    The one thing that amazes me about religous experts is they cherry pick the information that suits their arguments but ignores everything else that contradict their view.

  9. Suave Sean says:

    Well done Dyfed in your demolition of poor old Frank’s rationale or should I say irationale. To my mind it is a bit of a fruitless exercise arguing with young earth creationists who merely fallback on a defence of either ‘were you there? ‘(however neither were they) or because it says so in the Bible.
    Creation Science is a contradictory term as it operates from the premise that the Bible is infallible and only accepts evidence that fits in with biblical revelation. If the evidence contradicts the Bible it is either distorted to make it appears to support the holy book or it is discarded as it must be inaccurate. This is not how the scientific method operates and the sheer beauty of science is that it is fallible and changes as fresh evidence is accumulated so that we better understand the world about us.
    Now of course creationists may eventually have the last laugh if it is ever proved that a higher entity started the Big Bang. All I can say that if God was responsible he has done bugger all since and is resting on his or her laurels.
    Eventually Creationists will go the same way as Flat Earthers and Geocentrists and become an amusing footnote in an age of reason and enquiry and increasingly irrelevant.

    • Dyfed says:

      Thank you Suave Sean!

      You’re right, Young Earth Creationists are utterly a waste of time, but sometimes you are appalled by the terrible lies they spout, you can’t help but say something.

      Frank reeled out the indoctrinated rubbish about Darwin, blatant untruths, and even when he was corrected he did not have the humilty to apologise and accept his error – that is a YEC through and through.

      A recent debate between YEC pope Ken Ham and ‘The Science Guy’ Bill Nye showed how creationism fails, fails, and fails again as a credible position: asked what would make him change his mind, Nye answered: Evidence; asked the same question, Ham said: Nothing.

      Ham already believes he has the truth. He had no reason to think he had a mind to change. How arrogant. How anti-knowledge. How against all inquiry and learning. That, to me, defines Young Earth Creationism.

      As to your remarks about about God, you are right: if a god did create everything, he/she/it made a complete mess of things, and should be completly ashamed of him/her/it self.

      Christians/Creationists again blame people for all this. But, as a comic once said, ‘It’s surely the manufactuer’s fault.’


  10. frank says:

    Dont know why i bother bringing up the same point to liars but here goes ,
    Oh thats right because its crazy .every year the bible is the best seller , every year .

    Heres a sentence for you “The begining of the universe is T=0 Zeeeeerrrrrooooo
    is zero nothing , yes or no .

    Suave sean might help you to admit you all have Faith in a universe that came from no where NOTHING

    • snowy says:

      The same argument can be applied to god! Where did he come from?Nothing??? I can help you! he came from the mind of somebody who couldnt explain something! The bible came from earlier pagan religions! The creation story…. stolen the virgin birth…. stolen original sin…. stolen the great flood…. stolen!
      Prayer? Pray for something anything and watch how nothing happens!

      Why believe in someone who sent two bears to maul 42 children to death for calling his prophet baldy! Or when god murdered the whole planet because he designed humans to behave not how he wants them too! Or his most loyal believer Lot! Him and satan hanging out together killing his family, making him ill, ruining him finacially all just to test his faith! Why was he going to kill moses for no reason? Or why did he design us so we breath and feed down the same pipe thus creating a problem like choking to death? An intelligent designer would make seperate pipes so choking was not a problem! At least with science you can ask the question you are encouraged to ask! In your bible it says you can beat slaves! Or stone your son or daughter to death if they dont do as you tell them! Luckly science understands mental health problems to save them being stoned to death! Why would you worship and belive such nonsense?
      And to answer your something from nothing reseach quantum physics.

      • Aj says:

        It’s a lie to say that Bible teachings came from pagan religions, but you a child of the devil, so I’ll look past your lies for now. Rather other religions that existed before Christ added these stories to their religions after they heard about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
        Also quantum physics does not explain origins without intelligence, mean at some point someone brought this universe into being. Evolution does, and has to argue, that everything came from nothing. The moment you say matter or protons or proteins, ect it requires something to exist, and we always ask where that comes from, and by your “faith” you say it just did. Your argument can never reach a true answer, it’s easy for us to say God did it since our God is eternal, outside of space and outside of time.
        And who is the liar who said there are transitional forms, if there were they would be paraded through the streets.

      • David Redding says:

        Dearie me Aj you are so medieval in your perceptions – has the world of scientific discovery, the Age of Enlightenment and reason passed you by?
        You seriously claim that ancient religions that died centuries before Judaism emerged let alone Christinity then suddenly resurrected themselves to incorporate myths of The Old Testament?
        It is acknowledged that the Bible incorporated in Genesis the myths of earlier religions. Do remember these were written to try and explain man’s origins to a mainly unsophisticated and illiterate tribal society.
        I can’t comment on your views on quantum mechanics but if it is as rational as your views on transitional forms then I would take your opinion with a bucket full of salt.
        As for calling people who disagree with your point of view as children of the devil then I do wonder f you are totally rational as there is no need for such insulting rhetoric.
        I personally have no problem with the Bible – I think it contains many lessons for a rewarding and fruitful life but I believe it to be allegorical and not the word of a God. Doesn’t prevent it having useful lessons for humanity in leading a good and purposeful existence.
        Just don’t imbue it with properties it doesn’t have and be more tolerant of other points of view.

      • Aj says:

        Oh dearie for sure, who’s your priest… Mr Dawkins? The reason that Genesis is believed from so many people’s os because it came from the same source,.. God through Moses. And if you know the Bible perhaps you know the the enlightened one is lucifer, the fallen one. If all you believe about the bible is the good morals, why not believe hitler too. Where did you ever get the idea that there is good and evil ? From your grandmother chimpanzee? And if you know the bible you know that Jesus called the unbelieving Jews the children of the devil… Why is it so hard to believe that you are any different.
        I actually don’t care what you believe. But you have no business attacking my faith, which is what the whole world does. Since Genesis is known to many cultures it is more reasonable to believe you non- ape ancestors knew more about our origins than you or your prophets Darwin and Lyell ( false teachers who hated God).
        And if you really don’t believe in the God of the Bible, why waste your time with me. If your heart says that you came from an ape , that you’re here today and gone tomorrow… Go get drunk, have lots of sex with everybody you can get, please yourself all the time because “tomorrow we die”. Don’t waste your time arguing with people of faith. And stop scientific and medical research because by curing diseases you are messing with the evolutionary process , if you believe in the lie that we evolved.

      • David Redding says:

        Oh dearie me Aj you are rambling and becoming more and more incoherent . Yes I think I will take up your suggestion and have lots of sex – something presumably lacking in your life.
        Morals have nothing to do with the Bible , Christianity or any faith and is part and parcel of evolution – we do things generally for selfish reasons – either because it makes us feel good or it’s ‘do unto others as you would be done by ‘ or ‘do as you would be done by’ in other words it’s a trade off to peaceful coexistence and absolutely nothing to do with a God or a Messiah.
        As I have previously stated I have no issue with people who have a faith – if it sustains them and gives them comfort then that is fine by me but don’t go trying to impose your views on others who think differently.
        I am not so arrogant as to think that my point of view is the correct one and if I end up burning in hell as you suppose you will be able to say ‘told you so’ but nothing I have experienced through nearly seventy years on this planet has altered my opinion on organised religion – the greatest evil ever inflicted on man.
        I was brought up in a Christian household – my father was a Freemason – but I was never ever convinced about what the Church was preaching and as I matured and had time to reflect it became obvious to me the whole religious edifice was a pack of lies.
        I could expand on organised religion being an arm of government and a forerunner of the police in imposing state control – through fear on the masses but it would probably be wasted on you so I won’t waste my time.
        If you are happy in your beliefs that is great and I hope you are right – but don’t think you are.

      • Aj says:

        Who’s rambling? This article that that replying is about an attack on my faith. That s why I responded to it, so don’t tell me about imposing beliefs. That’s what atheists do, spread their faith in “no God”. Most of the world is not Christian, and among North American preachers there are far too few who know and understand their Bibles. If they would read and do what it says, you would see miracles everywhere. But the rest of you have no excuse, because you could choose to follow and I believe God would do great things through you.
        Evolution and atheism are what cause good people to lose their faith before it has time to mature. I was fortunate to find the truth and evidence when I realized that both Science (evolution theory) and my Bible can’t both be right. I took the time, examined the evidence, and realized both require faith, and the Biblical evidence , whether history or prophesy was strong , vs the argument that life evolved from a rock, and the universe “poof” just appears, just like that.

      • snowy says:

        AJ, I like how you ignore the faults in the bible that i quoted.

        In your belief you say god exists outside of space and time, but how do you know there is only one god? If one exists why cannot two exist or three? Maybe god is dead? Maybe thats why he no longer answers prayers or floods the planet to kill everyone….
        If heaven is that perfect why did satan leave?
        Just for one moment put your feelings and belief to one side and look at it from another angle. You dont believe in zeus or apollo or loki or any other god that is worshiped? You dismiss them as fast as you dismiss evolution? Use the same arguments on your bible.

      • Aj says:

        I have seen God answer prayer, within moments, several times, by healing people with injury, pains, and sickness. If you took the God and the Bible seriously you could do it to. I also find incredible accuracy in prophesy that has been fulfilled, even down to names.
        What absolutely amazes me is how blind people are in believing in evolution. Always AVOIDING the simplest questions, and trying to trick people into believing you’ve got something when they don’t. After many arguments with evolutionists, I don’t bother with all their misdirected questions and explanations. It’s very simple… We have dug down to the dinosaurs, supposedly 250 million years ago, and guess what… No transitional forms. Full humans, even discovered with the dinosaurs…. Hmmm wonder what that could mean.
        The Law of Biogenesis cannot be overcome unless life exists, or is created. No problem for Christians… Impossible question for evolutionists. All kinds of arguments , but why go past the basics. Darwin promised countless transitional forms, they are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for evolution to be true. In this case, throw the baby out with the bath water.
        Lucifer (satan) didn’t leave heaven, he was kicked out. He wanted to take God’s place. He is an example of all who choose not to obey God, but rebel against Him, and their destiny will be the same as his – hell. They are considered his children. They believe lies and teach them to others. I can tell you for certain that Darwin would beg to come back and tell everybody he was wrong, but the Bible says people wouldn’t believe him, even if he came back from the dead. People believe in anything but the one true God, because their hearts are dark, evil, and are not willing to enter God’s light -read Romans chapter 1.

      • snowy says:

        So why does god pick and choose which prayers to answer? He heals an ache in your back but the young child dies because his parents prayed instead of getting medical help?
        Watch benny hinn, he heals people on stage, never ever do you see the healing take place just the person saying i am healed then giving their money to pay for his savile row suits and private jet….
        Aj you will never change you mind on religion because you have been brought up on it and it probaly scares the hell out of you to imagine there is no purpose or meaning to life.
        The world is a worse place for religion look at the wars it causes- ireland, former yugoslavia, syria, iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, china, russia and most of africa millions murdered all in the name of their chosen faith! And these are the most recent.
        And new religions are popping up all the time scientology or even jedi!
        The happiest countries are the most secular like northern europe while the worst out of the developed world is the USA!
        Aj if your belief gives you comfort and you do not hurt anyone then that is fine, i hope it helps you lead a full and good life. I used to believe but the more i looked and more you ask questions the harder it is to believe to the point it no longer makes sense.
        There is no purpose to life, it is very short and you only get one chance at it. Make the most of it enjoy the good things in the world and at the end try and be able to say i had a good life and i tried to make the world a better place

      • Aj says:

        I personally believe God is willing to heal everybody. It’s not God who keeps people sick, but us. You have no rxcuse, you are part of the problem, an unfaithful , unbelieving person. Churches, sadly , are as much to blame.
        it is fully wrong for anyone to take money for healing anyone. If you read and understood the bible you would know that. If someone is healed when I pray I cannot accept anything, as the Bible says I got my reward in full. I don’t want to outright judge others who appear with monetary reasons, but Jesus warned those people that they would be rejected at the judgement. I would rather thank God and remain in the awe of what he did when he healed the people he did, and when I don’t see a miracle to bring my heart and it’s affections closer to him, so next time I see that person they will hopefully be healed. i would share the science behind it, but it is not meant for unbelievers, and the Bible warns of people who can do miracles but do not turn to Christ and repent of their sins.
        If there is no purpose to life then stop wasting your time on the Internet and go get laid as much as you can, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, the bible says. Right after that it says “and then what?” If I did not believe in God that is what I would do.
        But since the evidence is that we have a creator, both through ancient cultures (as you pointed out) and the best scientific arguments, then I love to live for the God who loves me , died for my sins, and prepares a place for me. The other place sounds like hell, I wouldn’t want to go there. What’s the cost? I believe that there is a God, that he sent his Son to pay the price for my evil, that I live a holy life by loving my friends and enemies by doing good for them? Where the bad in that? How’s that a waste of life?
        Who’s going to regret life more if there is no God when we die? Neither, we will both be dead. Who’s going to regret it more if there is a God, definitely you.

      • snowy says:

        AJ, About 9 million children under the age of 5 die every year. They suffer in every concievable way, it does not matter what religion they are from. Yet the god you say is all powerful, loving and caring does nothing to save them. So he either does not care or can not do anything to stop it happening.
        But in your belief he answers your prayers to heel that twisted ankle or help you remove that stain from your carpet or a whole host of trivial requests! A god that ignores the cries to save young children or babies and does nothing does not deserve to be worshiped!

        Where are the original texts that make up the bible?
        They do not exist! you base your belief on a book that was printed very recently! How can you have such an unshakable belief and only base it on hearsay and not the original texts?

      • Aj says:

        Scientists have the knowledge to heal. We have the wealth to pay for medicine and clean water and good food . If you want someone to blame go look in the mirror and start with that person. God gave us everything we need, but we abuse it. At least those who believe are on the right path, the rest of you are like hitler , not caring whether people live or die., and when they die you lash out at God… Hippocrite. I am not a good person. God didn’t do miracles through my hands and prayers because I’m a good person, but because I believed him. I’ve seen the power of God, and I didn’t accept anything for the healing, since it was not by my power. You can sit in your lazy chair and complain about millions of hurting and dying people, or you can wake up and learn what God wants you to do.
        You can jump off a building and not believe in Gravity if you want, but gravity will still impose itself on you. In the same way you can hate God and not believe Him. But when you hit the pavement you’ll have known that Gravity is real… And so is hell. Stop whining to me about your hatred for God. If you’re not going to believe now go get some alcohol and a hot babe and enjoy them now, because there is no air conditioning in hell.

      • Snowy
        A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?

        The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

        How do we know this? We know that, from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

        Recommended Resource: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek

    • Dear Frank,

      You ranted: ‘Dont know why i bother bringing up the same point to liars but here goes ,
      Oh thats right because its crazy .every year the bible is the best seller , every year .
      Heres a sentence for you “The begining of the universe is T=0 Zeeeeerrrrrooooo
      is zero nothing , yes or no .Suave sean might help you to admit you all have Faith in a universe that came from no where NOTHING”

      Well, where to begin. At the beginning, maybe. You have no argument so you merely use ad hominems. I’ve already shown how fallacious you’ve been, but you don’t seem to care. Well, if you can live with lying, so be it.

      Your request that I admit to something I don’t know the answer to, is bizarre and obnoxious. I don’t know where ‘everything’ came from. We have a very good idea how the universe came to be (not your magic fairy, by the way). But we don’t know what was before the universe. Or if there WAS a before. And Frank, YOU DON’T EITHER. You do not know.

      The universe as we know (dependent on your defintion: physics or maths) it is T=0, of course it is (still no evidence for “god did it”), but again: no one knows what the conditions were like prior, or if there was a prior. It is not me who says the universe came from nothing; it is you: you claim a sky daddy puffed it into existence – from Nothing! And you claim this with no evidence.

      Well, what is ‘nothing’? If ‘nothing’ as you seem to suggest is non-existence, then non-existence by definition, never existed. So, if nothing is non-existence, nothing never existed. And without nothing a creator to create something from non-existence is not required. Because something always existed. There goes your god… in a puff of smoke.


      • Aj says:

        Never fails that you people ignore the basic evidence that destroys any notion that evolution can even happen. I don’t have to much more than that. I have watched debates from here to senna everywhere, but evolutionists always avoid the basics. According to their way of thinking everything has an origin. They always fail on that , they always will. Dawkins should have written “the evolution delusion” but he spends all his time hating a God he doesn’t believe in, or does he believe? The fool has said in their heart that there is no God”

  11. snowy says:

    Mmm strange response there, You will find hitler was a christian who was inspired by martin luther. To say us non believers are like hitler is stupid, incredibly arrogrant and shows you have no idea of the world you live in. You have either been brain washed into your views and need help or you are one of those that profits finacialy from religion.
    You have never healed anyone with the power of prayer and laying hands, deep down inside you know that is the truth.
    I never once insulted you or your religion I just pointed out the flaws in your belief system which you totally ignored!!! The only way you respond is by getting angry and making ridiculous comments. Which shows you have doubts and you are fighting them!
    I am going to crack open a beer get in a hot tub with a hot girl because if heaven is real being stuck there for eternity with people who have views like yours…. well bring on the fire I say!

    • Aj says:

      I stopped reading at the hitler

    • Aj says:

      I stopped at the part about hitler. Show me where Jesus taught anyone to kill ?
      A Christian is someone who believes and obeys Jesus Christ. Anyone who says they are Christian but does not believe and obey Christ is not a real be Christian. Too bad you never read or understood the Bible. your comment just shows the type of person you are.

      • snowy says:

        Here you go Aj your loving caring forgiving lord spreading his love….

        “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (I Samuel 15:2-3

        “And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.” (I Samuel 6:19

        “And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.” (Exodus 11:4-5

      • Aj says:

        Exactly. And who were the ” people” he destroyed? You are so far behind in understanding the Bible, why pretend you do?
        And if a Creator made us with a purpose of holiness, doesn’t he also have the right to destroy it? These people were literally offspring of the Fallen Ones. They did the human sacrifices to the “gods” ( not real gods, but that is what they were believed to be). In Noah’s day the Bible records the world with incredible wickedness. Noah was perfect because he was fully human. A few were saved, the rest died in the flood. T
        This info has been covered up by the human powers that be, in order for us to believe theie lies. The Bible cannot be destroyed because God keeps it holy, even though there are many false bibles out there made by evil people to pervert the truth.
        Why is the real question . I’m pretty sure I understand why God allows what he does. If you will not study the Bible as “the Word of God” the knowledge doesn’t matter or belong to you. Everyone who is not born of God belongs to the evil one. This is why they believe the lies that people of this world give.

  12. snowy says:

    Here you go Aj the connection between martin luther and adolf hitler

    • Aj says:

      You did not answer me, show me where Jesus told us to murder? I don’t care what hitler and Luther did. I am not their followers. Stop being a pervert and acknowledge the truth. A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, not the pope , not Luther, and not a box of smarties. Will you ever speak a word of truth in your life? Neither hitler or Luther were obeying Jesus when the did their evil. Hmmm what does that mean? Duh, they were not real Christians, neither is the Roman Catholic church the church of Christ.
      When Jesus raptures his true followers, you will be left with the false ones. Don’t pretend to know the bible, it makes you look like a fool. Don’t listen to Dawkins, he is a fool. Read the New Testament for yourself to see who Jesus is and what it teaches.

      • David Redding says:

        I think this string is getting off the topic of Dr Richard Kent (retired) who appears to be – if I may quote another contributor on another site as being ‘At the far end of batshit crazy’
        I seriously doubt the sanity of someone who poses the views he professes on his website.
        I would imagine that the vast majority of those who claim to have a deep faith be it Judaism, Christianity or Muslim ( to include all the major monotheistic faiths) would readily distance themselves from his ludicrous outpourings. I don’t need to go into detail as any rational human being reading his ramblings would suggest that he was delusional and needed help.
        Perhaps contributors would like to comment on Dr Kent’s views which appear to be recycled from such confirmed wackos such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind ( is he out of jail yet? ) and others of their ilk.

      • Aj says:

        I’ve heard Mr Kent once or twice , and Mr Hovind. An honest evaluation of their claims on evolution concludes the not only the lack of evidence, but it’s impossiblity, violating the very laws of nature. With mr Hovind, all people do is ignore the plain facts ( he makes them straight forward) and try to avoid them. Evolution is not been seen anywhere. We’ve dug down down to the dinosaurs ( supposedly 200-250 million years ago) and still no transitional forms. Like Darwin said there has to be countless numbers of them. The cosmic dust on the moon was expected to be deep, based on the evolution theory, so we put those cups on the bottom of the lunar lander, didn’t need them there wasn’t that much there. They calculated less than 10000 years worth. The evidence is everywhere, but we are being forced to believe in evolution , which is being shown to be nothing more than a faith. I can’t remember mr kents message on evolution, I heard it so long ago. I will hopefully listen to it soon.

      • David Redding says:

        A very brief response to state that the moon dust argument has long ago been discredited and even Answers In Genesis and other YEC apologists now refrain from using that as a justification for a young Earth.
        Every year more and more evidence comes to light to enhance the theory of evolution and an extremely old earth (4.5 billion years at the last count) and it is becoming extremely difficult for creationists , especially YEC’s to square the circle in face of the overwhelming evidence that refutes their theory.
        I can’t think of one argument proposed by YEC’s in support of their viewpoint that hasn’t been rationally explained by the scientific community and totally debunked.

      • Aj says:

        I’m not sure where your 4.5 billion years from because , excepti from you, every evolutionist telling me 18 to 20 billion years. It is intersting how the earth ages a few billion years…every few years for you guys, and seems to go back several billion years when you feel like it.
        There is zero evidence on the earth or anywhere for even a million years. No evidence that we came from anything other than fully formed humans, as well as no evidence for a change of any species to another. It is absolutely necessary to prove this / have transitional forms. perhaps they are found and quickly taken to Area 51. There are countless arguments presented by creationists (don’t care if new or old earth) that simply deny the whole theory of evolution. It is a myth that began with the Babylonians thousands of years ago, revived by Darwin, and spread as a religion by those who believe it. I have listened to enough evolutionists to see them deny or dodge the basics laws of our universe. Imo they don’t want to believe God created, that is why People believe it and preach it like a religion today, why Darwin revived it, why the Babylonians received it, and why Lucifer gave it to them.

      • David Redding says:

        Aj you are mixing up the age of the earth with the age of the Universe which is estimated to be between 14 and 15 billion years. The age of the earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years. Hope that clarifies matters.

      • Aj says:

        Someone just kept telling me that so it’s fresh in my mind. I guess there is some discrepancies in what evolutionists believe. He also told me Gravity was not science either.
        Nevertheless , Biblically speaking, the earth is likely older than the sun , moon, and stars. They were created for times and seasons and light. But no matter whether I believe the Bible or you believe whoever you listen to, and read, both are faith based. We interpret things through that faith.
        I also find that few people for evolution actually understand what the theory teaches. They have been brainwashed by their Pope, Dawkins. They keep telling me of the transitional forms there are, but I’m not aware of one that hasn’t already been dismissed or disproven. Without them , there is no validity to the theory. The only alternative is a Creator. Many have come to understand this, which is why they turn to the ancient aliens theory, for which there is much evidence of their existence in the past, and their presence in the present. The Bible also agrees that they came to the earth, along with pretty much every ancient culture, who also all believe in a world wide flood with a few survivors on a boat. The beings claimed they created humans. Not that I believe them.

      • David Redding says:

        Aj you should understand the difference between Christianity or any religion come to that and Science such as evolution, geology. Astronomy in fact anything that uses the scientific method.
        Religion is a Faith and faith is a belief that is unsupported by any evidence. It is a deeply held view that relies on a conviction that what is held to be true is true .
        Science on the other hand and scientific theory is based on evidence either observed or deduced. This is why scientific theory is fallible and changes as more knowledge is acquired. That is the beauty of the scientific method in that it develops our understanding of everything about us and around us.
        Religion is not fallible as it is reluctant to accept evidence that undermines its tenets. It took organised religion a long time to accept the earth orbited around the sun as it was believed the earth was the centre of everything and the sun and stars orbited the Earth – we know differently now thanks to science and the scientific method. One could point out many deeply held beliefs of Religion that have turned out to be incorrect and I find it difficult to understand the obstinacy of monotheists in rejecting the elegance of what science has revealed about us, our world and the universe.
        All this evidence does not in fact deny the exit acne of a God or Gods – nothing can but it does indicate that the Bible and most Holy Books are allegorical and not to be taken literally. Those who do will at some stage be doomed to disappointment and lose their faith which is a shame as the one thing that faith can bring is contentment and peace of mind to an open minded believer.

      • Aj says:

        You got that rant straight from everybody else with your position, almost word for word. I doubt you have done the experiments , much less seen one species evolve into another. What you have is faith, and that faith is in the word of mouth. Something somebody told you, or you read in a fantasy novel. I never bother with the evidence for the Bible, you’ll never believe it even if Darwin came back from the dead and told you so. You have only fooled yourself with the supposed science and evidence you claim. Evolution never has passed the basic challenges, it is an unproven theory based on something that we cannot repeat… The supposed Big Bang and the monkey men and original forms of life.
        “Science” shows every creature including man fully formed with no half forms. It is delusional to base ones reality on something that can’t pass the basic laws of the universe or earth itself. God deliberately formed the universe and everything else the way they are so people like you have no excuse for saying there is no God. Read Romans chapter 1

      • David Redding says:

        Aj I really don’t think I’m going to waste anymore time on trying to hold a rational discussion with you only to receive utter incomprehensible drivel from you in response.
        You are either a joker pretending to be an idiot in order to wind up contributors or you really are a deluded idiot – I fear it is probably the latter.
        If there is anyone else out there who can contribute to the discussion in defence of Dr Kent’s bizarre theories in a rational manner then do please post your views or are the only ones out there as cerebrally challenged as Aj appears to act.
        Finally I repeat for those who have a deep faith I am happy for you and if it brings you fulfilment in your life then that is good and I wish you well.

      • Aj says:

        Funny I feel exactly the same about what you say. You are too blind to see that you are not going by science, but by what you have been told. Your arguments are presented in the same way a religious person presents their faith. 24 more hours gone by and still no transitional form to prove your beliefs. And the idea that something can be known for certain is a rational argument, whereas the belief that nothing can be known for certain is rediculous. So when you find some theory that doesn’t work you throw it out, but meanwhile it’s evidence for evolution. Rediculous. Your type of science is always trying to discover what the bible already knows.
        Fortunately we will not have to wait billions more years to know the truth, depending on your age we will see it in our natural lifetime.

      • snowy says:

        There are millions of pieces of evidence to support evolution, there is none for god. That is a fact. You just choose to ignore the facts.The only thing you have is a book, the book you believe in so much is the product of men over a thousand years. Where are the original scriptures?? Not even archaelogical evidence supports the bible, why can we find evidence of kings and people before jesus lived? But the man you believe in performed miracles and astonshed people, nobody wrote about him until years and years after?? Then the bible didnt appear until 400 years after!
        Evolution is not a faith, you must of been spoon fed this creation rubbish from birth, look at hovind and his son eric, fake degrees to make him appear credible but in a debate his creation theory was shot down by an 11 year old boy…. and now he is in prison! But in your logic he is not a real christian.
        Out of curiousity what would take for you to change your views on evolution or the age of the planet?

      • Aj says:

        It would begin with you being honest, there is no evidence. If you actually and honestly took Hovind’s arguments seriously with an open mind you would realiZe you are wrong. You argue your position in the very way religious people argue their position. You’re just too bkind to see it. People like you misuse science to say there is no God, with such rediculous arguments that you only your deceived mind can understand. Then you put limits on what can be argued and what can’t be, who made you a ruler? Arguments that deny that things can be known ( which you keep using for your religious point of view) but reject Christians from using the same arguments because from the wisdom, or lack of, that comes from your mind.
        Evidence that supposedly supports the evolutionary THEORY is processed and understood from that THEORY, never admitting the possibility the THEORY could be wrong. The evidence shows fully formed creatures all the way back to dinosaurs, supposedly 350 million years ago. Where are your monkey men. Without transitional forms, and there aren’t any, you have believed a lie.

      • snowy says:

        Here you go transitional forms!
        In Dr Dino theme park still open?

      • Aj says:

        Wow an image of a transitional form! You know if Google image God you will see pictures of God. Now you have to admit He’s real huh. An image is not proof of a transitional form.
        A transitional form is a complete body of bones that conclusively show one species with another. Stop lying to me and show me a real transitional form.
        Notice that your attempt at evidence was not based on your own work or experiments, but rather FAITH in Berkeleys website. Your faith is in them, proving that you don’t believe the science, but rather what people tell you. Tell me, how many times did mr Hovind show that textbooks still contain proven lies as evidence for evolution. If they lie to you in textbooks, what makes you think you can trust their website?

      • snowy says:

        Sorry for going off topic🙊
        I accept that no amount of evidence will ever change dr kent or Aj views. I would guess aj is an evangelical from the bible belt in america.

      • A’men brother A’men

      • Couldn’t of putmit better myself AJ, God bless brother

  13. Dyfed says:

    Dear Aj,

    It beggars belief why you would choose to rail against science when you clearly have very little understanding of what science (particularly the modern evolutionary synthesis) is about. People like Hovind and Kent are not biologists, not working in the field of evolutionary biology, or any other field related to the science we are discussing. Why on earth would you accept what they say without looking at their credentials and their experience?

    I mean, would you let a dentist carry out open heart surgery on you? Would you let some fellow who claims to have a PhD, but who doesn’t (Hovind), remove your teeth when he doesn’t have any qualifications?

    Your statements show you don’t understand evolution, so where do you get the arrogance to talk about it? I just don’t get creationists. They have no humility at all, just the absolute certainty they are right – which is the anathema of science, where all positions are held tentatively and provisionally.

    When you say “evidence shows fully formed creatures all the way back to dinosaurs”, well goodness me what does that even mean? What is the definition of “fully formed”? Is someone born without legs not “fully formed” then? How are they defined? Transitional fossils (of which there are THOUSANDS as Snowy has shown you; which you’ll no doubt ignore) are also, surely, “fully formed”, are they not? I mean Tiktaalik is fully formed under your definition; just a fully formed transitional fossil. It is humans who have classified animals, you do understand that? Tiktaalik doesn’t know what it is. Neither did dinosaurs. You understand taxonomy, do you; heard of it? Do you care that you don’t?

    Do you think Prof Francis Collins, an Evangelical Christian and former head of the human genome project is wrong about evolution? He accepts it; accepts common descent. And he’s a geneticist. He has looked inside the human genome and this is what he says:

    “As someone who’s had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I’ve had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It’s also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.”

    This is a Christian, and also someone, unlike you, Aj, who actually understands evolution. Is he wrong? How can he be wrong if he looked inside the human genome? Have you looked inside the human genome? Has Hovind? Has Kent? Do you think you, or they, would even grasp or understand what you are looking at?


    • Aj says:

      Some decades ago, the warren commission said that a single bullet accounted for seven wounds in the assassination of pres Kennedy, and the bullet found in pristine condition. No body seemed to bat an eye, until Jim Garrison came along. Proving that there was a blatant lie being passed to Americans and the rest of the world. What makes you think that you can trust anything this world has to tell you? What makes you think that those who preach evolution don’t have their own motives? Clear to me that Dawkins believes in the God of the bible. His hatred is God and Jesus is revealed by so much that he says.
      The fact that there are only fully formed creatures back 250 million years show that over that period of time, not one species transformed into another. Look we have humans, and we have apes, but no mixture. Evolution is based on this to be true. Forget all the other arguments for now, show me just this one. If evolution has really taken place, show me a real monkey man. You ancient prophet Darwin said there has to be countless numbers of them if evolution is true. Start with just one. If you can’t, and I already know you can’t, then your faith in evolution is not worthy to be taught.

      • snowy says:

        Man – two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, not alot of hair and lives in groups.
        Chimpanzee – two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, quite alot of hair and lives in groups.

      • Aj says:

        Wow, a bunch of monkeys who look like each other, living together, phoosh! Must be evolution ( rrrriigght!).
        A Mr. Big with that brown chocolately bar and the stuff that comes out the read of a dog look simular too, do you eat both? Do they taste the same?

      • snowy says:

        Hahaha aj if your not a troll you really need help, in fact are you eric hovind??

      • Aj says:

        You think because monkeys and humans have ears legs ect… In common, that makes evolution. That’s rediculous. More likely they have the same designer. Otherwise there would still be monkeys and humans in every stage of your so-called evolution. Your logic is sad.

      • snowy says:

        So your belief of an intelligent designer, why do he make monkeys and humans so alike, why so many different versions of fish or insect or even humans? Why give some dark skin others light coloured? Why did he waste time making slight variations on the same animal? Why not just make one of each?

      • Aj says:

        I’m not sure, but why does an artist paint so many different paintings, using different colours. Why not paint the the picture over and over. I believe he made us all different to show that every person and creature are uniquely different and important. Even the angelic beings don’t all look alike from the descriptions given if the in the bible. He created every being to have a real relationship with him.

      • Dyfed says:


        You are an arrogant person. Define what you mean by a ‘monkey man’? What does that even mean? Darwin said nothing about ‘monkey men’. And ultimately it doesn’t matter what Darwin or Dawkins says: in science all that matters is the evidence.

        And you have none of it.

        You don’t even understand what evolution is. You think it is one species giving birth to another – the Ray Comfort school of science; the crocoduck. This is NOT evolution. Evolution is change over time. It is change at the genetic level from population to population. Not even an idiot would deny this happens. If genetic-level change did not occur, then every poplulation would be colnes of previous populations. Are you a clone of you parents? Well, you can’t be since there are two of them.

        Over time, enough genetic changes can cause new speices to arise. Unless you can show the ‘stop’ mechanism in the gene that prevents this change, then your argument is dead.

        For an example of evolution actually happening, please look up ring species. This is change at the genetic level. For another example, please see Lenski’s long term e-coli experiement, where new species arose – and please don’t say something stupid like, “Well, it’s still bacetria, isn’t it.” That’s exactly like like saying, “Well, it’s still eukaryote, isn’t it.” Do you know what that is? It is in biology a Domain. Animals and fungi are eukaryotes. They are the same biological domain.

        Let me tell you about humans and chimps. We share 16 k-class ERVs. ERVs in an encoded retrovirus inserted in the genome. These insert themselves when an organism catches a virus, to put it simply. And the virus then encodes itself in the organism’s gene. Now, these can ONLY be passed down through generations by reproduction. ONLY!. HIV is a retrovirus. If you had HIV, all the generations that stem from you would carry the ERV, although after many centuries the disease may be dormant. Humans and chimps share many (and more found every day) in the EXACT SAME SPOT IN OUR GENOME. Dogs and Wolves share them IN EXACTLY THE SAME SPOTS IN THEIR GENOME. As do cats and their wild cousins. We share fewer with gorillas; fewer still with orangutans; share some with mice, too. But we still share them.

        Aj, unless you can come up with an explanation, the best one we have for these ERVs is that we shared common ancestors with these other species. That does not mean your inane idea of a ‘monkey man’; it means a species that diversified into humans and chimps (and so on). This is the ONLY explanation. These can ONLY be passed down through generations via reproduction. No other way we know of for these encodings to be in the EXACTS same spot in genomes.

        You merely misrepresent scientists, lie about what they said, and STILL claim the truth – despite not knowing a single thing about biology. Where does this arrogance come from?

        And you’ve still not explained how you know more about evolution than the Christian and former head of the human genome project, Francis Collins.


      • Aj says:

        I’m sorry, i guess you don’t know much about the creation vs evolution debate. A monkey man / men are (according to the evolution theory) the various stages from which apes/ monkeys are to have transformed into humans. Since you don’t understand this concept, it is no wonder that you have believed in the lie of evolution.
        And I can’t recall if it was you, but because someone says they are a “Christian” does not mean they are one. The first chapter of Genesis says God created each creature according to their own kind. Jumpin Jupiters Batman, that is what we find in the fossil record. No evolution.

      • Aj says:

        And don’t you just love it when people walk into a big pile of horse crap? If the Christian scientist who discovered the insights in to genome, and he is soooo smart, then how come you don’t believe in God also? Are you smarter than he and Einstein?

      • zenspider says:

        Watch your tone please AJ or your comments will no longer be approved. Let’s keep this a civil conversation.

  14. snowy says:

    An evolution analogy for you aj:
    Catholicism is the oldest of the chrisianty denominations, if baptists, mormons, jehovahs, evangelicals all evolved from them why are there still catholics in the world?

    • Aj says:

      Go back and look at your last comment/question. If you believe that is evolution then you have proved that you do not know what evolution is.

      • snowy says:

        Just out of curiosity Aj who has taught you about creationism? Where do you get you information from?
        And how do you tell a real christian from one that claims to be one in your view?

      • Aj says:

        when I was young I realized the conflict between what the bible says and what I was learning in science. I researched the one side and compared it with the other. The arguments from the creation point of view were enough to convince me. I saw that dinosaurs didn’t have to be 250 million years old, in fact there are dinosaurs in the bible. I found that there is no physical evidence for the evolution of man, not even one transitional form between the two , but science taught me it was real, in the text book and encyclopedias. The arguments for a young earth theory are far superior to to an old one. The evidence of a world wide flood and the historical stories from ancient cultures, even those who do not have the bible. I could go on and on and on…
        I don’t know how many times I have said it, but a Christian is not somebody who goes to church, or reads the bible. Baptism does not make a Christian. If you want to know what a Christian is you need to read and understand the New Testament. They are people who believe in Jesus Christ and put his teachings (and apostles teachings) into practice. They must believe the bible is Gods word given to us through the holy men he chose. They must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he came from heaven, was born into this world through a virgin. He was berayed by one of his own, crucified for our sins. Buried and resurrected on the third day.
        So when the bible explains how God created the world and everything within it, we believe that rather than when someone claims to have found the missing link. Which has happened many times, and each time proven to be false.

      • snowy says:

        But how can you believe the word of man? Men lie! Does god talk to you? If he does how do you know it is god?

      • Aj says:

        You’re right, people lie. I got many of the answers from from famous evolutionists who by there own words either lied, and other times acknowledged the truth. I think it was Sagan who had the best one, but I learned these things like 15 to 20 years ago. Hard to remember .
        The bible was given to men from God. The evidence is in its power, but particularly in its prophesy that has already been fulfilled. And the ones likely happening right now. God revealed himself with powerful signs in the Old Testament, and through miracles through Jesus and his disciples. When I began to learn what faith really was I also saw a few miracles when I prayed. (Healings and casting out demons).
        There are only two possibilities for the existence of our world that I accept. Either we came here by chance, that somehow when there was nothing, Big Bang, and somehow life appeared from non living matter, or a Creator made it. For me the Creator makes more sense, and I believe the evidence show the bible to be true and accurate.

  15. David Redding says:

    Just to change the topic slightly I visited Dr Kent’s original website where there was a section on the physical evidence discovered that proves the myths in the Bible – Noah’s Ark, The Ark of the Covenenant, Sodom and Gomorrah etc etc and it turns out to be a link to that out and out fraud the late Ron Wyatt, another medical man well a nurse anaesthetist who with no archeological training ‘discovered’ all the lost artefacts of the Old and New Testaments from Noah’s Ark onwards – go to the Ron Wyatt website for a laugh in utter bilge claiming to be scientific discovery. Without any training and with no help from the archeological community he claims all these finds that are so implausible as to be risible. Poor old Ron’s claims have been debunked years ago and he has been labelled as a total fraud but Dr Kent is still peddling this rubbish on his website with a bare faced audacity that defies description.
    If he is relying on the discredited Ron Wyatt for evidence of the accuracy of the Bible then one can discount the rest of his website as total balderdash .

  16. Dyfed says:

    Dear Aj,

    You really don’t understand science. Your ‘monkey man’ concept is not used by any biologist. It is just presposterous. Youv’e read some creationist website and taken it as fact, when it was likely written by someone who had a very limited knowledge of biology – like Hovind or Comfort.

    That’s very arrogant to say that someone may call themselves Christian, but may not be one: that is called a True Scotsman Fallacy, Aj; you’re gathering quite a few critical thinking errors aren’t you. Of course, we may turn and say you aren’t a Christian, you are just calling youself one. How do you know you are right? You’ve still not explained how you know more about genetics than Francis Collins (who does believe Jesus was the son of god and accepts Jesus as his saviour, in fact, if you showed some humility); nor have you addressed the ERV dilemma. How do these retroviruses occur in exactly the same genomic positions in many species, and more are shared by species are more closely related?

    Do you know more about biology than virtually every life scientist in the world? How arrogant are you capable of being, dear Aj? When you were young, you said you looked at both sides. Perhaps you were too young, and had not yet learnt enough about biology, or even basic science? It seems clear from your declerations that you know zero about science and how it works.

    With regards there being a debate, there isn’t one. There is no creation/evolutiond debate. Not a single scientific organisation in the world accepts creationism ahead of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. There is not a single accredited university, either in the UK or the US, or the modern world, that teaches creationism instead of biology.

    Up t0 2007, 47 of the previous 50 winners of the Nobel Prize for Medicine stated that evolutionary theory was central to their work. They won their prizes because their discoveries actually worked in day-to-day medicine; their discoveries worked because they based them on evolutionary models; if evolution was not true, the cures they found would not have worked.

    Tell me about labs that use creationism models to discover cures? You can’t. Creationism is an anti-creed. It is a negative philosophy that just attacks scientific ideas, and presents no evidence in support of its claims.

    Tell me, do you think Slamander ensatina is a ‘kind’, Aj? Had you bothered to learn about ring species, you’d know that ‘kind’ is just a nonsense concept. What is a ‘kind’?

    It is sad that absolute belief makes you so arrogant, and that you are not willing to learn. i will ask again: what would make you change your mind about your god’s existence and creationism? Would you change your mind?


    • Aj says:

      I didn’t bother with all your gibberish . I understand the argument and its basics. You can’t acknowlefge that you have faith in the people who taught you, not in science. Science proved evolution false long ago. And common sense agrees . Don’t bother trying to convert me to your religion, you are much more likely to turn to Jesus Christ than I am to yours.

      • snowy says:

        The problem you have is you have absolute faith in your bible, anyone who supports your belief is also accepted, but anyone who says something that contradicts the bible and your beliefs is satan trying to turn you. Your in a very vunerable position people are taking advantage of you and you beliefs. This is why preachers are getting false unaccredited degrees to make themselves seem credible to their congregation. You are being used aj and your being fed lies about creationism to keep you under their influence. It is just one giant cult.

      • Aj says:

        Funny you should say that, because you have absolute faith in what science tells you and anyone who s beliefs contradict that world view is attacked for their beliefs.

      • snowy says:

        But with science you have to back up your claims with evidence, it was not that long ago that we used to think the earth was flat, at the centre of the universe and everything rotated around the earth. The bible, quran ect support this view, astronomers were imprisoned for this evil claim.

        Revelation 7:1 
        1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV) 

        Matthew 4.8-11

        Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;  and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”

        Or do you believe science that we live on a globe and are part of a solar system with the sun at the centre?

      • Aj says:

        why do you quite the bible hipocritically ? Ever read Isaiah 40:22? And have you never looked at a world map? Instead of relying on the opinions of those who are attacking my faith, why not listen to those who really belong to it? I’ll bet you googled these kinds of things, or learned the from people who know there is a God but hate him, like mr Dawkins.
        The bible says that the “evil people” you say, are those who deny God’s creation, Romans chapter 1 vs 18 to 32.

      • snowy says:

        How am i quoting it hypocritically?? Is the bible not the literal word of god? You cannot stand on a mountain and see all the kingdoms…. there are no corners on a circle….
        I am more than able to understand the bible you do not need any qualifications or special powers or be a christian! Thou shall not kill is easy to understand just like stoning your family to death for daft reasons.But like science even statements in the bible that dont allign with your beliefs get ignored! hence you ignore the psychotic god of the old testament and only quote the loving new testament!

        I have never been to the usa but there is enough evidence to prove it exists.

      • Aj says:

        You need to study the bible, and how to understand it from people who know before you use it wrongly. There are a whiole bunch a videos about Chuck Missler on YouTube.
        An example, the book of revelation talks about dragons, being Symbolic of the devil. The bible is factual, it is poetic, uses imagry, and all types of use of language, mostly so that unbelievers cannot understand it. The bible teaches that only those who have the Holy Spirit can really understand it.

        You, and so many others, just google bible errors, you find someone else who has no idea what it really means who says “aha, got those rotten Christians” but you never take the time to find response from Google. So you misuse the bible with wisdom, thinking you got me.
        So here’s my answer, with all the evolutionists and scientists and politicians, ect, I am absolutely sure that most can have used the same terms “four corners of the earth” and anything else you come up with, does this make you, and Darwin, and all the biologists, and other scientists wrong and evil? Or do we grasp what they are saying? I hope no one says they have Prince Albert in a can, if you have ever heard the saying

      • snowy says:

        The same chuck missler that wrote the forward in the book exo-vatacana which claims the vatican is in communication with extra-terrestials…. so when did god make aliens??
        Seeing as i am not allowed to read and study the bible, could you explain to me why god changes from an angry, jealous, sacrifice loving, genocidal murderer in the old testament to a forgiving loving god in the new testament?

      • Aj says:

        I just told you to go learn from his videos about the bible, and James White’ s debates . If you’re not going to bother then don’t ask me questions about the bible or God. That would Reveal you don’t really want the answers, but your inner hatred for God.
        Understanding history will only be understood from the bible, because the true history has been covered up by the ruling elite, who don’t want you to know who / what aliens are. I don’t share all of the exact views as Missler or white, but we agree on who Jesus Christ is, and the accuracy of the Bible.
        Until you have a strong understanding on these things , I am not going to respond to you hatred. Or we will have to dig up dirt on those who taught evolution and athism, same evil people who killed millions of people and blamed it on the Christians.

      • snowy says:

        How can i hate something i dont believe in?
        Ruling elite?? This sounds like the rubbish that david icke spouts out! It is just anti sematic garbage recycled!
        Athiest do not murder people because they have no beliefs but religous people murder every day those that do not agree or have different views.
        I have enjoyed talking to you Aj, it has been very interesting but your views are so wrong, deluded and our of date im am amazed a rational person could have them.
        Even though the bible is 66 individual books written on two (or possibly three) continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years by more than 40 authors you still truly believe it is from god!
        You are part of a controlling cult that ultimately just wants your money, scientology is the same!

      • Aj says:

        Have you listened to chuck misslers videos yet? Then you have nothing intelligent to say , and no I didn’t bother reading your rant.

      • snowy says:

        I will never get my time back after watching not a dr. Chuck! Another one who got his fake degree from louisiana baptist university! He is just putting his own spin on the bible, he is no more qualified than i am to interept the bible!
        If you believe these fake prophets well more fool you!
        Any body else hears voices and the chances are you will get locked up, but if that voice is god well thats totally fine!

      • Aj says:

        Then we will see what happens when were both dead. Then we will see if your faith in science will count for anything…

      • Dyfed says:


        Ah, there’s the rub. You are terrifed, aren’t you, because you’ve realised you have absolutely no clue about actual science. And rather than show humility and perhaps learn, you just issue another ad hominem.

        You fail to demonstrate your ludicrous claim that “science proved evolution false long ago”, of course. Odd, since virtually every life scientist in the world accepts evolution. And your use of the word “prove” in relation to science shows that you have absolutely no clue about science. There is no “proof” in science, Aj; there is evidence tentatively supporting an explanation. Proof only occurs in mathematics. Really… your arrogance shows no bounds. Why are you so scared of learning, of new knowledge, of new information and discovering new things?

        I’m very unlikely (though who knows; I’m willing to change my mind, unlike you, since I try to be humble) to turn to this Jesus Christ. Again you conflate atheism with evolution despite the fact you’ve been told about countless Christians who accept common descent – and one of them is a world renowned geneticist; a geneticist you seem to think doesn’t have the same knowledge of genetics and the human genome as you do. Now which one of you has actually studied the human genome? Hmmm… the real scientist, or the arrogant creationist?

        I don’t want to convert you to anything. I only hope that you would stop and think. That you would consider the possibility that you might be wrong. That you show humility. You’ve not even addressed that simple question – what would make you change your mind about god/creationism? – because you are too terrified to; you know that someone like you cannot be humble and admit you can be wrong: that is the rotten, corrupt absolutism at the heart of faith.


  17. Dyfed says:


    You say: “Funny you should say that, because you have absolute faith in what science tells you and anyone who s beliefs contradict that world view is attacked for their beliefs.”

    You’ve actually been told that we don’t. Scientific positions are held (I say this again): tentatively and provisionally, and we can change our minds on them in the face of new evidence, knowledge and discoveries. You, on the other hand, shut your mind to new evidence, knowledge and discoveries. You are simply repeating the same falsehoods (such as the above) over and over.

    There are Christians (and I named one; I can name many) who fully accept all the theories of science, and they are not attacked at all. Scientific claims have to be demonstrable. I know you don’t actually understand science, and that doesn’t seem to stop you thinking you have all the knowledge one can possibly have, but theories are testable; they are falsifiable. And this is what scientists do every day – they test theories; they try to falsify them.

    Pray tell, how would you falsify creationism? By demonstrating the falsehood of the Genesis claims? Easily done. I’ve already done so using ring species, which you conveniently ignored, of course (since you don’t understand it); here’s another: how can you have Day 1, 2, and 3 before the sun was made on Day 4? Do you understand, Aj, that “day” is the 24 hour cycle it takes for the earth to rotate as it orbits THE SUN. Without the sun, there’s no orbit of it by the earth; there is no “day”? Also, the moon is described in the Bible as a light (a lesser one, in fact). False! The moon is NOT a light; it REFLECTS light. If the writers of Genesis were actually authoring science, and had inspiration from the “main scientist”, it would be very clear as science needs to be; it would say the moon was a natural satellite of earth that reflected the sun’s light… but no; all we get is what we’d expect to find written by people who didn’t have the understanding of the cosmos we do today.


    • Aj says:

      That’s absolute foolishness. You treat your scienctific faith as fact….. Until you change your mind?
      “Well, today we don’t believe in Gravity so we can jump off the Empire State building…oops… Mr Smith gone splat, I guess we will have to believe in Gravity again…
      If a person says that they are Christians (yes even scientists) but deny the bible, what good is that faith. James (bible) asks if that kind of faith can save you? Or don’t you know that half of all professing Christians are not real Christians? Saying that we evolved, or the solar system magically appeared, is calling God a liar. How is that Christian going to be saved?

      • snowy says:

        It is very ironic that you use gravity as your analogy! You can test gravity exists it can be measured exactly, we can all do it now together and we will all get the same results. We cant see gravity only the effects of it, so do you deny scientists that claim gravity is the cause of objects falling to the floor or is it god stopping objects reaching heaven like the tower of babel story?

      • Aj says:

        Yes and the foolishness of changing your beliefs every 5 minutes falls just as fast.

      • snowy says:

        So you accept scientists claims about gravity?

      • Aj says:

        Of course I accept Gravity, the question Is how long before you stop believing in it? With you changing your mind with every gust of wind. That kind of thinking is foolish, no wonder you believe in evolution. Many have left that lie already to something with more evidence…ancient alien theory. ( not that I accept their point of view) but it has more merit than the a cosmic BANG

      • Dyfed says:


        ‘Believe in gravity?’ What are you saying? Gravity can be demonstrated. It is actually demonstrated were you to leap off a building. Evolution can be demonstrated. I’ve cited during our discussion many ways it can be demonstrated, but you ignore them; much as you would ignore the fact of gravity, I suspect.
        It is astonishing that you don’t think we should change our minds!
        That says it all about the horror of your position.
        If science were not tentative and provisional, we would be forced into accepting geocentrism, the theory that the sun and other planets orbited the earth, which dominated thinking until Copernicus (Wow! A Christian!) provided evidence to support heliocentrism, which is that the earth and the planets of our solar system orbit the sun.
        Now your argument is we should have ignored Copernicus and stuck with the previous model.
        Also according to your thinking (that science should not change its mind) we should maintain the position held by early medics that the womb travelled around the body.
        It was only Greek medics, 2,500 years ago, who went against their culture and dissected bodies who showed this wasn’t the case.
        But you’re saying, “Curse all that changing your mind nonsense; stick with what we have at the moment and don’t find out any new facts!’
        That sums you up: terrified of change; horrified by new information; and arrogantly believing that you know it all, that you are absolutely right.
        What a crazy, madcap way of living and operating.
        This is why science is NOT faith. It is based on evidence, on new information, on discovering new things.
        You would not be able to use this computer to spout your anti-science ravings were it not for people changing their minds; in fact, you should thank a gay atheist by the name of Alan Turning for your fortune in being able to type on your computer today. If you don’t think science should change, then stop using your computer; you are being a hypocrite; stop using modern medicine, because ALL of it came about because people were willing to change their minds.
        And Francis Collins does not deny the Bible. He interprets the story of Genesis differently to you. Both of you do it through faith, since neither of you have any evidence to support a god in the equation. But how do you know your interpretation is right? From the evidence, it clearly isn’t; evidence which you deny; evidence you don’t understand; and evidence you want to suppress.
        You’ve epitomised creationism, thank you: creationism suppresses knowledge; it says (according to you) we should not change our minds if we discover new infomration. We should bury new evidence. We should reject it and stick to what we knew before, despite this being clearly wrong, now.
        Thankfully, you are in a tiny, crazy minority, even among most Christians, who totally reject your bizarre worldview.
        (And you’ve still failed miserably to address any of the evidences I provided)


      • Aj says:

        Evolution is false, no transitional forms. If you can’t get to first base, don’t bother trying to steal second. There are countless evidences that evolution hasnt happened, but why bother if you can’t prove the basics? You are deceived, and you pass the same lies to everyone else. Evolution is foolishness, and so is your idea of revolving science, in today , gone tomorrow.

      • snowy says:

        Hahaha i like how you totally ignore Dyfeds points and just spout incorrect facts! If you had your way we would still be living in the dark ages, thankfully religion is declining rapidly and soon it will a part of history, I just hope it is in my life time!

      • Aj says:

        I didn’t bother reading them, I’m still waiting for the first answer. No transitional forms… No evolution.

  18. Dyfed says:


    You’re just scared of reading anything that might challenge your bizarre worldview. You reject new knowledge and new information. You’ve not addressed at all the point I made about your madcap position of not changing your mind. How do you think we have learned anything new without doing so? Again, you seem to suffer cognitive dissonance when confronted with the fact that you are hypocritically using knowledge acquired by people willing to change their minds. You even think you know better than professional scientists, even Christian ones like Francis Collins; even entire Christian denominations who accept evolution.

    The basics of evolution (which you clearly don’t understand, but are arrogant enough to attack) is change over time at the gene level. That – Is – It!!!

    Evidence of this is the fact that no human or other animal population yet discovered is a clone of the previous generation – THERE HAS BEEN CHANGE AT THE GENE LEVEL. Do you deny this? Can you prove we are all clones of previous generations? Over time, and affected by different mechanisms (natural selection, descent, genetic variation, genetic drift) more considerable changes can occur and new species have evolved. We can SEE THIS HAPPENING in ring species, in the Lenksi experiment. There is no ‘STOP’ mechanism in the gene to prevent this change – unless you have knowledge of it. I mean, the finest scientific minds of the past 150 years have not found the ‘STOP’ mechanism that prevents change; but since you regard yourself as greater than all of them, please present your evidence for the ‘STOP’ mechanism… then everyone will listen to you and you’ll win a Nobel Prize.

    Here are some transitional fossils (though you’ll just put your head in the sand, of course) from across all species: Tiktaalik, Pakicetus, Archeopteryx, Ardipithecus ramidus, Ichthyostega, Vorona, Rodhocetus … I mean I really could go on and on… but you’ll only put your fingers in your ears and go ‘Nananananananananan…’ because learning and knowledge and exciting information terrifies you. Terrifies you so much you have developed this incredibly arrogant position of not being wrong.


    [Dear Snowy, you are right, Aj just completely ignores anything you tell him and blurts out the same fallacies over and over. He/she fears learning, and it is very sad; knowledge and thinking is the greatest enemy of his/her kind of fundamentalist religion – D]

    • Aj says:

      I don’t bother reading your crap because I alreadu know what you going to say. If you guys have done as much real research and understanding as you show about Christianity as evolution, it’s no wonder you guys are so deceived. You’re amateurs! You have no problems attacking my faith, but when someone exposes yours, you cry like little babies.
      So let’s just see where your faith gets you when you’re dead. Until then …

      • snowy says:

        Aj, we are not attacking your faith! We are just discussing it! Like any subject, be it football or a tv show we just talk about it. Nothing in this universe should be beyond discussion or debate.
        Religions make bold claims that need discussing, just like science if someone makes a claim they need to prove it. This is not attacking it is verifying! If a stranger knocks on your front door and says give me £10 and i will turn it into £1000 in a month you would want to see how they do it!
        Your problem is that you are emotionally attached to your belief, so any criticism feels like a personal attack on you. There are huge discrepencies in christianity that contradict what has been proven over and over again. You choose to ignore these facts with either lies, ignorance or arrogance.
        The bible is probaly the most studied text in history and the most edited! I would guess you have been taught only one view of it from one narrow perspective. To claim you know the real meaning of the bible and everybody else is wrong in their view because it differs from your view is just plain wrong.
        In the end though I will not be able to say i told you so because we will be in oblivion together totally unaware of the life we had lived

      • Dyfed says:


        You’ve not exposed anything – other than your utter misunderstanding of science, and your amazing hubris in thinking that you know more about biology than biologists; more about genetics than geneticists; more about paleontology than paleontologists; more about biochemistry than biochemists. No one has said anything about your faith. In fact I’ve stressed than many who share your faith completely accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life – and some of those are professional scientists, who surely you’d admit know more than you. We’re not crying, we are actually presenting you with evidence which you screech and rail at, but don’t dare to look at or address in a grown-up manner. Like all fundamentalists who are scared of what confronts them, you resort to a threat at the end: “Let’s see where it gets you when you’re dead,” you aggressively pronounce. Well, that is not a suprise. Threats are your last resort. Very sad indeed for you.


  19. James says:

    Actually the slide you mentioned above the picture of Jesus is about physics, thermodynamics and how that relates to theory of the organism and evolution theory. #Studying masters in Physics.

  20. Dear Skeptical Nurse,
    I have the greatest admiration and respect for people that are in your profession.Besides the good wages they make….a good nurse helps many people to get through some of the most difficult times of their lives.I know that the nurses that took care of me while recovering from several major surgeries were people that I have the greatest admiration and respect for.They also put up with attitudes from some of their patients that only a certain type of a person and a well-trained person could manage to put up with.And of course as is everywhere else in the world and in every era…some of the nurses were Christians and most were not.And that’s just what Jesus said ..“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13,14- N.A.S.Bible)

    Personally, I believe that it is easier for a Christian to deal with patients that have an embittered, angry, belligerent or whatever kind of negative attitude that a patient may have because a real Christian is being conformed into the image of Jesus Christ by the work that God is doing in their lives.But as far as providing care and comfort….all of the nurses with no exceptions, where I was hospitalized…did a wonderful job and I’ll always be thankful for them and how they cared for me.My longest period of hospitalization, by the way, was 7 weeks…3 weeks in and about one hour at home before I was rushed back to spend 4 more weeks.
    OK…You stated ” I wouldn’t want to work with anyone who truly believed the things he says in his video and then provided medical care because, as you’ll see if you watch it, he doesn’t really seem to understand the scientific process and I would, therefore, question his ability to, y’know… not accidentally kill patients by misunderstanding medications or something.”
    As far as I know, Dr.Kent never accidently killed a patient by misunderstanding medications or by any other mistake.So if you were a patient of his, back when he was still practicing, the good news is… you would have been safe.
    You also said this…” The young earth nonsense that he starts off on isn’t really tackled in any depth. He just seems to point out the difference and move on…” So what you are saying is that although Dr.Kent did point out the differences before moving on…that he should have tackled each difference in a more in-depth way.I would like to ask you something..If Dr. Kent did decide to make a video…a very lengthy video and tackle the differences in-depth…would you then believe in a young earth that a loving and just God created instead of an earth that is an accident with life that is merely an accident?
    The reason that I’m bringing this up is that there are plenty of places on the Internet these days where scientists, doctors, professors etc. do believe in a young earth and they give their reasons why .Some of the reasons are in-depth and some aren’t so in-depth.I would like to recommend a book to you that you might find very helpful in this regard.The book is entitled ‘In Six Days’.I purchased the book a couple of years back because I was curious about how doctors, geologists, astrophysicists, mechanical engineers, geophysicists, zoologists, etc. all came to the same conclusion about the age of the earth and about how they believe in God and why they believe that He created the Universe and everything that it contains. What I didn’t know was that this book was in response to what a well-known professor who taught at Harvard..the late Stephen Jay Gould ..had made in regards to creationists.His statement claiming that creationists are”religious fundamentalists, not scientists” and that “professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don’t dispute it”. Statements like this and others are what stimulated John F.Ashton to research the book and ask why would educated scientists still believe in creation? The good news SN is that for a person who is truly interested…the book doesn’t even have to be purchased these days.By going to the address that I’m sending you find what 50 scientists believe and the reasons why…..all the best..sincerely..



    A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?

    The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

    How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

    Recommended Resource: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek

    • Snowy says:

      Quoting creationist website lies that have been debunked a million times does not bring anything new to the debate Anthony. And using circular reasoning to prove God exists has also been debunked a billion times.

    • Dyfed says:

      The special pleading fallacy laid out for all to see.

      “Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing”, you assert. Really? Do you have a “nothing” with which to demonstrate this claim? And what is “nothing”? Is it a “something”?

      “We know that from nothing, nothing comes” you declare boldly. Sounds like “nothing” is defined here as “non-existence”. And by logic “nonn-existence” did not exist. And without non-existence, a “creator” is not necessary.

      “… something had to have always been in existence,” you assert. OK. I assert that something was the universe. There: the “uncaused cause”; ever-changing; expanding, shrinking, creating itself anew… Just as valid as your assertion. And if you don’t prove yours, I don’t have to prove mine.

      Tip: Don’t read Turek blindly. Think. His fallacious nonsense is debunked everywhere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s