Carnival of Evolution!

I'm looking forward to the "Carnival of Intelligent Design", where I can read about the highlights of recent research carried out by...

What? Oh.

JohnW said: I'm looking forward to the "Carnival of Intelligent Design", where I can read about the highlights of recent research carried out by... What? Oh.

what would a real “Carnival of Intelligent Design” look like?

"I’m looking forward to the “Carnival of Intelligent Design”, where I can read about the highlights of recent research carried out by… "
and
" what would a real “Carnival of Intelligent Design” look like?"

Ah yes !!!....

I did notice the following answer from the upcoming star : the dutch creationist Dr. Peter Borger

peebee (Peter Borger ) / 04-09-2008 16:38
@ Anon, AKA Jason Rosenhouse (Associate prof Dept Mathematics, James Madison University, Virginia, USA)
(quote ; )
" ...A Dutch Darwinian (atheist and naturalist) recently claimed on my blog that people outside the field of evolutionbiology are not entitled to say something about evolution.
He said those people are incompetent to judge or interpret the data.

You are a mathematician, so please try to stay out of the debate.
You're incompetent an not entitled to be involved in the debate.

I can't help it, and I don't agree, I am only repeating what the atheist said

It's not whether people outside the field are entitled to say something or not, it's whether what they say should be considered reliable by anybody else, over the shared conclusions of those who are in the field.

Henry

Prove to the world how an amino acid can survive in an oxygen environment.

I am sure you and your readers know that Oxygen is a corrosive and tears amino acids (which are the basic building blocks of proteins and life) apart. So, whether the theory that life began on land where the oxygen content was more than now or at the bottom of the ocean where Oxygen is 1/3 of the base (rough numbers for simplicity), not even one amino acid could not survive. Let alone enough amino acids to combine into one protein. http://rickyg64.blogspot.com/

Where did Ricky G get the idea that the early atmosphere had a lot of free oxygen in it? The geological record supports the opposite conclusion. Indeed, it took a heck of time for photosynthetic organisms to get the oxygen content of the atmosphere up to anything like modern levels since there was a lot of unreduced iron and other materials around that tended to soak up the oxygen as it was produced. Which, by the way, is why there are such enormous red beds in old strata. The red is essentially rust.

Prove to the world how an amino acid can survive in an oxygen environment.

I think he may actually be counting the O in H2O.
"...the bottom of the ocean where Oxygen is 1/3 of the base"

Henry J said:

Prove to the world how an amino acid can survive in an oxygen environment.

Oxygen is a byproduct of green plants. How would it get in the atmosphere before there were plants? Henry

Lord these guys are dumb. On the other hand, if Ricky G going to count the oxygen in water as oxygen in the environment, he might as well claim that water is 7/8ths oxygen, not 1/3, since the atomic weight of oxygen is 16 while the two hydrogen atoms are only 2. Of course, elements don't act the same in compounds as they do by themselves. If they did, the sodium in table salt would react furiously whenever you put salt in water; and the oceans would be full of sodium hydroxide. Sheesh!

Not to mention what it would do to your steak and eggs.

You guys seem to be evading the evidence. Scientific Studies show the oxygen level in the old rocks have proved that the oxygen content of the earth was about 100% or more than today. And according to the scientific studies that is BEFORE plants were around, oh arrogant ones. That is why the evolutionary model had to move from the land based slime conversion to the muck and mire in the bottom of the ocean. No mater how you calculate the amount of oxygen in the water, it is still oxygen and oxygen pulls amino acids apart. With this known evidence in the evolutionary circles, the newest model of evolution is putting the start of life on another planet all together. You cannot get away from the extreme complexity of a protein. Something that Darwin had no opportunity to study. The Miller experiment proved that he could CREATE an amino acid. And he was successful in creating right handed amino acid. Which, you are smart enough to know that that is death to life. All life consists of Left Handed amino acid. The right handed amino acid develops after the life of everything ends. So, Miller has proven that he could create death not life.

So, how did the (only left handed) amino acids combine in any type of order to create life in an oxygen laden environment?

Before someone tries to get verbally violent again... Read this from the evolutionist view of early earth.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/06/26/oilyfossil_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20060626123030

June 26, 2006 — Smidges of primeval oil found inside grains of Canadian rocks are providing new evidence of an oxygen-rich Earth almost 2.5 billion years ago — suggesting oxygen infused Earth's lower atmosphere 500 million years earlier than previously thought.

The clue comes from hydrocarbons, known as sterols, discovered in tiny amounts of oily water hermetically trapped inside the mineral grains. The sterol could only have gotten there in one way: from the residue of ancient algae that required oxygen to make the compound, say researchers who published their discovery in the June issue of the journal Geology.

“The (rock-forming) environment had to have O2,” said geologist Jay Kaufman of the University of Maryland.

Ricky G, if you actually bothered to read about the origins of early life, including the article you just linked, you would know that life is estimated to have arisen on Earth about 3.7/3.8 to 4 billion years ago, while the sterol fossil simply pushes the earliest date for the Oxygenation catastrophe to somewhere between 2.7 and 2.4 billion years.

Either way, you are still wrong.

Ricky G, my boy, you are out of your depth. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The oxygen level 2.1 billion years later is interesting, but it does not bear on conditions at the time when life originated.

And, once again, you must be spectacularly ignorant of chemistry to think that the atoms in a compound, especially a covalent compound, act like they do in their elementary form. On your view, I guess, we could easily solve the energy crisis by burning water. After all, it contains hydrogen, which burns, and oxygen, which supports combustion.

life is estimated to have arisen on Earth about 3.7/3.8 to 4 billion years ago, while the sterol fossil simply pushes the earliest date for the Oxygenation catastrophe to somewhere between 2.7 and 2.4 billion years.

"The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. The oxygen level 2.1 billion years later is interesting, but it does not bear on conditions at the time when life originated."

Key word, Estimated, you pretend it is fact. The time frame itself is not the important part, we all know that the original geologic time chart is a bunch of guesses:

“When William Smith and Sir Charles Lyell first recognized that rock strata represented successive time periods, time scales could be estimated only very imprecisely since various kinds of rates of change used in estimation were highly variable. While creationists had been proposing dates of around six or seven thousand years for the age of the Earth based on the Bible, early geologists were suggesting millions of years for geologic periods with some even suggesting a virtually infinite age for the Earth. Geologists and paleontologists constructed the geologic table based on the relative positions of different strata and fossils, and estimated the time scales based on studying rates of various kinds of weathering, erosion, sedimentation, and lithification. Until the discovery of radioactivity in 1896 and the development of its geological applications through radiometric dating during the first half of the 20th century (pioneered by such geologists as Arthur Holmes) which allowed for more precise absolute dating of rocks, the ages of various rock strata and the age of the Earth were the subject of considerable debate.”

When the carbon dating was formulated, the barometer was off of those guesses and estimations. They took a sample from the strata and the “estimated” time date, blasted the sample and put the spectrum and date together and formulated a standard. So the next time a sample was blasted and it had the similar light frequency, it was said to have been in-between such and such time frame and cataloged as such. So, it doesn’t matter if you say 10,000 years or 10,000,000,000 years, the time is based on guesses isn’t it. It is also a known fact that heat and pressure change the carbon trace of the specimen. So, one item of debate, like a rock can be dated at 15,000 years and then super heated and re-dated at 2.5m years. Your reasoning’s are developed from obscure theories. All dating sequences are based on “estimated values”, and therefore subject to opinion. With all scientific data you must have a "known" in order to formulate an opinion. Tell me what the "known" data was formed from.

You have yet to explain in any intelligible way, except useless sarcasm, how life began. It had to start either with a simple amino acid in the environment it is suggested to be in which consists of oxygen or created as a whole from known earthly materials in which we know scientifically all life is made of.

Once again, Ricky G demonstrates world class ignorance. Nobody estimates the age the earth from Carbon 14. Indeed, nobody ever did since Carbon 14's decay rate is much too fast to be of any relevance when you are talking about billions of years. The question of the age of the Earth was debated for centuries, but it died very rapidly in the 1956 when separate methods of age estimation, each based on different radioactive substances, arrived at the same age independently. After that, the issue was pretty much dead since only religious fanatics had any reason to doubt the results. Since the issue is an empirical one, it is always possible in principle that evidence could show up that would cast doubt on the 4.55 billion year figure. It hasn't so far.

Thing is, there are people who care about the age of the Earth, how life developed, how organisms evolved. These folks have drawn conclusions, though there certainly are plenty of unanswered questions. And then there are the religious people, who don't give a damn about geology or biology. They only enter the fray in order to defend their favorite bit of mythology.

I don't think it's possible to teach you anything, Ricky G, as you have made it repeatedly clear that your purpose here is not to learn anything at all.

So you are teaching without answering the primary question. No matter, it is obvious that you have bought into the old earth theory and have more faith than I. Just like the evidence of oxygen in rocks has changed by 500,000,000 years because of “new evidence”. What is the latest change in the theory, “life was formed on the backs of crystals”? You and your kind have bought into a death of life. The main variable you seem to forget is the chaos, temperature and pure act of forming the earth in the first place. I say take your evidence and put it through the chaos of extreme temperature of a molten state and see what age it dates to. Unfortunately, right now you only see evidence that panders to your ideas and you take it with the faith of a suicide bomber. In your arrogance you are smarter than a Creator and your creations are the acts of mankind. So, as long as you are willing to buy into death, there is no way you are going to ponder the idea of a Creator that is creating Everlasting People. The physical creation was just the first part of His ultimate creation of a people that will only choose good over evil all the time and be able to enjoy the universe as their playground without destroying it. I thank you for allowing me a small venue to get a point across that is not answerable. The genome is entirely too complex and different in all life to have mutated into shapes of individual life. No scientist can answer the original question of how the first amino acids combined into proteins and then to complex DNA. All you can do is have the faith that you are right and come up with theories that match your beliefs and then teach them as fact. Thank you for your time and may Jesus Bless your lives.

Can we flush all of this Jesustroll's posts, now that he's confessed to being nothing more than a troll and Jesusspammer?

Ricky_G said: So you are teaching without answering the primary question. No matter, it is obvious that you have bought into the old earth theory and have more faith than I.

Science Avenger said:

Ricky_G said: So you are teaching without answering the primary question. No matter, it is obvious that you have bought into the old earth theory and have more faith than I.

Why is it that you creotards rant on and on about how great faith is, but then when you wish to denigrate your opposition, you accuse them of having faith. Try to imagine a scientist denigrating a creationist by saying "Wow, you got me there, obviously you are way more interested in evidence, parsimony, and logic than I!"

Look, I am not trying to insult any of the intelligent people reading this. It is obvious that the people who read this blog are mostly left and a few right. My need to talk about this is not divisive, just a side that gives science its primary purpose. You have to provide evidence on both sides using facts of known and forming a scenario that answers or gives a summation of a theory. Outside of that it comes down to a faith or belief, whatever term you would like to use. If you think the final statement about a blessing is profanity, you are disturbed. Believe me; the verbiage that has been used against me and other people with a different view of yours is quite inflammatory. I believe that if we saw each other in a debate or conference there would be more respect of each others opinions. It is amazing to me how callous people get hiding behind a flat panel. My ending was genuine and I do care about all of us. If there is a lie then it is our duty to expose it. I am sure you can say the same about people that believe in ID, and that is where good respectful dialog comes in. Remember, up until 50 years ago most people understood creation and now a large amount of people have brought into the fabric of our society a science that is improvable theories being taught as facts causing confusion. And now it is being taught to our kids whether we want them to or not. So who is in control of our future, Creotards or Evolutionuts???

I Have to say that “creotards” is pretty funny, but mean.

Evidence on both sides?

One side:

Descriptions of evidence, explanations of relevance of that evidence, explanations of how it supports the stated premises.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Other side:

Appeals to emotion, appeals to consequences, claims that biologists are ignoring basic physics, lack of agreement among prominent anti-evolutionists on basic questions.

Which of those sounds more reliable?

Ricky_G said: Look, I am not trying to insult any of the intelligent people reading this.

My need to talk about this is not divisive, just a side that gives science its primary purpose. You have to provide evidence on both sides using facts of known and forming a scenario that answers or gives a summation of a theory. Outside of that it comes down to a faith or belief, whatever term you would like to use.

If you think the final statement about a blessing is profanity, you are disturbed. Believe me; the verbiage that has been used against me and other people with a different view of yours is quite inflammatory.

I believe that if we saw each other in a debate or conference there would be more respect of each others opinions. It is amazing to me how callous people get hiding behind a flat panel. My ending was genuine and I do care about all of us.

If there is a lie then it is our duty to expose it.

I am sure you can say the same about people that believe in ID, and that is where good respectful dialog comes in.

Remember, up until 50 years ago most people understood creation and now a large amount of people have brought into the fabric of our society a science that is improvable theories being taught as facts causing confusion. And now it is being taught to our kids whether we want them to or not. So who is in control of our future, Creotards or Evolutionuts??? I Have to say that “creotards” is pretty funny, but mean.

Ricky_G said: Look, I am not trying to insult any of the intelligent people reading this. It is obvious that the people who read this blog are mostly left and a few right.

...gives science its primary purpose. You have to provide evidence on both sides using facts of known and forming a scenario that answers or gives a summation of a theory.

...the verbiage that has been used against me and other people with a different view of yours is quite inflammatory. I believe that if we saw each other in a debate or conference there would be more respect of each others opinions.

If there is a lie then it is our duty to expose it.

Remember, up until 50 years ago most people understood creation and now a large amount of people have brought into the fabric of our society a science that is improvable theories being taught as facts causing confusion.

And now it is being taught to our kids whether we want them to or not. So who is in control of our future, Creotards or Evolutionuts???

I Have to say that “creotards” is pretty funny, but mean.

Stanton, why are you and your friends so discontent? If you are so intelligent that you know for sure, without a doubt that you are correct, that’s ok. BTW, NOBODY HAS TO BELIEVE IN CREATION. Anyone that tells you otherwise is hurting people, not helping them. We all have to make choices on our own. You also do not need to belittle people in order to get your point across. That is a sign of an underdeveloped mental state and a childish insecurity with a bully syndrome. You need to re-read my statements. I said your faith in evolution is the same as a suicide bomber, not “you are a suicide bomber”. A suicide bomber puts on a vest and walks into a crowded room and blows them self up and takes whoever is around with him. He is doing this act in full belief he is doing the right thing, like you are doing (Note: when he blows himself up, his pieces do not mutate into a bird or lizard the are pieces scattered in many places and are dead). You put on your theories like a proven fact and push them into the public square. Unfortunately, you have a good amount of followers now and your voice is a lot louder than ours, just like a cult of a false religion. There are absolutely no facts of how amino acids developed into proteins, there are no ¼, ½, ¾ or any other combination of animals or people mutating from one form to another walking on the earth right now. The evolutionary model disproves itself by its own basic definition: All thing change over time do to circumstances of climate, society, pressure, etc. The theory does not allow for a gap. Evolution is supposed to be a constant change isn’t it? And if you say that a gap is allowed, then you are manipulating the formula to fit your theory. Feed a computer with wrong information then anything that is developed from those findings is gong to be incorrect, no matter how innocent the motives. I agree with you that the people that use angry verbiage on both sides just hurt the cause. I also agree that pushing anything on anyone is repulsing not attracting. I am appalled at people that “claim” to be followers of JC and use fowl language to beat people into submission. That is not a good example of Love, and we are all guilty.

Ricky G, if you want to actually debate us, THEN DEBATE US, and stop proselytizing at us. If you want us to not regard you as another annoying religious fanatic, then a) stop using your faith to bully us into believing what you believe, and b) try telling all of the other creationists who use their faith to bully us into believing what they believe is a bad thing to do. Otherwise, you are not only no better than they are, but, you are also a hypocrite, as well.

You continue to insult us when you conflate the acceptance of proven facts with the mind-destroying fanaticism required to become a suicide bomber. You also continue to insult us by demanding that we engage you in a (scientific) debate as though you are our intellectual equal, even though you demonstrate that you are not interested interested in learning anything.

You also continue to insult us by conflating "theory" with "hypothesis," as well as claiming that accepting a fact or theory is like a cult.

And if you do not want us to regard you as nothing more than another boorish, loudmouthed creationist, then take my advice, and take time to actually learn about science. We refuse to regard you as our intellectual equal until you take the time to learn about how scientists have already studied how amino acids form proteins, and how scientists have already replicated proteins in "cell-free" environments. You don't know anything about Evolution, and you suggest that you have very little desire to learn about it. If you want to debate us, then DEBATE US, otherwise, go away unless you want to continue making a holy idiot out of yourself.

I am appalled at people that “claim” to be followers of JC and use fowl language to beat people into submission.

Ricky_G said: Stanton, why are you and your friends so discontent?

If you are so intelligent that you know for sure, without a doubt that you are correct, that’s ok.

You also do not need to belittle people in order to get your point across. That is a sign of an underdeveloped mental state and a childish insecurity with a bully syndrome.

I said your faith in evolution is the same as a suicide bomber, not “you are a suicide bomber”.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a civil dialog. I understand your frustration when it comes to talking about this subject to someone who does not agree with it. The feeling is mutual. I find that a majority of evolutionist are very arrogant, mean and seem to bully there opinions without having the proof that they claim to possess. I also see the same mean spirit on the side of some creationists, just to be fair. Fortunately or unfortunately, only one side is going to be correct. There is either a plan to create everlasting people or this is just a bummer of a life then we die and turn back into dirt. I am glad I believe in the former. I am not a scientist and would not claim to know more than I do. But, I am neither stupid nor ignorant either. Just like in all walks of life there are truths and there are lies and manipulations. It seems like the truth usually has a small voice and the lies and manipulations are loud and boisterous.

The main reason I proposed the initial questions about the amino acid formation and then the eventual combining into a protein is because that is one of the main functions of life and you have yet to answer, just a lot of sarcasm

This is the Debate Question. Remember, the burden of proof is on the Evolution theory, not Creation:
1) What is the probability factor for a single left handed amino acid forming by itself?
2) What is the probability factor for the left handed amino acids coming together after the formation?
3) What is the probability of more than 50 left handed amino acids being formed and combining into a protein

There is either a plan to create everlasting people or this is just a bummer of a life then we die and turn back into dirt.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the Evolution theory, not Creation:

Ricky_G said: I appreciate the opportunity to have a civil dialog. I understand your frustration when it comes to talking about this subject to someone who does not agree with it.

I find that a majority of evolutionist are very arrogant, mean and seem to bully there opinions without having the proof that they claim to possess.

I also see the same mean spirit on the side of some creationists, just to be fair.

Fortunately or unfortunately, only one side is going to be correct.

There is either a plan to create everlasting people or this is just a bummer of a life then we die and turn back into dirt. I am glad I believe in the former. I am not a scientist and would not claim to know more than I do.

But, I am neither stupid nor ignorant either.

Just like in all walks of life there are truths and there are lies and manipulations. It seems like the truth usually has a small voice and the lies and manipulations are loud and boisterous.

The main reason I proposed the initial questions about the amino acid formation and then the eventual combining into a protein is because that is one of the main functions of life and you have yet to answer, just a lot of sarcasm

This is the Debate Question. Remember, the burden of proof is on the Evolution theory, not Creation

I would suggest that this Ricky_G character is just another troll of the bobby genre.

Its posts are too full of barely veiled taunts and egregious elementary science errors to be taken seriously. I think it is just trying to call attention to itself and start a "debate" while it continues to taunt and spew out more bullshit.

...said the pot to the kettle.

Why, yes, there is an agenda here. It's to defend knowledge and to refute illiterate superstition and arrogant ignorance. It's to insist that theories compete on the basis of evidence, not on what would be nice to believe. It's to repeat, over and over, to the point of weariness, that science goes where the weight of the evidence points, and that there is no evidence - not a scintilla, not a jot, not the faintest whisper - for any of the main points insisted upon by the various tribes of creationists. There is plenty of evidence for common descent, and not the slightest tincture of it for separate creation. There are literally mountains of evidence for an ancient earth, and none for a recent one. There is ample evidence for speciation driven by natural selection, and none for intelligent design.

Of course much is still unknown, and this will always be the case. But a rational person goes where the evidence leads. And that evidence leads, inevitably and inescapably, to the Theory of Evolution.

That's the agenda. And you're out of order.

That’s the agenda. And you’re out of order.

— Dave Luckett

jobby said: The anger that the Darwinists display is telling of what they are hiding.

Ricky_G said: I understand your frustration when it comes to talking about this subject to someone who does not agree with it.

I find that a majority of evolutionist are very arrogant, mean and seem to bully there opinions without having the proof that they claim to possess.

I am not a scientist and would not claim to know more than I do. But, I am neither stupid nor ignorant either.

Just like in all walks of life there are truths and there are lies and manipulations. It seems like the truth usually has a small voice and the lies and manipulations are loud and boisterous.

1) What is the probability factor for a single left handed amino acid forming by itself? 2) What is the probability factor for the left handed amino acids coming together after the formation? 3) What is the probability of more than 50 left handed amino acids being formed and combining into a protein

jobby said:

Ricky_G said: I appreciate the opportunity to have a civil dialog.

Ricky, I do not think you will get a civil dialogue here. The anger that the Darwinists display is telling of what they are hiding. Real scientists examine the evidence cooly and go where it tells them to go. It is obvious there is an agenda here.

Ricky_G said: Just the idea that you can put as many “0’s” at the end of a number, does not make the number correct. The scientific evidence has always backed up written documents provided by our ancestors, if you just eliminate the made up time frames. That is why the most important question to how life began.

Ricky_G said: The scientific evidence has always backed up written documents provided by our ancestors, if you just eliminate the made up time frames.

That is why the most important question to how life began. In fact the environment they are suggesting life began in consists of the same basic harsh acids we use today to eliminate germs and bacteria.

As a side note, a virgin birth was impossible to the evolutionists up until the last 15 years, and of course they now they say; “of course it can be done, but only by MAN, not some imaginary Creator that may be bigger and smarter than us people…” That is a big miscalculation promoted by an arrogant ego.

By the way, I have heard multiple points of ridicule about not being a scientist. Which of you people are actually scientists? What are your specialties?

Ricky G says that the origin of life through naturalistic processes is a pool shot so tricky and difficult that not even God can pull it off, even when using stick, table and balls of His own design and manufacture.


As I see it all the arguments in the design, irreducible complexity and God of the gaps neighborhood are arguments against the omnipotence of God.

If you claim that the universe with all its laws and properties are the product of a creator.

And you claim that natural phenomenon "X" can not be the product of purely natural processes, and requires some sort of divine intervention to exist.

Then you are necessarily claiming that the creator of those processes was not able to make them capable of bringing about "X" without His intervention. That is, these arguments are claims that the creator of the universe was constrained to intervene bring about some of the features we see in the natural world. Therefore not omnipotent.

Now theists can argue that while God could have used natural means but He didn't. The problem is that this is a doctrinal claim, and even in principle, scientifically unverifiable.


To make things clear, I personally am materialist/monist down to the atomic level.

I think the last comment of Ricky G should be carefully preserved, indeed, studied.

This is someone for whom the very structure of language itself is a profound mystery. This is someone who cannot see the illogic of his ideas, because he cannot explain the world to himself in any terms that remain consistent.

Consider the baroque inanity of: "As a side note, a virgin birth was impossible to the evolutionists up until the last 15 years, and of course they now they say; “of course it can be done, but only by MAN, not some imaginary Creator that may be bigger and smarter than us people…""

This is simply not true, but that isn't the point. (Parthenogenesis was observed in nature in classes as close to us as reptiles, as far back as the eighteenth century.) No, it's that Ricky G thinks that this is any sort of argument against the Theory of Evolution, when it's nothing more than a cry of incomprehending and agonised antipathy.

To think like that requires more than simple ignorance. It requires a profound intellectual disability. This is someone whose patterns of thought simply make no logical sense, not even to him. No wonder the world is an insoluble mystery for him, and no wonder he cannot resolve it by rational means. There are no such means, for him. The rational is as profound a mystery to him as the irrational. He can't tell the difference between them.

Alas, he does know what he believes. He also knows that outside that little bubble of certainty, the Universe is unfathomable and terrifying. Therefore he holds to those beliefs with desperate tenacity - they are all he has, after all.

I suppose that what I'm saying is that there is no point in debating with him, for two reasons. One, because he simply can't construct argument, nor recognise it when it's presented to him. But secondly, because he operates on an emotional level, not a cognitive one. His resentment, pain and fear are what's real to him. All he can do is express them.

I don't think there's any point in letting that happen.

I see that I have arrived just AFTER the deadline for your wonderful idea, an Evolution Carnival! Well, it so happens that I have recently published a little book available on Amazon's Kindle, on Human Evolution, subtitled just that, with the main title being The Human Journey. It's volume IX, although the other volumes are not out just yet. It's going to be 10 volumes in all, a project that will describe 1000 steps in human evolution beginning with chemical evolution (volume I, which is final editing), through the development of the first cell (volume II, also in final editing), through something like a worm (volume III, which hasn't even been written, so it's a bit vague yet)....skip to volume VIII, which I'm in the process of writing, Primate Evolution, which will take us up to Australopithecines (which is where Vol. IX began), and then volume X tells about the last 10 thousand years, beginning with the agricultural revolution (in final editing). Robin S. Heyer is doing Volumes I, II, and X, and I have completed IX and am working on VIII. We plan to meet somewhere in the middle, rather like the continental railroad in the U.S.

So here's hoping the Carnival was truly grand! Hurray, huzzah for evolution! And boo hiss ID and creationism! If you want a good creation story, let's go with the old Mongolian version, where the duck dives down in the primordial soup and brings up mud from the bottom of Lake Baikal, at the beginning of the world.

Looks like we are finally getting to the truth. You guys are so impressed with yourselves that you cannot see you are making yourselves look like fools. Your ability to formulate demeaning comments is up there which doesn’t make you smart, but troubled. It does show your lack of true intellect. You are just regurgitating verbiage and proving my main point; you do not have a clue to what created life and you do not care. The fact is, I do believe if the creator of the universe wanted to create an amino acid in a toxic environment, then He is the only one that can. But the fact is, He created all life the way it is today and his creation has never changed in any substantial way. If you find a fossil that is no longer around, then it died and that’s it. If it is found fossilized then the tissue and organisms must have been alive when it was covered with water and silt and preserved from decay and the minerals absorb into the tissue hardened, just like mummification. This is easily explained in a catastrophic flood. The evidence of a world filled with water is also evident in the different layers, you say billions of years, I say thousands of years. You do not have to be scared of the plausibility of a Creator that loves life enough to see it through to eternity. Man is trying it right now as we speak, he will just not accomplish that goal though because sinful pitiful people that chose death will eventually destroy the universe if given enough time. You know that in the deepest part of your hearts, don’t you? Who is really afraid?

Ricky_G said: Looks like we are finally getting to the truth.

The fact is, I do believe if the creator of the universe wanted to create an amino acid in a toxic environment, then He is the only one that can.

But the fact is, He created all life the way it is today and his creation has never changed in any substantial way.

If you find a fossil that is no longer around, then it died and that’s it. If it is found fossilized then the tissue and organisms must have been alive when it was covered with water and silt and preserved from decay and the minerals absorb into the tissue hardened, just like mummification. This is easily explained in a catastrophic flood. The evidence of a world filled with water is also evident in the different layers,...

... you say billions of years, I say thousands of years.

You do not have to be scared of the plausibility of a Creator that loves life enough to see it through to eternity.

Man is trying it right now as we speak, he will just not accomplish that goal though because sinful pitiful people that chose death will eventually destroy the universe if given enough time. You know that in the deepest part of your hearts, don’t you?

Who is really afraid?

My previous statement about Ricky G using his faith as profanity stands, especially since all he can do is preach at us about how, since we will not allow him to bully us into emulating his ignorance, we are merely hellbound sinners.

But remember kids, ID "theory" has nothing to do with fundamentalist Christianity. Nope. Not a bit of it.

Right - I.D doesn't say anything about any branch of Christianity.

What it says is, uh, er, um...