God Talk: Debates and Discussions with Believers

The following is from an email correspondence I had with an individual who contacted me through the site.

Creationist Craziness

Christian: Where did everything and ever body come? Surely you cannot believe in evolution? Darwin said if things did not evolve very slowly in many many very slow changes then his theory was false. Where is the museum with the fossil record of the evolution of man from whatever? Please reply this my first opportunity to get answers to these questions from someone who truly does not believe in some kink of God or Creator.

Rebuttal: What makes you so sure evolution is false or that things have not evolved gradually over time? You seem seriously uneducated about this, saying what you're saying. We have found many fossils linking humans to primate ancestors, including Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and many more. We share 95% of our DNA with chimps, we have vestigial structures like tails, wisdom teeth, and the appendix, which are leftovers from evolution, no longer in use. How much evidence do you need? If you want more specifics, I suggest you browse through www.talkorigins.org.

Christian: I am sorry your defense is as usual, to assume that everyone who does not agree with you is uneducated. That would tell most people you are the uneducated one. And also as usual with Atheist, you have not been able to answer my question, because the answer does not exist. There is no museum with the fossil record of many thousands of fossils showing a clear change from chimp to man or woman in the case of your famous Judy, or Australopithecus Afarensis. Judy was proven to have the DNA of a simple chimp. Chimps still exist virtually unchanged over thousands of years. And as for how much evidence do I need, I need quite simply as I have already stated what you cannot provide, a clear fossil record. I need scientific proof, not wishful dreams of an atheist. I suggest you visit and spend a lot of time studying the facts presented by www.rae.org. Oh, I am sorry I guess I should have made that a hyper link but I suppose I am too uneducated. Please do not as you suggested browse through this site, you need quite a bit of education in Creation Sciences. I am not impressed by your use of the large scientific words. When scientist cannot explain something or want to use something to make a false point, they will give it a large scientific name in hopes no one will be able to find out they know not of what they speak. Good Day Gentlemen, I am sorry we cannot meet in Heaven to discuss this at length , maybe we could even get the Creator to sit in on our discussion.

Rebuttal: Oh, where to begin with this delusional piece of creationist fantasy... let's count the errors.

1. Of course there's no grand museum of all evolutionary fossils, they are spread across several different continents, countries, and regions, and we're finding new ones to add to the collection all the time. It would be a ludicrous waste of time, energy, and resources to locate everything in one massive museum just for your viewing pleasure, especially when you could simply pick up a few science textbooks and learn all you need.

2. Australopithecus afarensis is nicknamed 'Lucy', not 'Judy'.

3. If someone truly recovered DNA from Lucy, proving that she is only a 'simple chimp', they deserve an award and recognition for breaking the record in finding the oldest extant DNA sample from a primate. Lucy has been dated at 3.2 million years old, a far cry from the oldest DNA we've actually found, which is a mere 100,000 years old (1).

4. Chimps share the same transitional fossils we do, as I listed them before. They are one branch of the evolutionary tree and we are another.

5. I am well aware of many creationist propaganda sites and spokesmen, but I have yet to find one that isn't full of errors or full of blatant lies. It amazes me that imbeciles such as yourself think that you know better than the real scientists who've spent their entire lives working together, for centuries, to arrive at the theories we have today. Do you also question gravity, cell theory, germ theory, general relativity?

6. Do not mistake your own lack of intelligence or understanding for a lack of coherence and truth in scientific theories. Certain words may be too big for you to comprehend, but it does not mean scientists intentionally named them that way to confuse you. You might be fascinated to know that the scientist who gave us binomial nomenclature (like Australopithecus afarensis) and placed humans as part of the animal kingdom was a Christian named Carl Linnaeus.

I won't hold my breath on the creator attending our little discussion, but go ahead and pray that he will. Maybe I can meet him and ask him where he's been during our history of wars, starvation, disease, natural disasters, and other issues we could've used his advice and assistance on.

Christian: Yes, I suppose it would be a problem deciding where to begin when you don�t know where you are going. I will take my lumps and admit I was wrong about Lucy, I had been working on a computer for Judy White only a few minutes before I answered you email. I just don�t understand why you guys can�t have a grand museum to offer your proof to the world, we creationist have several with our proof. We also have something impossible to disprove by any logical, reasonable, rational, literate, open minded human being. Where along that list did I lose you? Never mind! What we have is the Holy Bible! Surely you recognize a good history book when you see it. I agree that DNA does not last for 3.2 million years or even close to it. This is further proof the scientist are incorrect in their dating work such as carbon dating and others. If you had taken my advice and studied the site I told you about, you would see the evidence of rock encrusted around a miner�s pick having been carbon dated at around 2 million years old. Don�t think miners have been at it that long. You could also see many examples of Dinosaur DNA, which proves they did not exist millions of years ago. If they did why do we find so many Dinosaur skeletons unfossilized with good DNA available. And I see you have changed your pitch a little, now we are not direct descendants of chimps, now we are simply on the same evolutionary tree, then I guess we would be kin to everything else on each branch of that same tree.. What are on those other branches, snakes, rabbits, dogs, or tigers maybe. If I had to guess I would say you have the most in common with the snake branch. But that�s just an uneducated guess, of course. As for your comment about me questioning the imbeciles who have wasted their whole lives working together to come up with theories such as the theory of evolution, I would like to remind you it is just that, an unsubstantiated theory not fact. You mentioned gravity. I do believe in gravity because it is scientifically provable. That is why it is the law of gravity not the theory of gravity. As for cell theory, it is also a theory because it is not provable. Schwann and Schleiden's statement of the cell theory was:

1. Cells are the unit of structure, physiology, and organization in living things.
2. Cells are both a distinct entity and a building block in the construction of organisms.
3. Cells form by spontaneous generation.

When abiogenesis was later disproven, the third tenet was changed to state that all cells came from existing cells. The correct interpretation of cell formation by division was finally promoted by others and formally enunciated in 1858 in Rudolph Virchow's powerful dictum, "Omnis cellula e cellula"... "All cells only arise from pre-existing cells".

At least they could admit their first theory was incorrect, which is more than I can say for people who believe in evolution. Ask your self this question. What did everything evolve from? What was the very first thing in existence? Where did that very first thing to exist come from? If you have an answer to this that is provable then we can talk some more about your side of this argument. Otherwise you need to consider my side with the blinders off and an open mind. God loves you and does not want you to go to hell. He offers you the same salvation available to anyone else who will simply receive it. Good Night and know that there is someone praying for you.

Rebuttal: I guess you're going to keep the comedy coming? Fine by me, I certainly don't mind laughing. Speaking of hilarity, I do know that creationists have museums with models of dinosaurs standing next to humans and other ridiculous things (I still think it would look better with Jesus riding a T-rex). I am no stranger to Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, or the other creationist spokesmen. You can question carbon-14 dating like all those nuts, but it is not a method used to date skeletons over 60,000-70,000 years old. There are over 40 different dating methods and other confirmatory factors like ice cores and tree rings that indisputably point to an old Earth. Maybe you should do some research and get your facts straight.

As for the miner's pick, care to provide a direct link to the page? I'm not going to spend endless time sifting through that trash-heap of a website just to placate you. Give me the link or I'll simply assume you can't support your own assertions (you're not doing that anyway, but still...). I am familiar with the 'fossilized boot' hoax (2), however, which is a perfect example of how creationists lie to suit their agenda. Crusted rock around something like a miner's pick is not fossilization, and if a person tried to date such a thing using a method they are not properly trained to use, then they could possibly get an incorrect reading. But it's still entirely the fault of the operator, not the method.

Yes, they have found DNA from a T-rex (3), but none so far for any human ancestors over 100,000 years old. The dinosaur DNA has been dated at 70 million years, provide evidence that it's an earlier. I've never said DNA is impossible to get from such old specimens, it's simply very rare. I have not heard of any other dinosaur DNA discoveries either, so provide some evidence for that and also some for the suggestion that 'we find so many Dinosaur skeletons unfossilized' (man, I'm getting tired of saying this). You're making a lot of bold claims without backing up any of them.

Evolution has never stated that humans are direct descendants of chimps, your incompetency. We share a common ancestor. Do you know what that means, or should I break it down into fifth grade terms for you? Imagine a tree that has two branches on it, representing primate evolution (in this example, no other animals are on the other branches). On the left branch is humanity, on the right branch are chimps. The base or trunk of the tree is where our common ancestors are (Lucy, Homo erectus, etc). Some of them evolved into modern humans and other species evolved into modern chimps. This is called 'common descent' and it was one of the original propositions of Charles Darwin - he has NEVER claimed that humans evolved from chimps.

Another popular creationist misconception! Theory does not mean unsubstantiated guess. A theory in science is an explanation of principles involving several facts. Gravity is a theory, even though Newton's theories are sometimes called laws. Even so, general relativity is a theory, and cell theory and germ theory are no less trustworthy because you dislike the word 'theory'. Please, feel free to introduce substitutionary explanations for any of these phenomena at any time. Schleiden and Schwann only revised their theory in light of new evidence, they did NOT admit it was incorrect. Cells are still the basic units of life, but what do you propose instead? Midi-chlorians?

You also confuse abiogenesis with spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation argued that it was a common thing for life to arise from non-life, such as maggots arising out of decayed flesh. This was disproven when we documented the life-cycles of pests, and germ theory, cell theory, and abiogenesis helped to debunk spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis is simply the idea that life arose from non-life at a distant point in the past, but is not a regular occurrence, and this hypothesis is not yet proven or disproven. You really should read up on some of these things before you pretend to know about them. Abiogenesis is also not an integral part of the theory of evolution; you can easily have one without the other.

So far you have brought up nothing but wild conjecture and creationist non-sense that has been addressed and refuted time and time again for decades now. I am not an evolutionary biologist or a biochemist, so I can't give you intimate details about the first single-celled organisms or what exactly initiated the Big Bang. You'd be better off taking up these things with scientists qualified to answer your questions, but since you have such a phobia against them, I'm doubtful that you will. The difference between you and I is that I admit when I'm not qualified to discuss something, and I don't fear admitting it when I don't know or don't have an answer. Christians and creationists like yourself pretend to have the answers and pretend to know things that are so far-fetched that they call for tremendous amounts of evidence. But as usual, the evidence you present tends to fall very short, and so we know you're basically making shit up, trying your hardest to reconcile your faith with the real world and with science. The truth is that you really don't know anymore about life's big questions than the rest of us do.

Additionally, I wasn't aware that my salvation depended on my acceptance or rejection of evolution. Am I saved by believing that God created everything in 6 days or by believing that he sent his son to die on the cross for my sins? The way you make it sound, someone can't be a Christian if they accept evolution, yet thousands of Christians do. Maybe you should look up some of their stuff. Google search 'theistic evolution' or 'Kenneth Miller'.

Christian: I forgot to check in with you on Friday, but I did not write you on Thursday, because I knew you would be out celebrating the birthday of Charles Darwin. I see from your latest email that you are still unable to show proof, so now you are shifting tactics and asking me to prove my allegations. Well, I will consider doing so, but that would be proving something to be true instead of just simply having a theory. That would be proving something to be true. In the words of Jack Nicholson, � I don�t think you can handle the truth�. You know the truth will set you free. Jesus is the truth, the way and the light. But I know you don�t want to hear that, sometimes the truth hurts. One truth that you may not expect to hear from me is that I believe in Evolution. That is evolution within the species, but not evolution between species, I don�t think a lizard can decide to be a fish, or a rabbit a dog, or a dinosaur a bird, nor do I believe a monkey can decide to be a man. I am not sure anyone has ever explained to a logical thinking person, which would leave out scientist, how for instance a bird with a short beak, who needs a long beak to get the nectar out of flowers, can make his or her self start growing a longer beak. What do they do, sit around the nest and will their beak to grow longer? And in order to pass this desire and purpose on to their young, while mating they are concentrating on how much they want a longer beak. Isn�t that what evolutionist claim happens. An animal or whatever changes to adapt to his needs and conditions in order to survive, after all survival of the fittest, right. I can see how the young of a mating between a beagle and a blue tick hound would be different from its parents, but it is still a dog. It is not a parakeet. I laugh when I see these discovery channel and others tell about how this monkey or whatever wanted to eat the leaves from this certain tree but in order to do so it grew a longer tail to enable it to hang from limbs to reach the most tender leaves. Now think about it, do you think that monkey can make itself grow a longer tail? I don�t care how long it tries unless it mates with monkey with longer tails. Do you think that monkey is smart enough to think, well now what I have to do is go find me a good looking woman with a nice tail, I mean a longer tail. Not likely. I did not really mean to get into all this at 3 in the morning, but I know you need help so I have sacrificed some sleep to give a helping hand. Talk to you in a couple days, I will be busy for a few days. Your friend the dummy with good news even for you.

Rebuttal: Ah, still you persist in your arrogance while you continue to voice your ignorance on evolution. A scientific theory, as I already explained, is supported by experimentation, observation, repeat testing, peer-review, and so on. Like I said previously, evolution is as true as general relativity, cell theory, germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc. You are confused because you think of theory in the common everyday use, when science actually means that a theory is a well-established explanation for a set of facts. And guess what? No evolutionist believes that rabbits can evolve into dogs. That would disprove evolution! Neither does any evolutionist believe that a species like a finch can make its beak longer by will or wishing. That was a hypothesis called Lamarckism that was debunked by Darwin and modern science. Natural Selection tells us that something like a finch will get a longer beak because of a mutation in its genes. Over time, the finches with shorter beaks will be selected against, because they are unable to pierce thicker trees to eat the bugs inside, or because females are more attracted to males with longer beaks (like female peacocks prefer the most colorful males), or any other possible scenario. If an organism does not survive to eat or survive to reproduce, it will eventually phase itself out of existence, and therefore Natural Selection has shown to favor only the finches with longer beaks.

If you saw a Discovery channel special on monkeys growing longer tails to reach leaves, it probably didn't say that the monkeys made themselves evolve. Evolution is a random process, it has no goal, and it is not guided by the will of creatures. What that special was saying is just what I said of the finches: a monkey had a mutation allowing it to have an advantage over the others. Over time, the monkeys who couldn't reach the trees obviously died out, leaving the ones with longer tails to inherit the region. Evolution within a species is only a small step of evolution; it's looking at a macroscopic object through a microscopic lens. The reason that we don't believe rabbits evolve into dogs and other creationist strawmen is because both those species exist today (there's no common ancestor to evolve from in that case), and there is no evidence of a relation. If we ever found that, it would easily disprove evolution. You and many other creationists often say one species can't evolve into another, but what is your definition of "species" and why do you think they can't evolve?

Christian: This is kind of amusing isn�t it. Every time I turn on my TV I see some one saying something has evolved into something else. What is your explanation for the arctic fox who changes colors as the seasons change. This gives the fox protection from predators as well as allows the fox to sneak up on his next meal. Do you think a mutation causes this to happen? No way, this is the work of a designer. I am so sorry you cannot see these things, maybe you need to change the light bulb in your brain that will not come on. Bye for now. Like I said I don�t have much time to gather info right now , maybe in a few days.

Children are being taught that the chimp is our common ancestor, yet the chimp remains and so do we. What's up with that! And don't say they are not being taught because they are. That may be not what you believe but that is one of the ridiculous things most evolutionist believe.

Rebuttal: Seriously, your ridiculous assertions are beginning to work my last nerve. Provide some evidence of these claims or piss off. Don't say that they're being taught that they descended from chimps without giving examples of where this is being taught, the curriculum teaching it, and the evolutionists supporting it. Real science and real intellectually honest inquiry looks at evidence for what it concludes, and doesn't just make blind, dumbass generalizations based on common creationist propaganda and misconceptions, as you are doing.

As for the rest of your moronic bullshit, the arctic fox has adapted to changes in its environment - this is blatant support of evolution, not creationism. Think about it: how fair and just is a designer who makes a fox that can change to it's surroundings in order to both catch prey and avoid predators better? What about the prey and the predators, does God not care how they survive? You continue to insult my intelligence while trumpeting your own gross misunderstandings. I've given plenty of support for evolution and you have raised new points each time, because I have refuted your idiotic assumptions and you are afraid to be a man and admit you were wrong. You have not provided ANY evidence of a designer or a god. If our conversations continue like this, I will probably just ignore you. Believe it or not, I don't like wasting my time on someone who isn't willing to have a civilized conversation and isn't willing to accept the evidence when it's placed right in front of their nose.

1. Briggs, H. (2006) Tooth gives up oldest human DNA. Retrieved Feb. 10, 2009.
2. Kuban, G. (2006) The Limestone Cowboy. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2009.
3. Associated Press. (2005) Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue. Retrieved Feb. 11, 2009.